Urgently Yours: Temporal Communication Norms and Psychological Distance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communicators have at their disposal an ever‐increasing variety of modalities by which to transmit messages. Do the prominent norms attached to different communication modalities contain information in and of themselves? The present investigation considers this question through the lens of text messages and emails, hypothesized to confer different normative information about urgency. Text messages (vs. emails)—or any communication inferred by receivers to have been sent with greater urgency—cause the content of those messages to seem, in the eyes of receivers, closer in time (Study 1), closer in space (Study 2), and more likely to occur (Study 3). Moderation and mediation analyses confirm the role of urgency underlying the relationship between modality and distance. We provide evidence for these effects in a series of laboratory studies together with a field study in which real text messages and emails impact not only inferred distance but also a behavior deriving therefrom. Theoretical and practical implications highlight the importance, for both researchers and practitioners, of understanding how the medium of communication can shape interpretation of the message.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".