Perceptions of low self-control undermine interpersonal cooperation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We took an experimental approach to examine the effects of perceptions of low self-control on interpersonal cooperation. We also explored interpersonal trust as a mediating mechanism. In general, we found that perceptions of low self-control, relative to perceptions of high self-control, led to less cooperative behavior and cooperation intentions, and that this relation was mediated through interpersonal trust. While the experimental conditions did not produce reliably strong direct effects on cooperation, ratings of target self-control evoked by the experiment did so reliably. We also found nuance in the effects when examining more fine-grained dimensions of trust in terms of a target person’s ability, integrity, and benevolence—which may differentially mediate the relation between perceived low self-control and cooperation, depending on context. These findings provide new evidence for the role of perceptions of self-control on cooperation. They also buttress previous research on the self-control-trust relationship with experimental evidence. Implications for work and social life, and the support for a more dynamic and social view of the drawbacks of low self-control are discussed. Public significance This study shows that people’s perceptions of another person’s low self-control affect their decisions about cooperating with the other person. It indicates trust as an important mechanism in the link between perceptions of self-control and cooperation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".