Influence of social mindfulness and <scp>Zhongyong</scp> thinking style on cooperative financial decision making in a <scp>Western</scp> sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social mindfulness and Zhongyong thinking style are of high importance when evaluating relevant co-actors in the social world. The current study investigates the influence of social mindfulness and Zhongyong thinking style on cooperative financial decision making in a public goods game among a Canadian sample. We hypothesize that higher perceived social mindfulness and higher perceived Zhongyong thinking style will increase the amount of money contributed to a joint project in a public goods game. The sample was a prolific-based online recruited sample of n = 125 Canadians. We observed a significant main effect of Zhongyong thinking style on the amount of contributed money in the public goods game. Social mindfulness did not reach significance. The influence of Zhongyong thinking style was qualified by a significant Zhongyong by gender interaction, indicating that females but not males reduced their contributions if the Zhongyong thinking style of the co-actor was manipulated as being low. It is shown that Zhongyong thinking style is also relevant in a Western cultural setting. Future research is needed, however, to investigate further the reasons for the differences between females and males.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".