MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396921937 · doi:10.1002/mar.22030

The association between consumers' chronic concerns about infectious disease and anthropomorphism

2024· article· en· W4396921937 on OpenAlexafffund
Jodie Whelan, Sean T. Hingston

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Marketing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyAssociation (psychology)Infectious disease (medical specialty)DiseaseChronic diseaseSocial psychologyMedicineFamily medicinePsychotherapistInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Assigning human characteristics to products and brands (i.e., anthropomorphism) is a tactic commonly adopted by marketers. However, researchers have recently highlighted the importance of better understanding which consumers will be more (or less) responsive to these cues. Drawing on the behavioral immune system and anthropomorphism literatures, we hypothesize that consumers who are chronically concerned about their susceptibility to infectious disease will have a greater tendency to anthropomorphize nonhuman entities (e.g., nature, technology, and consumer products) because doing so creates relatively pathogen‐free sources of social connection. Importantly, we also predict that this tendency will be muted when consumers are highly germ averse. To test these predictions, we examined the relationships between perceived infectability and germ aversion, the two subscales of the established Perceived Vulnerability to Disease scale, and three different measures of consumers' tendency to anthropomorphize nonhuman entities. The results of four studies, including a preregistered, high‐powered replication, support our hypotheses and offer the first evidence of a context wherein perceived infectability and germ aversion interact.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.283 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology and MarketingSame topicPsychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentFrench-language works237,207