MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143892618 · doi:10.1086/658148

Gaming with Mr. Slot or Gaming the Slot Machine? Power, Anthropomorphism, and Risk Perception

2011· article· en· W2143892618 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Kim, Ann L. McGill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsBooth University College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionFeelingPower (physics)Risk perceptionSocial psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose that risk perceptions are systematically influenced by anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism effects, however, are moderated by the individual’s feelings of social power. People with low power perceive higher risk in playing a slot machine (study 1) and in getting skin cancer (study 2) when the risk-bearing entities (the slot machine and skin cancer) are highly anthropomorphized. In contrast, those with high power perceive greater risk when the entities are less anthropomorphized. We hypothesize these effects occur because those with high (low) power perceived a greater (lesser) degree of control over the anthropomorphized entity. In study 3, we investigate the reverse effect that higher perceived risk may increase anthropomorphism for people with low power but decrease anthropomorphism for people with high power.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.314
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.070 · 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

Citations435
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consumer ResearchSame topicPsychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentFrench-language works237,207