MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136511145 · doi:10.1177/00332941211002142

An Attachment Perspective on Favorite Media Figures

2021· article· en· W3136511145 on OpenAlexaff
A. Luke MacNeill, Enrico DiTommaso

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia Influence and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPerspective (graphical)Attachment theorySocial psychologyContext (archaeology)PersonalityArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anxiously attached individuals tend to report stronger parasocial relationships with their favorite media figures than people with other attachment orientations. Researchers have suggested that these individuals may be inclined to see their favorite media figures as safe and secure attachment figures. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate this possibility by assessing the qualities of people's favorite media figures, particularly within a television context. A sample of 200 online participants filled out an attachment measure, reported their favorite television figure, and rated several aspects of the television figure's personality. It was expected that anxiously attached individuals would be drawn to figures that are high in warmth, emotional stability, and sensitivity. Instead, results showed that these individuals preferred figures with greater anxious and insecure characteristics. These results suggest that anxiously attached individuals may not see their favorite media figures as safe and secure attachment figures as previously theorized. Exploratory analyses failed to show significant effects for the second attachment dimension, attachment avoidance, or for the interaction between anxiety and avoidance.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

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)0.0110.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ReportsSame topicMedia Influence and HealthFrench-language works237,207