Modesty can promote trust: Evidence from China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract When people let others know about their accomplishments, they can improve their social standing, but doing so may also have a cost, especially within social environments in which there is great emphasis on the value of modesty. One particular downside of self‐promotion, the risk of being seen as untrustworthy, was examined among children in China. Across three studies, children ranging in age from 7 to 11 years (total N = 251) judged the trustworthiness of protagonists who exhibited either modesty or immodesty. In Study 1, protagonists who told lies in the service of modesty were judged as more trustworthy than those who told lies to avoid getting into trouble. In Study 2, protagonists who demonstrated modesty were rated as trustworthy, but those who demonstrated immodesty were not. Study 3 showed that the positive implications of modesty for trust are specific to downplaying one’s own accomplishments and do not extend to downplaying the accomplishments of a peer. Taken together, the results suggest that for children in China, the level of modesty serves as a cue about which people can be trusted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".