A test of socioemotional selectivity theory in the context of health information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The socioemotional selectivity theory (SST) states that individuals who perceive time as expansive are more likely to choose less emotionally-meaningful goals; whereas, those who view time as more finite tend to select more emotional goals. Additionally, individuals with a limited time perspective (e.g., older adults) tend to preferentially recall emotional information. The purpose of this study was to identify differences between younger and older adults' recall of emotional and factual health information. Consistent with the SST, and given that older adults tend to perceive time as more limited than younger adults, we hypothesized that older adults would recall a higher proportion of emotional information than younger adults. Our sample (n = 59) consisted of 28 younger adults (age = 18-26 years) and 32 older adults (age = 64-95 years). Participants were asked to read an article about a man with a fictional health condition whose experiences were described using factual and emotional information. The fictional disease was used to ensure that participants would not be influenced by any previous knowledge of, or experience with, the disease. The participants then completed a series of distraction tasks (e.g., crossword puzzle) for 30 minutes, and an oral recall of all of the information they could remember from the article. Consistent with our prediction, older adults recalled a significantly higher proportion of emotional information compared to their younger counterparts (t(51) = -1.98, p = 0.05). This suggests that health messages may be more meaningful when information is tailored to a specific age group, and could be an effective way of educating individuals on healthy lifestyle behaviours.
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 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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".