MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023252713 · doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_10

Attitudinal Balance and Cause‐Related Marketing: An Empirical Application of Balance Theory

2006· article· en· W2023252713 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 Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersUniversity of Colorado Boulder
KeywordsBalance theoryBalance (ability)PerceptionAffect (linguistics)PsychologySocial psychologyAllianceEmpirical researchEmpirical evidenceMarketingEconomicsBusinessPolitical scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine the effects of pre‐existing organizational attitudes on consumer response to cause‐related marketing (CRM) alliances, using a Balance Theory framework. Two experiments demonstrate that balanced attitudes (either both positive or both negative) resulted in perceptions of appropriateness, but did not necessarily lead to positive affect. The positive balance scenario led to a synergistic attitudinal boost when both pre‐existing attitudes were positive. Attitudinal contamination was evident when either pre‐existing attitude was negative. Fit operated within the balance scenario to enhance perceptions of the strength of the CRM alliance, leading to more positive responses.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.303 · 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