Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modesty is regarded positively in social life, yet how it is evaluated by the person toward whom the modest behavior is directed and how it functions in close relationships has seldom been examined. In eleven studies, I examine how modest behavior can result in negative consequences in close relationships, possibly because modest behavior violates relational and conversational norms unique to close relationships. First, in Chapter 1, I provide an overview of how modesty is generally perceived, and how it may function differently and uniquely in the context of close relationships. In Chapter 2, I examine the perceptions of the actors who engage in modest behavior. In Studies 1 and 2ab, I find that modest individuals are less likely to disclose positive, personal news to their close friends when a relevant opportunity exists, out of a concern to not appear boastful. In Studies 3abc, I find that modest non-disclosure may be reflective of a latent individual difference. In Chapter 3, I examine the consequences of modest behavior on the recipients. In Studies 4 – 6, I find that this modest non-disclosure results in negative reactions on the part of the close friend if they later find out about the positive news through an external source, especially if they have high expectations of self-disclosure in close relationships. Critically, modest individuals misperceive this negative reaction; they tend to believe that their close friends would react more positively if they were to find out through means other than direct disclosure. In Studies 7ab, I find that individuals typically recognize that their friends may not disclose out of modesty concerns, but this realization does not attenuate the negative outcomes. Finally, in Chapter 4, I discuss why despite the generally positive perceptions of modesty, being modest with close friends can decrease trust and liking in close relationships.
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 | 0.005 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".