#BuyNothingDay: investigating consumer restraint using hybrid content analysis of Twitter data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to investigate motivations and human values of everyday consumers who participate in the annual day of consumption restraint known as Buy Nothing Day (BND). In addition, this study demonstrates a hybrid content analysis method in which artificial intelligence and human contributions are used in the data analysis. Design/methodology/approach This research uses a hybrid method of content analysis of a large Twitter data set spanning three years. Findings Consumer motivations are categorized as relating to consumerism, personal welfare, wastefulness, environment, inequality, anti-capitalism, financial responsibility, financial necessity, health, ethics and resistance to American culture. Of these, consumerism and personal welfare are the most common. Moreover, human values related to “openness to change” and “self-transcendence” were prominent in the BND tweets. Research limitations/implications This research demonstrates the effectiveness of a hybrid content analysis methodology and uncovers the motivations and human values that average consumers (as opposed to consumer activists) have to restrain their consumption. This research also provides insight for firms wishing to better understand and respond to consumption restraint. Practical implications This research provides insight for firms wishing to better understand and respond to consumption restraint. Originality/value The question of why everyday consumers engage in consumption restraint has received little attention in the scholarly discourse; this research provides insight into “everyday” consumer motivations for engaging in restraint using a hybrid content analysis of a large data set spanning over three years.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| 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)
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".