Volitional shielding of the self: Effects of action arientation and external demands on implicit self-evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two studies examined whether volitional resources can shield implicit self-evaluation against the autonomy-undermining influence of external demands.Volitional resources were operationalized as individual differences in action orientation (Kuhl & Beckmann, 1994).Implicit self-evaluation was assessed via an adaptation of the affective priming task (Fazio, 2001).In Study 1, a threatening visualization led participants with low action orientation (or "state-oriented" individuals) to display less autonomous implicit self-evaluations compared to participants with high action orientation.In Study 2, performance-contingent rewards led action-oriented participants to display more autonomous implicit self-evaluations than state-oriented participants.These findings were specific to the autonomy motive.Volitional shielding plays an important role in self-defense processes.Whether they like it or not, people are continually exposed to the norms and expectations of their environment.These external demands exert a pervasive influence on people's actions, by providing guidelines for appropriate behavior (Asch, 1956;Kuhl & Kazén, 1994;Shah, Kruglanski, & Friedman, 2003).Furthermore, external demands shape and define people's conceptions of themselves, by acting as standards against 100
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".