Accurate First Impressions Leave a Lasting Impression
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
Above and beyond the benefits of biases such as positivity and assumed similarity, does the accuracy of our first impressions have immediate and long-term effects on relationship development? Assessing accuracy as distinctive self-other agreement, we found that more accurate personality impressions of new classmates were marginally associated with greater liking concurrently, and significantly predicted greater interaction throughout the semester and greater liking and interest in future interactions by the end of the semester. Importantly, greater distinctive self-other agreement continued to promote social interaction even after controlling for Time 1 liking, suggesting that these positive effects of accuracy operate independently of initial liking. Forming positively biased first impressions was a strong predictor of both initial and longer term relationship development, while assumed similarity showed strong initial but not long-term associations. In sum, independent of the benefits of biased impressions, forming accurate impressions has a positive impact on relationship development among new acquaintances.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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