Information Prioritization Underpins the Flexible Expression of Social Preferences Under Time Constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While recent research shows how time constraints exacerbate the influence of contextual (dis)incentives on information prioritization and subsequent choice during prosocial decision-making, this emerging perspective is silent on how pervasive individual differences in dispositional social preferences might interact with these contextual factors to shape these processes. To bridge this gap, we demonstrated in a preregistered study ( N = 200 adults from the United States and Canada; Prolific Academic) that people calibrate their information priorities based on both their dispositional social preferences and contextual (dis)incentives, and that time constraints further exacerbated information prioritization that aligned with their own social preferences, in addition to information incentivized by the broader social context. Furthermore, these information priorities subsequently biased prosocial choices, extremifying people’s selfish/prosocial choice patterns under time constraints. These findings suggest that flexible information prioritization underpins people’s capacity to navigate different social interactions while balancing their own preferences against external incentives and constraints.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".