Good and Guilt-Free: The Role of Self-Accountability in Influencing Preferences for Products with Ethical Attributes
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Metaresearch
- Consensus categories
- Metaresearch
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: ObservationalConsensus signal: Observational
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.089
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.968
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.060 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
The market share of brands positioned using ethical attributes typically lags behind brands that promote attributes related to product performance. Across four studies, the authors show that situational factors that heighten consumers' self-accountability (i.e., activation of their desire to live up to their self-standards) lead to increased preferences for products promoted through their ethical attributes. They investigate their predictions regarding self-accountability in multiple ways, including examining the moderating roles of awareness of the discrepancy between a person's internal standards and actual behavior, self-accountability priming, and the presence of others in the decision context. Furthermore, they demonstrate that the subtle activation of self-accountability leads to more positive reactions to ethical appeals than explicit guilt appeals. Finally, they show that preference for a product promoted through ethical appeals is driven by the desire to avoid anticipated guilt, beyond the effects of impression management. Taken together, the results suggest that marketers positioning products through ethical attributes should subtly activate consumer self-accountability rather than using more explicit guilt appeals.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Journal of Marketing
- Topic
- Ethics in Business and Education
- Field
- Decision Sciences
- Canadian institutions
- Simon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- AccountabilitySituational ethicsProduct (mathematics)Priming (agriculture)PsychologySocial psychologyPreferenceContext (archaeology)Impression managementBusinessPublic relationsMarketingPolitical scienceEconomicsMicroeconomicsLaw
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes