MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133243910 · doi:10.1086/661552

The Lonely Consumer: Loner or Conformer?

2012· article· en· W2133243910 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 · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScrutinyPopularityLonelinessProduct (mathematics)FeelingPsychologySocial psychologyAdvertisingSubject (documents)MarketingBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the popularity of social networks and technologies that intend to enhance social interaction, more Americans feel lonely now than before. This research examines how loneliness affects consumers’ responses to consensus-related social cues in marketing contexts. Results from three studies show that lonely consumers prefer minority-endorsed products, whereas nonlonely consumers prefer majority-endorsed products. However, this pattern occurs only when consumers’ product preferences are kept private. When product preferences are subject to public scrutiny, lonely consumers shift their preferences to majority-endorsed products. Results also reveal the underlying mechanisms. Minority-endorsed products fit better with the feelings of loneliness, and this fit mediates the effect of loneliness and endorsement type (i.e., majority vs. minority endorsement) on product evaluations in private consumption contexts. Yet, when their preferences are subject to public scrutiny, lonely consumers are concerned about being negatively evaluated by others, and this concern causes them to conform to the majority.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.273
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.263 · 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