Understanding consumer reactions to premium‐based promotional offers
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
Reports the results of a three‐study research program whose purpose is to gain a better understanding of consumer reactions to premium‐based promotional offers. In the first study, elaborates and evaluates a comprehensive typology of premium‐based promotional offers with respect to its content and predictive validity. In the next study, explores the semantics that are used by consumers when they are presented with premium promotions and develops a series of research hypotheses from qualitative interviews with 12 consumers. In the final study, conducts a survey of 182 adult consumers to test these research hypotheses. The results reveal that consumer appreciation of premium‐based promotional offers is more positive when the premium is direct than when it is delayed, when there is a relatively lower quantity of product to purchase, when the value of the premium is mentioned, when brand attitude is positive, when interest in the premium is great, and when consumers are characterized by deal‐proneness and compulsive buying tendencies. Consumers’ perception of manipulation intent is affected mainly by directness of the premium, mention of the value of the premium, interest in the premium, and deal‐proneness.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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