Interpersonal perception and interpersonal spin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Interpersonal spin is an indicator of intraindividual variability in social behavior. Spin is positively related to Neuroticism and is maladaptive, with well-documented deleterious effects on social functioning. The perceptual processes associated with spin and how spin emerges are less well-understood. The present research examines the interpersonal perception of individuals with higher spin and tests whether these perceptual processes explain the association of spin with Neuroticism. METHOD: 267 students participated in a 20-day event contingent recording procedure, reporting on social interactions via mobile application. Participants' perceptions of others' behavior, their own affect, and their own behavior were measured within and across interactions. RESULTS: We examined the affective and behavioral responses of individuals with higher spin to perceptions of others' behaviors. Individuals with higher spin showed greater affective and behavioral reactivity to perceptions of others' communal (agreeable-quarrelsome) behavior. Neuroticism predicted greater affective reactivity (i.e., steeper slopes between event-level perceived communion and negative affect), which in turn predicted higher spin. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with higher spin may have an interpersonal style characterized by greater reactivity to perceptions of others' communal behavior. These individuals' behavioral lability may reflect underlying emotional dysregulation. These processes may ultimately interfere with the formation and maintenance of social bonds.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".