The effects of social power and apology on victims’ posttransgression responses.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to test how, why, and when social power influences victims' revenge seeking, grudge holding, and forgiveness. Based on Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Anderson's (2003) power approach theory and McCullough, Kurzban, and Tabak's (2013) theorizing about revenge and forgiveness systems, we tested (a) the associations between victims' social power and revenge, grudge, and forgiveness; (b) the mediational role of approach/inhibition motivation in explaining why the associations exist; and (c) the moderating role of whether the transgressor apologizes or not in explaining the associations. Five studies (Ns = 279, 181, 154, 131, and 81) that varied in sample (undergraduate, community), research method (nonexperimental, experimental), context (laboratory, online), measures (self-reported, behavioral), and statistical method (regression, ANOVA), supported our predictions and the systematic generalizability of the effects. Applied implications are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it