MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034578887 · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2014.04.001

Yes, we have no bananas: Consumer responses to restoration of freedom

2014· article· en· W2034578887 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah G. Moore, Gavan J. Fitzsimons

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Psychology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStockoutReactanceNegativity effectProduct (mathematics)PsychologySocial psychologyMarketingBusinessMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract When stockouts restrict consumers' freedoms, two independent responses can occur: product desirability, or a reactance‐based increase in the desire for the unavailable option, and source negativity, or general frustration with the source of the restriction. In four studies, we provide a novel investigation of consumer responses to stockout‐restoration and examine how these two forces combine to affect consumer responses after freedoms are restored. To do so, we investigate two moderators that influence the activation and strength of product desirability and source negativity, respectively: trait reactance and attributions. While all consumers experience source negativity in response to stockouts, only consumers high in reactance experience product desirability, leading to differential responses to stockout‐restoration. Compared to an in‐stock condition, high reactance consumers respond positively to stockout‐restoration, while low reactance consumers respond negatively to stockout‐restoration, in terms of store and product evaluations and store choice. However, when high reactants attribute a stockout to the store, thereby increasing source negativity relative to product desirability, they respond negatively to stockout‐restoration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consumer PsychologySame topicConsumer Retail Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207