MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095860406 · doi:10.1089/eco.2019.0078

Entitlement Predicts Lower Proenvironmental Attitudes and Behavior in Young Adults

2020· article· en· W3095860406 on OpenAlex
Steven Arnocky, Jessica Desrochers, Ashley Locke

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

VenueEcopsychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntitlement (fair division)PsychologySocial psychologyTraitAction (physics)Construct (python library)MediationEnvironmentalismPolitical scienceEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental advocates commonly describe ecological problems as being caused, at least in part, by the psychological construct of human entitlement. Nevertheless, the concept of trait entitlement, as an individual difference variable, has not yet been considered in relation to proenvironmental attitudes and behavior. This research examined whether entitlement among young adults correlates with environmental attitudes and actions. Results showed that individuals who were high in entitlement scored lower in attitudes in favor of protecting the environment, self-reported environmental behavior, and were less likely to engage in observable environmental action by way of donating money earned from the study to an environmental cause. Conversely, those high in entitlement were more in favor of human utilization of the environment and supported geoengineering efforts. Mediation analysis showed that environmental attitude mediated the links between entitlement and both donating and conservation behavior. Together, these results highlight the role of trait entitlement as a barrier to environmentalism.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.257 · 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