MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978738802 · doi:10.1086/508524

The Moderating Effect of Relationship Norm Salience on Consumers' Loss Aversion: Figure 1

2006· article· en· W1978738802 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPsychology of Social Influence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoss aversionEndowment effectModerationSocial psychologySalience (neuroscience)Status quo biasPsychologyEconomicsNorm (philosophy)SalientStatus quoMicroeconomicsCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People are said to be loss averse when their pain of losing something exceeds their joy of gaining it. This research proposes and tests a new moderator of loss aversion: the type of relationship norms salient at the time the loss or the gain is experienced. We suggest that mere salience of the norms of a communal relationship (based on concern for the partner) relative to those of an exchange relationship (based on quid pro quo) leads to a greater degree of loss aversion. A typical endowment effect study supports our overall thesis and shows that differences across relationship norms are stronger in selling prices (willingness to accept) than in buying prices (willingness to pay).

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.284
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.381 · 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