Inducing preference reversals in aesthetic choices for paintings: Introducing the contrast paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding what leads people to reverse their choices is important in many domains. We introduce a contrast paradigm for studying reversals in choices-here between pairs of abstract paintings-implemented in both within-subject (Experiment 1; N = 320) and between-subject (Experiment 2; N = 384) designs. On each trial, participants chose between a pair of paintings. A critical pair of average-beauty paintings was presented before and after either a reversal or control block. In the reversal block, we made efforts to bias preference away from the chosen average-beauty painting (by pairing it with more-beautiful paintings) and toward the non-chosen average-beauty painting (by pairing it with less-beautiful paintings). Meta-analysis revealed more reversals after reversal blocks than after control blocks, though only when the biasing manipulations succeeded. A second meta-analysis revealed that reversals were generally more likely for participants who later misidentified their initial choice, demonstrating that memory for initial choices influences later choices. Thus, the contrast paradigm has utility both for inducing choice reversals and identifying their causes.
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 | 0.015 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".