Avoidant Attachment Mediates Cultural Differences in Likelihood to Surrender Pets
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Across two studies, pet owners residing in Western and Eastern countries completed surveys documenting their experiences with a particular pet and their likelihood of surrendering that pet in the future. In study 1, we targeted dog owners from the USA, Pakistan, and Hong Kong (n = 266). In study 2, we targeted both dog and cat owners from the same countries, as well as the UK, Canada, and the Netherlands (n = 236). Results were largely replicated across samples. Participants from Eastern countries indicated a greater likelihood to surrender their preferred pet compared with participants from Western countries. The Eastern and Western samples differed on several variables, including number of concerns and problem behaviors reported for their pets, belief in animal mind, and attachment styles. However, a single factor – avoidant attachment style – significantly mediated the greater likelihood to surrender a pet across both studies. Those from Eastern cultures were more likely to have anxious and avoidant attachment styles compared with those from Western cultures, and the avoidant attachment style was associated with a greater likelihood to surrender a pet. Future studies should investigate possible reasons for cultural differences in attachment style to pets.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 it