MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Escalating frustration - A replication attempt and extension of Yu et al. (2014)

2025· article· en· W4409335964 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Research Europe · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeUniversiteit Gent
KeywordsFrustrationReplication (statistics)Extension (predicate logic)PsychologySocial psychologyComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns3:p>Background Failures to obtain a desired reward, such as losing money in gambling, can lead to frustration. In gambling, this frustration has been shown to take the form of faster responses after losses compared with wins and non-gambling trials. In addition, reward omission or blockage can lead to more forceful responses. Yu and colleagues (2014) showed that the proximity to a reward and the effort already expended to acquire the reward increased participants’ response force and their retrospective self-reported frustration when the reward was blocked. Methods In this study, we attempted to replicate the findings of Yu and colleagues (2014) using the same experimental procedure. In each schedule, participants (N = 32) needed to complete an arrow direction task for varying numbers of times to win a reward but could be blocked at any stage. The response time (RT) and force of confirming the outcomes were used as indicators of ‘frustration’. In addition, to obtain a more real-time and objective measure of (negative) emotion, we measured facial electromyographic (EMG) activity over the corrugator supercilii (frowning muscle) and the zygomaticus (smiling muscle). Results Due to technical problems, our data on response force were invalid. In line with the original study, both goal proximity and exerted effort increased participants’ self-reported motivation in the task and frustration after being blocked. An exploratory analysis showed that unexpectedly participants were slower in confirming an outcome when they were blocked closer to the reward, while exerted effort did not influence the time taken to confirm the outcome. These RT data were consistent with self-reported surprise ratings, suggesting an orienting response. In the facial EMG data, we observed no difference between wins and losses in activity over the corrugator or the zygomaticus. Conclusion Taken together, these data suggest that reward blockage does not necessarily lead to behavioral or psychophysiological expressions of negative emotions such as frustration.</ns3:p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.341
GPT teacher head0.604
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it