MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047372694 · doi:10.1002/mar.20062

Reexamining and extending the dual mediation hypothesis in an on‐line advertising context

2005· article· en· W2047372694 on OpenAlexaff
Eric J. Karson, Robert J. Fisher

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Marketing · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Perspective (graphical)AdvertisingWeb siteMediationTransactional leadershipDual (grammatical number)MarketingPath analysis (statistics)PsychologySocial psychologyBusinessThe InternetSociologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The relationship between attitude toward the advertisement (A ad ) and intentions to buy (I b ) is a controversial one. The present research examines the potential for a direct relationship between A ad and I b within an on‐line advertising context, substituting A site (attitude toward the Web site) for A ad . The article replicates previous findings with respect to the four competing A ad models they tested. The article then predicts and finds a significant A site → I b path based on an opportunity and motivation perspective. In terms of opportunity, Web sites contain nonproduct information that is independent of traditional measures of brand attitude (A b ), such as security, ease of use, transactional capabilities, which are likely to affect I b . Further, on‐line consumers are motivated to process this information when they visit a Web site because they cannot directly examine the products they are considering. Evidence for the opportunity and motivation perspective is provided by the decomposition of A site into its claim and non‐claim components and assessment of the A site → I b path across levels of motivation to process. Implications for on‐line advertisers are discussed. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology and MarketingSame topicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and IdentificationFrench-language works237,207