MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171337901 · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2012.734912

Moderated Disanxiousuncertlibrium: Specifying the Moderating and Neuroaffective Determinants of Violation-Compensation Effects

2012· article· en· W2171337901 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Inquiry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyArousalSocial psychologyBlamePsychoanalysisCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

abstraction , andthe subsequent iteration of the MMM incorporatedthis compensatory effort into our descriptive taxon-omy (Proulx & Heine, 2010). In later empirical work,we demonstrated that unrelated meaning violations,such as absurd art and mortality threats, increased astate need for simple structure (Proulx, Heine, & Vohs,2010)—as had previously been demonstrated follow-ing violations of personal control (Whitson & Galin-sky, 2008). We took these additional findings as furtherevidencethatdifferentviolationsarebestunderstoodinterms of expected associations, more generally, ratherthan as operating primarily in terms of a specified con-tent, whether it involves human mortality, surreal im-ages, or personal control (the latter account suggestedby Galinsky et al., this issue).Moreover, evidence that these violations bottleneckat a common arousal mechanism can be derived froma number of sources, including the “misattribution ofthe arousal” literature discussed in the target article:Compensation efforts following behavioral dissonance(Zanna & Cooper, 1974), visual anomalies (Proulx &Heine, 2008), and control violations (Kay, Moscov-itch, & Laurin, 2010) are all extinguished if peopleare able to attribute their arousal to a placebo pill, orif they are told that a placebo pill will render themimmune to arousal (Greenberg et al., 2003). More re-cently, Randles, Heine, and Santos (in press) demon-strated that compensatory affirmation following mor-tality reminders and surreal images was extinguishedif participants received an actual pain pill. In general, itappears that all of these violations bottleneck at someform of aversive arousal, with violation–compensationperspectives throughout the field of psychology posit-ing some mode of aversive arousal following the viola-tionagiven belieforgoal.What,then,isthissensation,and is it the same mode of arousal following any givenviolation? Is disequilibrium (Piaget, 1937/1954) thesame as behavioral dissonance (Festinger, 1957)? Isit the same as ideological dissonance (Jost, Pelham,Sheldon, & Sullivan, 2003)? What about its similarityto the “potential terror” that arises from a reminder ofour own mortality (Pyszczynski et al., 1999)?Until we are able to specify this arousal be-yond a kind of “brain phlogiston,” our literature will

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.300 · 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