MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6986622987

Prosocial reactions to traumatic experiences

2010· dissertation· en· W6986622987 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2010
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCircumstantial evidenceProsocial behaviorDistressTubulopathyPersonality
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When will people empathize with and help others? The goal of this research was to determine whether a prosocial orientation results from experiencing trauma. Recent research suggests there may be positive consequences to suffering. Under certain conditions, such as when people experience post-traumatic growth, past suffering can lead to personal benefits. Building on this body of research, one aim of this thesis was to investigate the impact of subjective traumatic suffering and psychological distress on post-traumatic growth and empathy. The second aim of this research was to examine whether objective trauma severity predicts post-traumatic growth. Finally, the third aim of this research was to examine the relationship between post-traumatic growth and empathy and the simultaneous impact of these variables on a prosocial orientation. Study 1 assessed these aforementioned relationships and Study 2 included a manipulation of post-traumatic growth and a behavioural outcome measure of prosocial behaviour. Structural equation models for Study 1 and 2 indicated that subjective traumatic suffering and objective trauma severity positively predicted post-traumatic growth, and post-traumatic growth positively predicted empathy. In turn, empathy positively predicted several prosocial outcomes. Thus, empathy mediated the link between post-traumatic growth and a prosocial orientation. In contrast to subjective traumatic suffering, psychological distress was unrelated to post-traumatic growth and negatively predicted empathy. Study 2 further indicated that focusing on one’s growth in regards to trauma resulted in greater post-traumatic growth scores, but the manipulation had no direct impact on empathy or a prosocial orientation. The current findings have important social and clinical implications.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicIdentity, Memory, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207