Aging and altruism: A meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Life span theories postulate that altruistic tendencies increase in adult development, but the mechanisms and moderators of age-related differences in altruism are poorly understood. In particular, it is unclear to what extent age differences in altruism reflect age differences in altruistic motivation, in resources such as education and income, or in socially desirable responding. This meta-analysis combined 16 studies assessing altruism in younger and older adults (N = 1,581). As expected, results revealed an age-related difference in altruism (Mg = 0.61, p < .001), with older adults showing greater altruism than younger adults. Demographic moderators (income, education, sex distribution) did not significantly moderate this effect, nor did aspects of the study methodology that may drive socially desirable responding. However, the age effect was moderated by the average age of the older sample, such that studies with young-old samples showed a larger age effect than studies with old-old samples. These findings are consistent with the theoretical prediction of age-related increases in altruistic motivation, but they also suggest a role for resources (e.g., physical, cognitive, social) that may decline in advanced old age. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 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.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".