Exploring consumer experience of social power during service consumption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This research seeks to investigate consumer experiences of social power during service consumption. Specifically, this research examines the causes and consequences (cognition, expectations, emotions, and emotion expression) of consumer experiences of high and low power; and, given the key role of emotions in the experience and outcome of services, examines how emotions and emotion expression impacted satisfaction for high and low power consumers. Design/methodology/approach A sample of 195 adult consumers of a range of services responded to a self‐administered survey with a mix of qualitative and quantitative measures. Findings The data show that most experiences of power occurred in high contact services, underlining the social nature of consumer power. While high power experiences occurred due to consumer knowledge, service failure accounted for low power experiences. High power consumers have greater self‐oriented action thoughts while low power consumers have greater ruminative thoughts. There was no statistical difference in the provider‐oriented cognition for high and low power consumers. High power consumers expect providers to focus on the core service while low power consumers have expectations regarding the interpersonal component of service delivery. High power consumers feel more positive emotions, less negative emotions and greater satisfaction than low power consumers, but there was no difference in the expressivity of emotions. Emotion expression mediated the relationship between emotions and satisfaction for high power consumers but not for low power consumers. Originality/value This is assumed to be the first investigation of consumer experiences of power, an important construct in understanding of consumer‐service provider interactions during service consumption.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".