MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993888958 · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2009.03.002

Regulatory fit from attribute‐based versus alternative‐based processing in decision making

2009· article· en· W1993888958 on OpenAlexaff
Mehdi Mourali, Frank Pons

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegulatory focus theoryValuation (finance)Information processingPromotion (chess)Outcome (game theory)Focus (optics)MarketingPsychologyActuarial scienceComputer scienceEconomicsBusinessSocial psychologyMicroeconomicsAccountingCognitive psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper discusses the fit between attribute‐based versus alternative‐based processing and regulatory focus, and its impact on decision outcome valuation. Attribute‐based processing was found to occur more frequently under prevention focus, whereas alternative‐based processing occurred more frequently under promotion focus. The fit between prevention/promotion focus and attribute‐based/alternative‐based processing was found to enhance satisfaction with choices and the perceived monetary value of chosen options. Moreover, the effect of fit on outcome valuation was found to be mediated by ease of processing. Finally, the effects of fit on ease of processing and outcome valuation disappeared when consumers first practiced to process information based on either attributes or alternatives.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.333 · 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.

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

Citations37
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consumer PsychologySame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207