The Value Assimilation Effect Between University Professors and Their Students in the Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the clinical, therapy context, it has consistently been found that while therapists’ value systems are stable, clients’values are less stable and become congruent with their therapists’ values over the course of psychotherapy (e.g.,Schwehn & Schau, 1999). This phenomenon is termed the Value Assimilation Effect (VAE). This study examined ifthe VAE occurs in the university context between professors and students, that is if students’ values assimilate totheir professors. The current study tested three main hypotheses: 1) students demonstrate value change over timewhile professors’ values remain relatively stable over time; 2) students’ attributes influence value change; and 3)students assimilate to their professor’s values. In a sample of 20 classrooms, 14 professors, and 414 students, it wasfound that students’ values did change over time, both for values-bases classes and for non-values based classes.Students’ attributes, specifically their initial commitment to values and religious commitment, were predictive ofvalue change with those more committed to values reporting less value change over the semester. Students werefound to assimilate their values to their professor’s values. This was influenced by class type (values versusnon-values based) and students’ belief in their professor’s ability to teach. Unexpectedly, professors’ impact onstudents’ religiosity was the most consistent and robust finding in this study. The magnitude and direction of changein students’ values were influenced by their professor’s level of religiosity. The benefits and concerns of valueassimilation are also 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 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 | 0.002 | 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".