MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998493104 · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2012.04.004

How context shapes category inferences and attribute preference for new ambiguous products

2012· article· en· W1998493104 on OpenAlexafffund
Theodore J. Noseworthy, Juan Wang, Towhidul Islam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Psychology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProduct categoryPreferenceContext (archaeology)Extant taxonSalientProduct (mathematics)PsychologyCognitive psychologyMathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Extant research suggests that when marketers introduce products with functions that span multiple categories, consumers tend to generate beliefs in line with only a single category. This has been regarded as a major marketing challenge because it leads consumers to ignore key attributes from the product's supplementary category. Contrary to this prediction, the authors find that because consumers tend to classify new hybrid products by contrasting them against the competitive context, attributes from the supplementary category become more salient and thus contribute greater utility in choice. The authors pit the strength of this effect against several of the most dominant and favored category cues. The results confirm that classification inferences and attribute preference for new hybrid products are highly contextual, and as such, single category inferences need not translate directly into attribute preference.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations35
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consumer PsychologySame topicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and IdentificationFrench-language works237,207