Formidability and Aggressive Responses to Public Criticism Between Sex in Adolescents: An Evolutionary Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focuses on whether sex differences in adolescents’ reactions to a teacher’s public critical feedback can be explained by formidability within an evolutionary bargaining framework. The paper proposes that public criticism lowers the target’s perceived Welfare Tradeoff Ratio (WTR), creating a social evaluative threat that elicits either shame (accepting lower status) or anger (pressuring others to raise their WTR). Boys on average, have higher formidability, so the prediction is that there will be many direct aggressive responses among boys and a positive link between boys’ formidability and aggression. Girls, in contrast, should show lower direct aggression and little or no association between formidability and aggression. The study will use a classroom simulation with actor-teachers and students, self-reports of anger and cooperation, behavioral coding of verbal and nonverbal defiance, and pinch meter with self-ratings as formidability measures. Some alternative accounts (e.g., gender role theory) will be discussed, such as institutional constraints that may mute physical bargaining power in schools, and implications for feedback practices that protect students’ status while maintaining classroom order.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".