Prosocial behavior, empathy, type A and type B personality among college students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aims to investigate the relationship between Prosocial behavior, Empathy, Type A, and Type B personality and to investigate significant differences in Prosocial behavior, Empathy, Type A, and Type B personality between males and females. The sample selected for the study is young adults, age range from 18-25. A Convenient sampling method is used. Samples were collected from Bangalore and other cities in Tamilnadu. Data was collected from 242 college students both males and females. (100 males and 142 females) The mode of data collection was through online mode. In this study, the correlational research design is used. The tools used are the Prosocialness Scale for Adults (PSA) developed by Caprara et al (2005), A/B Behavioral Pattern Scale (ABBPS) developed by Upinder Dhar and Manisha Jain (1983). The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire developed by Spreng et al (2009). The data was studied using Spearman correlation and the Mann- Whitney u test. The results show that Prosocial behavior, Empathy, Type A and Type B personality have a significant relationship with each other. Prosocial behavior and Empathy have significant differences in males and females. The conclusion is that individuals with Type B personality had higher Empathy than individuals with Type A personality.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".