Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ability to determine how much the environment can be controlled through our actions has long been viewed as fundamental to adaptive behavior. While traditional accounts treat controllability as a fixed property of the environment, we argue that real-world controllability often depends on the effort, time and money we are able and willing to invest. In such cases, controllability can be said to be elastic to invested resources. Here we propose that inferring this elasticity is essential for efficient resource allocation, and thus, elasticity misestimations result in maladaptive behavior. To test this hypothesis, we developed a novel treasure hunt game where participants encountered environments with varying degrees of controllability and elasticity. Across two pre-registered studies (N=514), we first demonstrate that people infer elasticity and adapt their resource allocation accordingly. We then present a computational model that explains how people make this inference, and identify individual elasticity biases that lead to suboptimal resource allocation. Finally, we show that overestimation of elasticity is associated with elevated psychopathology involving an impaired sense of control. These findings establish the elasticity of control as a distinct cognitive construct guiding adaptive behavior, and a computational marker for control-related maladaptive behavior.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".