Unique cognitive and emotional profiles of interpersonal gratitude and spiritual gratitude
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
Gratitude is a prototypical emotional response when life’s blessings come from the intentional goodwill of other people, but many also attribute good experiences to the intervention of God, gods, a Higher Power, or other benevolent spiritual forces. This study investigated the differences between how United States participants (N = 610) experience interpersonal gratitude and spiritual gratitude. Compared to interpersonal gratitude, spiritual gratitude experiences were less often attributed to human action, more often attributed to supernatural beings and circumstances beyond human control, and elicited significantly less feelings of gratitude, indebtedness, and admiration, but greater awe. Participants reported the highest feelings of gratitude when they also believed in a personal God with a benevolent mind. These findings demonstrate the importance of perceiving benevolent agency in evoking feelings of gratitude, whereas experiences that are attributed to more abstract, less personified, or less external entities elicit a different profile of positive emotional responses.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it