Self-Presentational Processes in Health-Damaging Behavior
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-presentation has been shown to play a role in the performance of a variety of potentially health-damaging behaviors such as substance abuse, exercise avoidance, failing to wear protective sports equipment, and failing to seek medical treatment (Leary, Tchividjian, & Kraxberger, 1994 Leary, M. R., Tchividjian, L. R. and Kraxberger, B. E. 1994. Self-presentation can be hazardous to your health: Impression management and health risk. Health Psychology, 13: 461–470. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Martin, Leary, & Rejeski, 2000 Martin, K. A., Leary, M. R. and Rejeski, W. J. 2000. Self-presentational concerns in older adults: Implications for health and well-being. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22: 169–179. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Using the two component model of impression management (Leary & Kowalski, 1990 Leary, M. R. and Kowalski, R. M. 1990. Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107: 34–47. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) as an organizational framework, this paper discusses the role of impression-motivation and impression-construction in the performance of health-damaging behaviors in physical activity and other contexts. Research is reviewed that examines both features of the immediate situation (e.g., the number and identity of other people who are present, operating norms and roles, incentives) and characteristics of the individual (e.g., traits, values, goals, self-concept) that affect the performance of health-damaging behaviors for self-presentational reasons. Recommendations for future research are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it