When red means go: Non‐normative effects of red under sensation seeking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although previous research has identified red as the color of compliance, the current work proposes that this effect of red may not hold under high sensation‐seeking propensity conditions. It is argued that the color red has the capability to induce arousal, which in turn has been shown to enhance a person's default tendencies. Further, because high sensation seekers have a higher tendency to react, the exposure to the color red for these individuals will increase reactance and thereby non‐compliant behavior. One field study and two lab experiments provide support for this theorizing. The first experiment, a field study, examines prank‐chatting incidences at a child helpline and shows a positive effect of red on such non‐compliant behavior. Experiment 2 confirms this finding in a controlled lab setting and shows that when one has a high sensation‐seeking propensity, the color red positively affects one's attitude towards non‐compliance. The final study illuminates the underlying process and explicates the role of arousal and reactance in the color–non‐compliance relationship. Both theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".