Self‐verification and social dominance in coworker dyads
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
Abstract This article conceptualizes the bright and dark sides of self‐verification processes among dyads of coworkers from different social groups. We argue that these processes depend on coworkers' social dominance orientation (SDO), which determines whether they hold dominant, subordinate, or egalitarian social identities. The proposed typology identifies four types of dyads. In stormy dyads, the member of the dominant social group has a high SDO, the member of the subordinate social group has a low SDO, and self‐verification is associated with reciprocal covert (and occasionally overt) coworker antagonism. In conforming dyads, both members have high SDO, and self‐verification leads to covert antagonistic behaviors from the dominant member. In egalitarian dyads, both members have low SDO, and self‐verification leads to long‐term affective and instrumental coworker support. Finally, in compassionate dyads, the member of the dominant social group has a low SDO, the member of the subordinate social group has a high SDO, and coworker support is instrumental. We examine the implications of this typology for our understanding of self‐verification processes in the context of diversity among coworker relationships.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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