The Influence of Affect on Cognitive Breadth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Affect plays a critical role in how broadly one processes and thinks about information. \nBreadth of cognition is shown to relate to, and be influenced by, affect that varies in valence \n(negative and positive), arousal (high/activated and low/deactivated) and motivational intensity \n(approach and withdrawal). While extensive work has shown support for the influence of affect \non breadth of attention (attentional breadth), there is less research on affect and breadth of \nthought (conceptual breadth). The present dissertation investigates: 1) the relationship between \nvarious measures of conceptual breadth, 2) how individual differences in naturally occurring \naffect relate to conceptual breadth, 3) how anticipating and experiencing gains and losses \ninfluence conceptual breadth, 4) how differences in trait behavioral approach (BAS) and \ninhibition (BIS) relate to conceptual breadth in a monetary incentive paradigm, and 5) how \nindividual differences in affect relate to filtering of irrelevant information. \nIn Study 1, three varied conceptual breadth tasks appropriately estimated a conceptual \nbreadth latent variable. Individual differences in naturally occurring affect were shown to relate \nto the common conceptual breadth variability where those who had low arousal positive affect \nshowed greater conceptual breadth. In Study 2 conceptual breadth scores did not differ when \nanticipating gains and losses versus experiencing gains and losses. However, BAS, but not BIS, \nmodulated the effect of large incentives on cognitive categorization where those low in BAS had \nhigher conceptual breath following large losses and those high in BAS had larger conceptual \nbreadth following large gains. In Study 3, individual differences in naturally occurring positive \naffect did not relate to the tendency to bind irrelevant and relevant information into memory \n(hyper-binding) in a meaningful way across four studies, However, hyper-binding was found in \nall studies including age groups where hyper-binding has not typically been shown before. \nEvidence from the current dissertation supports the significant role of affect in conceptual \nbreadth, whether affect is naturally occurring or influenced by incentives, and provides evidence \nthat individual differences in affect do not underlie individual differences in hyper-binding.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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".