MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2175424721 · doi:10.1509/jmkr.47.5.955

The Orientation-Matching Hypothesis: An Emotion-Specificity Approach to Affect Regulation

2010· article· en· W2175424721 on OpenAlexaff
Aparna A. Labroo, Derek D. Rucker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marketing Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySadnessAngerOrientation (vector space)Affect (linguistics)EmbarrassmentHappinessSocial psychologyAnxietyCalmnessMatching (statistics)Cognitive psychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article proposes that merely considering outcomes associated with a positive approach emotion (e.g., happiness) can regulate negative emotions that evoke an approach orientation (e.g., sadness, anger). In contrast, outcomes associated with a positive avoidance emotion (e.g., calmness) best regulate negative emotions that evoke an avoidance orientation (e.g., anxiety, embarrassment). Although such orientation-matched (versus mismatched) positive outcomes might not address the problem that caused the negative emotion, they automatically signal a reduced need for affect regulation specific to the evoked orientation. Thus, orientation matching results in emotional benefit, increases preferences toward matched outcomes, and frees resources for subsequent tasks.

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 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)0.070
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0700.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations64
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Marketing ResearchSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207