MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912794133 · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2013.03.002

Evolutionary consumption

2013· article· en· W2912794133 on OpenAlexaff
Gad Saad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Psychology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvolutionary psychologyConsilienceDarwinismPsychologyReciprocal altruismAltruism (biology)EpistemologySocial psychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An overview of the field of evolutionary consumption is provided. Brief summaries of disciplines within the evolutionary behavioral sciences that preceded evolutionary psychology (EP) are first offered. This is followed by a discussion of important EP principles including the domain‐specificity of the human mind, and the difference between ultimate and proximate scientific explanations. The evolutionary bases of memory, attitude formation/change, emotions, perception (our five senses), personality, and decision making are addressed next, along with specific links to consumer research. Next, I demonstrate how numerous consumer acts could be classified into one of four basal Darwinian modules: survival, reproduction (mating), kin selection, and reciprocal altruism. The paper continues with an exploration of the evolutionary roots of cultural products (e.g., song lyrics) and Darwinian happiness (along with the evolutionary etiology of maladaptive phenomena such as pathological gambling and compulsive buying). I conclude with a discussion of key epistemological benefits of Darwinizing consumer research including greater consilience, increased interdisciplinarity, and an ethos of methodological pluralism.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.003

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations86
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consumer PsychologySame topicEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorFrench-language works237,207