Exploring the role of emotional demeanor in a preliminary investigation context: expectation violations & gender
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a criminal investigation, displaying an unexpected emotional demeanor could trigger suspicion or perceptions of involvement. Across two studies, mock investigators read a case summary of a preliminary investigation where emotional demeanor (expected/unexpected) and gender of a person of interest (POI) in the investigation (man/woman) were systematically varied. In the second study, a cognitive busyness manipulation was included. In Study 1 (n = 420), an unexpected emotional demeanor led to lower ratings of appropriateness, negative affect display, credibility, and inflated perceptions of suspicion. These results were replicated in Study 2. In Study 2 (n = 396), results showed both main and interaction effects for both emotional demeanor and gender on judgments of several relevant evaluations including suspicion, involvement, and credibility, evidencing the influence of emotional demeanor at a very early stage of investigation, particularly for females. Cognitive busyness did not affect any evaluations of the case or POI.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".