MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414166659 · doi:10.1080/13825585.2025.2559699

Charitable and memorable? Probing the effects of prosocial decisions on face memory in younger and older adults

2025· article· en· W4414166659 on OpenAlexafffund
Shadini Dematagoda, Sana Junaid, Julia Spaniol

Bibliographic record

VenueAging Neuropsychology and Cognition · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsProsocial behaviorEpisodic memorySurpriseTask (project management)Recognition memoryYoung adultSocial cognitionFace (sociological concept)Memoria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Separate lines of evidence suggest that prosocial motives are increasingly prioritized with adult age, and that episodic memory remains sensitive to motivational influences throughout the adult lifespan. The current study was designed to examine the potential interplay of prosociality and episodic memory. By pairing a financial decision-making task with an incidental face recognition task, we examined the influence of prosocial decision-making on subsequent memory for associated information (i.e. faces) in healthy younger and older adults (N = 128). During the decision-making task, participants were presented with hypothetical financial transfers from their own account to a food bank charity, which was represented by the face of a food bank client. Prosocial reward was operationalized as the amount transferred to the charity per trial. During a subsequent surprise memory test, participants were asked to discriminate between faces seen during the decision-making task and new faces. Results revealed that older adults were more satisfied by, and more likely to accept, charitable transfers than younger adults, but there were no effects of prosocial reward on face recognition performance in either age group. These findings suggest that incidental encoding may not be sensitive to transient affective states associated with prosocial decisions in younger and older adults.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAging Neuropsychology and CognitionSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207