Unwanted help: Accepting versus declining ageist behavior affects impressions of older adults.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 235) impressions of an older target and the perpetrator of an ageist action. Participants read a vignette about a pedestrian offering unwanted help to an older woman crossing the street. We manipulated the type of ageism (benevolent or hostile), the reaction of the older target (acceptance, moderate confrontation, or strong confrontation) and assessed perceptions of perpetrator appropriateness and how evaluations of warmth, competence, and overall impression of the target changed over time. The perpetrator's act of benevolent ageism was perceived to be more appropriate than hostile ageism, and middle-aged and older adult participants reported the benevolent act to be more acceptable than young participants. This finding supports an age stereotype assimilation account. For target perceptions, accepting a hostile ageist behavior led to lower warmth and competence ratings but accepting benevolent ageism reduced warmth but not competence evaluations. Age differences in target perceptions were predicted by social identity theory, in that older adults rated the older target more positively overall. Perceptions of targets who confronted varied by type of ageism and the intensity of the confrontation. When participants perceived the target's reaction to be disproportionate to the ageist act, the target was viewed more negatively overall. The findings suggest that ageism directed toward older adults is perceived to be normative by adults of all ages and that confrontations of ageist behavior result in negative perceptions of the older target. (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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".