MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035677553 · doi:10.1002/mar.20200

Guilt and giving: A process model of empathy and efficacy

2007· article· en· W2035677553 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

VenuePsychology and Marketing · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpathyPsychologyDonationProcess (computing)Social psychologySimulation theory of empathyAppealFoundation (evidence)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This research develops a model of consumer response to charity appeals. Using the Extended Parallel Process Model from the fear appeal literature as a foundation, the current model proposes that empathy and self‐efficacy generate guilt and reduce maladaptive responses, which, in turn, shapes donation intention. The results demonstrate that the impact of empathy on charitable donation intention is fully mediated by guilt and maladaptive responses. The impact of self‐efficacy is partially mediated by guilt and maladaptive responses. Therefore, both empathy and self‐efficacy determine whether guilt or maladaptive responses result. This model clarifies the process through which guilt appeals operate, by identifying the roles of empathy and self‐efficacy. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.570
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.280 · 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