The Effect of a Working Memory Load on the Intention‐Superiority Effect: Examining Three Features of Automaticity
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
Summary The intention‐superiority effect refers to the finding that intentions are more accessible than other memory contents. Our primary goal was to test for automatic processing in this effect, testing three features of automaticity: unintentionality, effortlessness, and lack of awareness. We used a postponed‐intention paradigm with short action scripts. The intention‐superiority effect was defined as greater accessibility in a lexical decision task (LDT) for words from to‐be‐performed scripts than to‐be‐remembered scripts. Working memory load was experimentally manipulated to assess automatic processing. A general intention‐superiority effect was found, demonstrating the automatic feature of unintentionality, and it was not diminished by a high load, demonstrating the automatic feature of effortlessness. Also, participants who reported that they lacked awareness of the link between the LDT and encoded scripts showed a larger intention‐superiority effect than participants who were aware. Therefore, this study demonstrated an implicit intention‐superiority effect, which was actually larger than the explicit effect. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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