MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092932206 · doi:10.1037/a0018039

Spontaneous trait inferences and organisational actions: The formation of organisation personality perceptions.

2010· article· en· W2092932206 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephen D. Risavy, Shawn Komar, Douglas J. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTraitPersonalitySocial psychologyPerceptionImpression formationBig Five personality traitsSocial perception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organisation personality perceptions, or the attribution of human personality characteristics to an organisation, have been found to affect organisational attraction, job pursuit intentions, and organisational reputation. Although the presence and potency of these attributions have been established, little is known about the manner in which these attributions come about, particularly whether the process is consistent with personality attributions made about human targets. In the current paper, we extend previous work by investigating the underlying social-cognitive mechanism by which organisation personality perceptions are formed. Specifically, we tested the proposition that organisation personality perceptions are spontaneously inferred in a manner that is functionally isomorphic with individual personality perceptions. Study I used a cued-recall paradigm, with results indicating that implied trait words improved recall for both individual and organisational actors. Study 2 extended these findings using a lexical decision paradigm; results showed improved performance when making a lexical decision about trait words regardless of whether the actor in a behaviour presented just prior was an individual or an organisation. The results are discussed in terms of their theoretical and practical implications.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.223
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.113 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportementSame topicDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsFrench-language works237,207