Affective Information in Context and Judgment of Facial Expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research in cultural psychology suggests that North Americans are less likely than their East Asian counterparts to be sensitive to contextual information. By contrast, much evidence suggests that even North Americans’ judgments are highly influenced by affective priming information, the effect of which can be seen as another type of contextual cue. However, the magnitude of such a priming effect has not been comprehensively tested in a cross-cultural context. Taking advantage of the methodology of the affective priming paradigm, we conducted two studies, in which we manipulated (a) the timing of priming information (simultaneous vs. sequential) and (b) the type of affective information (background landscape vs. background human figures), in which European Canadians and Japanese judged target faces that showed either happy or sad facial expressions in the focal area of the scene. The results in general indicate that a similar degree of contextual effect occurs in members of both cultures. The issue of generalization of cross-cultural findings and the necessity of overarching more than one research paradigm 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".