MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396748111 · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-60980-0

The nonverbal expression of guilt in healthy adults

2024· article· en· W4396748111 on OpenAlexafffund
Chloe Stewart, Derek Mitchell, Penny A. MacDonald, Stephen Pasternak, Paul F. Tremblay, Elizabeth Finger

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotions and Moral Behavior
Canadian institutionsParkwood InstituteLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersLawson Health Research Institute
KeywordsNonverbal communicationFacial expressionGesturePsychologyGazeHarmExpression (computer science)FeelingTask (project management)Eye contactEmotional expressionCognitive psychologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyCommunicationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Guilt is a negative emotion elicited by realizing one has caused actual or perceived harm to another person. One of guilt's primary functions is to signal that one is aware of the harm that was caused and regrets it, an indication that the harm will not be repeated. Verbal expressions of guilt are often deemed insufficient by observers when not accompanied by nonverbal signals such as facial expression, gesture, posture, or gaze. Some research has investigated isolated nonverbal expressions in guilt, however none to date has explored multiple nonverbal channels simultaneously. This study explored facial expression, gesture, posture, and gaze during the real-time experience of guilt when response demands are minimal. Healthy adults completed a novel task involving watching videos designed to elicit guilt, as well as comparison emotions. During the video task, participants were continuously recorded to capture nonverbal behaviour, which was then analyzed via automated facial expression software. We found that while feeling guilt, individuals engaged less in several nonverbal behaviours than they did while experiencing the comparison emotions. This may reflect the highly social aspect of guilt, suggesting that an audience is required to prompt a guilt display, or may suggest that guilt does not have clear nonverbal correlates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicEmotions and Moral BehaviorFrench-language works237,207