How does it feel to be greedy? The role of pride in avaricious acquisition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychologists define greed as a desire to acquire more and the dissatisfaction of never having enough, but studies have not examined the psychological processes that underlie and sustain this disposition. We propose that a desire to attain pride might be one emotional mechanism that promotes greedy acquisition. In this account, greedy people experience a boost of pride from acquisition but these feelings are short-lived, potentially leading to the perpetual acquisitiveness characteristic of dispositional greed. METHOD: Four studies (including one reported in the SOM due to space limitations) using correlational, longitudinal, and daily-diary methods (N = 1778) test hypotheses about how individuals high in dispositional greed respond emotionally to new acquisitions, both when they occur and several weeks later. RESULTS: Greedy people experience heightened feelings of authentic pride in response to new acquisitions, but these feelings quickly fade. This pattern is distinct to authentic pride and not attributable to shared variance with positive affect. Greedy people also feel elevated hubristic pride in response to acquisitions, but this seems to be part of a dispositional tendency observed in response to a range of events. CONCLUSIONS: These studies provide a new understanding of a psychological process that is associated with, and could partially explain, greedy acquisition.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".