MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401391492 · doi:10.1108/jcmars-02-2024-0006

The agency of attachment orientation and parenthood: an investigation of individuals’ social comparison and self-gifting motivations

2024· article· en· W4401391492 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brent Smith, Sereikhuoch Eng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contemporary Marketing Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)PsychologySocial psychologyOrientation (vector space)Developmental psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose We aim to ascertain whether and how an individual’s social comparison affects their self-gifting motivations (SGMs). Design/methodology/approach We survey a North American sample comprising 619 Canadian and US respondents. We apply partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to examine relationships between social comparison, attachment orientation, parenthood, and self-gifting motivations. Findings We find that social comparison positively impacts self-gifting motivations. Additionally, we find that attachment orientation and parenthood can moderate social comparison’s impact on positively valenced SGMs and negatively valenced SGMs, respectively. Originality/value We elevate and expand existing scholarship on consumers’ self-gifting. Through the current study, we contribute new, empirical evidence illuminating how individuals’ attachment orientation (i.e. secure v. insecure) and parenthood status (i.e. parent v. non-parent) serve as agency-oriented moderators to temper social comparison’s influences on SGMs.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Contemporary Marketing ScienceSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207