Effects of Introspection About Reasons for Values: Extending Research on Values-as-Truisms
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
In past research, analyzing reasons for values that involve promoting the welfare of others (i.e., self-transcendence values) caused them to change—a finding that occurs only when values lack prior cognitive support (Maio & Olson, 1998). In the present research, we tested whether analyzing reasons for values serving different motivations (e.g., conservation, self-enhancement) at different social levels (personal vs. societal) causes them to change. Experiment 1 replicated the finding that analyzing reasons for self-transcendence values causes these values to change, while extending this finding to three other types of values described by Schwartz (1992): conservation, openness, and self-enhancement values. Experiment 2 revealed the analyzing reasons effect for two types of social values described by Inglehart (1971): materialist and postmaterialist values. These results extend previous research on the malleability of values by showing that introspection has similar effects on many different kinds of values.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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