Prepare for Trouble and Make It Double: The Power Motive Predicts Pokémon Choices Based on Apparent Strength
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
Two social motives are distinguished by Motive Disposition Theory: affiliation and power. Motives orient, select and energize our behaviour, suggesting that the choices of power-motivated individuals should be guided by power cues, such as the appearance of strength in a game character or avatar. In study 1 we demonstrate that participants were more likely to pick strong-looking Pokémon for a fight and cute Pokémon as a companion. In addition, we show that even when considering these contexts, the power motive predicts preferences for a powerful appearance, whereas affiliation does not. In study 2 we replicate the study 1 findings and distinguish between two ways to enact the power motive (prosocial and dominant power). We demonstrate that the dominance, but not the prosociality, facet drives the preference for strong-looking Pokémon. Our findings suggest that the need to influence others—the power motive—drives the choice for battle companions who symbolize strength.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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