What Do We Think of Shy Adults? Influence of One's Own Shyness and Sociability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Shyness is a ubiquitous personality characteristic present across historical time and cultures. Yet, little is known about perceptions of shy adults in Western society. We examined emerging adults' perceptions of shy and sociable women and whether one's own personality influenced their perceptions. METHOD: = 19.07 years) were randomized to read a vignette describing either a prototypical shy woman or a prototypical sociable woman and rated their perceptions of the woman in the vignette on various qualities. Participants' shyness and sociability were self-reported. RESULTS: Regardless of the participants' own personality, the sociable woman was rated as ruder and as having a greater number of friends than the shy woman. There were no differences in perceptions of the woman's kindness or success at school, but shy individuals perceived the sociable woman as less successful at work. A similarity effect was found such that one's own shyness was positively associated with a preference for befriending the shy woman, and one's own sociability was positively associated with a preference for befriending the sociable woman. CONCLUSIONS: Results are discussed in the context of potential implications of personality perceptions and the role of individual differences in these perceptions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".