How Social Psychological Factors May Modulate Auditory and Cognitive Functioning During Listening
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
The framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL) draws on psychological theories of cognition and motivation. In the present article, theories of social-cognitive psychology are related to the FUEL. Listening effort is defined in our consensus as the deliberate allocation of mental resources to overcome obstacles in goal pursuit when carrying out a task that involves listening. Listening effort depends not only on hearing difficulties and task demands but also on the listener's motivation to expend mental effort in challenging situations. Listeners' cost/benefit evaluations involve appraisals of listening demands, their own capacity, and the importance of listening goals. Social psychological factors can affect a listener's actual and self-perceived auditory and cognitive abilities, especially when those abilities may be insufficient to readily meet listening demands. Whether or not listeners experience stress depends not only on how demanding a situation is relative to their actual abilities but also on how they appraise their capacity to meet those demands. The self-perception or appraisal of one's abilities can be lowered by poor self-efficacy or negative stereotypes. Stress may affect performance in a given situation and chronic stress can have deleterious effects on many aspects of health, including auditory and cognitive functioning. Social support can offset demands and mitigate stress; however, the burden of providing support may stress the significant other. Some listeners cope by avoiding challenging situations and withdrawing from social participation. Extending the FUEL using social-cognitive psychological theories may provide valuable insights into how effortful listening could be reduced by adopting health-promoting approaches to rehabilitation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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