Self‐determination theory, social media and charitable causes: An in‐depth analysis of autonomous motivation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using the framework of the self‐determination theory continuum, we investigated the influence of the distinct autonomous and controlled motivational regulations for engaging participants in online and offline support of charitable events for the causes of breast cancer and homeless youth. Participants were exposed online to Facebook event pages appealing to helping others. When the often omitted integrated autonomous regulation was included in the model, it was the strongest predictor of supportive intentions. Without integrated regulation in the model, we would have overestimated the relatively minor influence of controlled introjected regulation. Furthermore, rather than one overall measure of autonomous intrinsic regulation, we assessed the differential influences of three separate dimensions (to experience stimulation, to learn and to accomplish). Intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation had a unique influence on online and offline supportive intentions. Such was not the case for the dimensions of to learn or to accomplish. Follow‐up meditation analyses of self‐reported behaviours confirmed that autonomous integrated and intrinsic to experience stimulation regulations led to stronger intentions to support online behaviours, which, in turn, increased the likelihood of actual online engagement. The findings in a social media context highlight the importance of analysing distinct regulatory styles within the self‐determination theory continuum. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it