MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083769892 · doi:10.1177/0146167206291005

The Mediating Role of Perceptual Validation in the Repentance–Forgiveness Process

2006· article· en· W2083769892 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicForgiveness and Related Behaviors
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepentanceForgivenessAcknowledgementPsychologySocial psychologyHarmPerceptionPunishment (psychology)TheologyComputer securityComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research focuses on one potential mechanism by which repentance leads to forgiveness. Two studies demonstrate that repentance leads to increased perceptual validation (social verification that one is correct about one's interpretation of an event) and, ultimately, more forgiveness. Participants reported more perceptual validation when they received repentance than when they did not (Studies 1 and 2), particularly repentance that included an acknowledgement of the transgression and the harm done (Study 2). In addition, in Study 2, acknowledgement of the transgression by a third party also had a positive effect on forgiveness. There was evidence that perceptual validation mediated the repentance-forgiveness relationship. These findings suggest that repentance facilitates forgiveness, at least in part, because it makes victims feel validated.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it