MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072207893 · doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1601_7

Effects of Culture, Gender, and Moral Obligations on Responses to Charity Advertising Across Masculine and Feminine Cultures

2006· article· en· W2072207893 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michelle R. Nelson, Frédéric F. Brunel, Magne Supphellen, Rajesh V. Manchanda

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObligationMasculinityMoral obligationFemininityPsychologySocial psychologyIndividualismPerceptionMoralityPreferenceIndividualistic cultureCollectivismLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two studies investigated the effects of charity advertising on perceptions of moral obligation to help others and gauged ad evaluation. This was done in cultures that were similar in individualism but differed in either masculinity (United States and Canada) or femininity (Denmark and Norway). Participants read appeals that solicited donations to charity by focusing on either egoistic or altruistic motives. In masculine cultures, men preferred the egoistic ad and women preferred the altruistic one. In feminine cultures, where women are agentic and men are allowed to be nurturing, the opposite was the case. Exposure to both types of ads activated a sense of personal obligation among men in feminine nations and women in masculine nations. However, their opposite‐sex counterparts reacted against these ads. Implications of these findings for an understanding of culture and sex differences in advertising effectiveness are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.360 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations149
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consumer PsychologySame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207