Evolutionarily relevant aggressive functions: Differentiating competitive, impression management, sadistic and reactive motives
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
This study investigated early adolescents' (ages 9-14; M = 11.91) self-reported, evolutionarily relevant motives for using aggression, including competitive, impression management, sadistic, and reactive functions, and examined differential relations with a range of psychosocial characteristics. As expected, competitive functions were associated with aggression and victimization in which the perpetrator had equal or less power than the victim, in line with the view that these are aversive and appetitive motives related to competition with rivals. Impression management and sadistic functions were associated with bullying and coercive resource control strategies (the latter for boys only), consistent with expectations that these are appetitive motives, with the former being more goal-directed and the latter somewhat more impulsive. Finally, as hypothesized, reactive functions were associated with emotional symptoms, hostility, victimization by bullying, and aggression by perpetrators with equal or less power than the victim, consistent with theory and research conceptualizing reactive aggression as an impulsive, emotion-driven response to provocation. The benefits of studying a wide range of evolutionarily relevant aggressive functions are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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