Incorporating service quality into consumer mall shopping decision making: a comparison between English and French Canadian consumers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Traditionally, researchers in environmental psychology have developed the classic C (cognition)‐ E (emotion)‐ B (behavior) paradigm. However, some researchers have failed to replicate this classic paradigm and suggested that cognition is an antecedent to emotions. The main goals of this research are to extend the C‐E‐B paradigm by incorporating consumers' perceptions of service quality and to determine whether the extended model of consumer shopping mall decision process is invariant across English and French Canadian consumers. Design/methodology/approach By conducting a three‐step analysis, six hypotheses are empirically examined through a survey of 266 “real” English and French Canadian consumers in a shopping mall. Findings Findings indicate that consumers' evaluations of service quality in a shopping environment mediate their pleasure and purchase intention. Consumer mall shopping decision‐making process is invariant across English and French Canadian consumers. Practical implications For researchers who are interested in understanding consumer mall shopping behavior cross‐culturally, this research provides a model that can be tested in cross‐cultural contexts. For mall operators and store managers attempting to improve the mall environment, product quality, and offer better service, the study provides interesting solutions. Originality/value By incorporating service quality into consumer mall shopping decision making, this research has demonstrated that consumers' moods evoked by their perceptions of shopping mall environment and of product quality influence their purchase intentions through their perceptions of service quality. The mall shopping decision‐making process of English and French Canadian consumers is universal, regardless of their cultural orientations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".