MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161042603 · doi:10.1177/0956797613479975

Experiencing a Natural Disaster Alters Children’s Altruistic Giving

2013· article· en· W2161042603 on OpenAlexaff
Yiyuan Li, Hong Li, Jean Decety, Kang Lee

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyNatural disasterSuicide preventionPoison controlAltruism (biology)Natural (archaeology)Injury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsProsocial behaviorSocial psychologyOccupational safety and healthDevelopmental psychologyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Altruism is thought to be a major contributor to the development of large-scale human societies. However, much of the evidence supporting this belief comes from individuals living in pacific and often affluent environments. It is entirely unknown whether humans act altruistically when facing adversity. Adversity is arguably a common human experience (as manifested in, e.g., personal tragedies, political upheavals, and natural disasters). In the research reported here, we found that experiencing a natural disaster affected children's altruistic giving. Immediately after witnessing devastations caused by a major earthquake, 9-year-olds became more altruistic. In addition, the more empathic they were, the more they gave. In contrast, experiencing a major earthquake caused 6-year-olds to be more selfish. Three years after the earthquake, children's altruistic tendencies returned to pre-earthquake levels, which suggests that changes in children's altruistic giving are an acute response to the immediate aftermath of a major natural disaster. These findings suggest that environmental insults and empathy play crucial roles in human altruism.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.330 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations127
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ScienceSame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207