Putting Reversal Theory’s Model of Four Domains of Experience in the Hot Seat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present, in a synthetic way, the main findings from a series of ten studies in the domain of health psychology. All of these studies have inventoried motives to perform or not perform a given health-related behavior (e.g., consulting a physician) without postulating any a priori motivational structure. As a result, the whole set of studies allowed testing the capacity of reversal theory's model of four domains of experience to account for motivational data gathered in different settings but on the common ground of health-related behavior. From five to ten factors were found in each study, and all these factors were classifiable in one or other of the twelve categories offered by the structure of four domains of experience when transactions and relationships were considered in combination. All factors posited by reversal theory were found except one; the only factor that was not found at least once was of the pro-autic kind. In some cases, two factors of motives had to be classified under the same rubric, which led to the suggestion that the relationship domain may perhaps be extended. Overall, our findings suggest that the four-domain model, and its associated ten mental states, encompass and surpass previous theories of human motivation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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".