Personality Difference and Strong-Strong Coalition—Experimental Research Based on Punishment Mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on social value orientation divides rational people into three categories: individualist, pro-social, and competitor. This kind of research does not focus on network structure. Network exchange theory emphasizes that power comes from an exclusive structure, but it ignores the personality characteristics of people. This paper combines these two studies to explore how punishment mechanisms affect individual coalition strategies in an exclusive structure. The experimental results prove that: (1) when the strong is not in the coalition, there is no significant difference in the benefits of the strong power individualist person and the strong power pro-social person; (2) when two people with different social value orientations are strong-strong coalition, the two will form a “betrayal chain” whose benefit is close to the equilibrium value of the “compromise chain”. The strong power individualists are more likely to “betray” and “take advantage” more than the strong power pro-socialists; (3) the intensity of punishment is inversely related to the frequency of “betrayer”. Analysis of the dialogue data revealed that (4) the strong will properly take care of the weak, and the weak will “approach” the strong; (5) heavy punishment will have a deterrent effect, allowing the actors, especially pro-social to internalize the “punishment mechanism”. This study incorporates both personality and structure into the model, and such studies can explain many power phenomena.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".