MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404641483 · doi:10.1177/00222429241303387

Cardio with Mr. Treadmill: How Anthropomorphizing the Means of Goal Pursuit Increases Motivation

2024· article· en· W4404641483 on OpenAlexaff
Lili Wang, Maferima Touré‐Tillery

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marketing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGoal pursuitGoal settingPsychologyGoal orientationSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the motivational consequences of anthropomorphizing the means of goal pursuit. Eight studies show that consumers are more motivated to pursue fitness and academic goals with anthropomorphized (vs. nonanthropomorphized) means because such means elicit a greater sense of companionship and thus stronger beliefs that (1) goal pursuit is enjoyable (perceived enjoyability) and that (2) the goal is attainable (goal expectancy). The authors first find that participants work out harder when using an anthropomorphized (vs. nonanthropomorphized) treadmill (Study 1) and jump rope (Study 2). They then show that this effect occurs due to a greater sense of companionship, which in turn increases both perceived enjoyability and goal expectancy (sequential mediations; Study 3). They further demonstrate these underlying mechanisms through moderation: The effect attenuates when a human companion is present (Study 4), for means perceived as inherently fun (Study 5), and when self-efficacy is high (Study 6). Study 7 identifies a boundary condition: The effect disappears when the means take on a supervisor (rather than partner) role. Finally, Study 8 shows the downstream consequence of the effect on subsequent choice of means. These findings contribute to research on motivation and anthropomorphism, with practical implications for marketers and consumers.

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)0.004
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 score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MarketingSame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207