MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4255555074 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14655636.v1

The influence of moral credentials and sociopolitical ideology on the negative spillover of environmental behaviours

2021· preprint· en· W4255555074 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shannon E. Currie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSpillover effectSocial psychologyPsychologyFeelingCredentialPhenomenonIdeologyPoliticsPolitical scienceEconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present thesis investigated whether negative spillover of environmental behaviours (i.e., when engaging in one green behaviour decreases engagement in subsequent pro-environmental behaviours) can be explained within the framework of the moral credentials phenomenon (i.e., when engaging in one moral behaviour reduces engagement in further moral behaviours). Specifically, the goal was to test whether a boost in self-esteem following a green behaviour increased the likelihood of a moral credential negative spillover effect, and whether this effect was more likely for left-wingers (vs. right-wingers), because they perceive green behaviours as more moral. Study 1 found, as predicted, that left-wingers (vs. right-wingers) perceived green behaviours as more moral and that positive feelings associated with engaging in green behaviours mediated this relation. Furthermore, Study 2 found there was a marginally significant moral credential negative spillover effect. However, the proposed moderating effect of political orientation and mediating effect of self-esteem were not found.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability→French-language works237,207→