Revenge as social interaction: Merging social psychological and interpersonal communication approaches to the study of vengeful behavior
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
Abstract The purpose of this essay is to review and assess the benefits of merging social psychological and communication theory‐based approaches to the study of vengeful behavior in interpersonal interactions. We first outline the parallel but complementary perspectives that each discipline takes to the conceptualization of revenge. From there, we identify some of the core features that would be present in an integrated approach that conceptualizes revenge as an interpersonal process (i.e., an interaction or exchange), and then highlight new directions for both inquiry and theory building that an integrative approach reveals as worthy of scholarly pursuit. We argue that conceptualizing and studying revenge in ways that blend both social psychological and communication‐based views offers numerous opportunities to examine the dynamics between a provoking party and an avenger, and provides a richer and more insightful theoretical understanding of vengeful behavior than either perspective could offer alone.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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