Financial Insecurity and Deprivation Life Satisfaction, Self Determination, and Consumption Adequacy at the Bottom of the Pyramid How Economic Contractions and Expansions Affect Expenditure Patterns Living U.S. Capitalism: The Normalization of Credit/Debt Financial Deprivation Prompts Consumers to Seek Scarce Goods How Marketplace Performances Produce Interdependent Status Games and Contested Forms of Symbolic Capital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consumers worldwide are struggling with serious economic challenges. In virtually every nation, the disparity is growing between the wealthy and the poor. Consumer researchers are responding by trying to understand how consumers experience and cope with financial insecurity and deprivation. They are using an array of psychological, economic, and sociological theories coupled with methodological approaches ranging from experiments to econometrics to ethnographies. At one extreme is research that examines the “bottom of the pyramid” and attempts to understand factors that may mitigate the consequences of dire poverty. At the other extreme is research that considers how consumers who are not themselves currently facing diminished resources may modify their consumption behaviors when they perceive that others are spending less due to recessions or economic hardships. The research within this collection sheds new light on causes of financial insecurity such as the normalization, at a cultural level, of the use of credit and of indebtedness. It further highlights the consequences of perceived financial deprivation. For instance, people who regard themselves as financially deprived relative to peers may respond by seeking to attain goods that are in scarce supply. Contemporary consumer research also highlights strategies that may enable some who are born into poverty to attain greater financial security. For example, poor migrants to global cities may attain not only economic but also vital social and cultural capital through ongoing interactions as service providers to affluent consumers. As a whole, this research moves us closer to understanding the pernicious roots and pervasive consequences of financial deprivation and helps us to appreciate the complex challenges of ameliorating its impacts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".