Psychosocial linkages of consumers' income security, financial well-being and social loneliness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Extant research suggests that consumers value the pursuit, attainment and retention of income security and financial well-being (FWB). The authors aim to expand the relevant literature by examining how consumers' psychosocial characteristics affect and are affected by the pursuit of those objectives. Design/methodology/approach The authors utilize partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to evaluate the authors' hypotheses based on a sample of USA and Canadian consumers ( n = 619). Findings The authors' PLS-SEM results provide support for the authors' hypotheses, indicating that individuals' insecure attachments – anxious and avoidant – relate negatively to their income security and FWB. The authors' results also show that these two desirable states relate positively to individuals' undesirable state of social loneliness. Research limitations/implications The authors' methodology and findings illuminate the positioning of psychosocial factors as antecedents to and outcomes of income security and FWB. This research also provides a basis for understanding the linear vs curvilinear influences of income security on an individual’s social life. Originality/value In the present empirical study, the authors present a rare empirical examination of individuals' income security and FWB as outcomes of their psychosocial profile vis-à-vis insecure attachments. Drawing on established psychometric scales, this study expands the consumer psychology and FWB literature, showing significant linkages between insecure attachments, income security, FWB and social loneliness.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".