Consumer reactions to crowded retail settings: Cross‐cultural differences between North America and the Middle East
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most of the research dealing with consumer–consumer interactions emphasizes the negative consequences of sharing the service experience with other consumers. Crowding, in particular, represents one of the important environmental factors affecting consumers' retail experience. However, recent studies in the context of hedonic services (e.g., amusement parks, concerts, etc.) have mentioned that crowds may potentially enhance consumers' service experience. The present study aims at demonstrating the presence of these positive consumer responses in a crowded hedonic situation, while investigating the influence of cultural differences in crowd‐related issues. With the use of consumers from different cultures (North America and the Middle East), reactions to similarly crowded situations in a hedonic situation are compared. Results suggest that Middle Eastern respondents perceive both a lower level of density and appreciate crowded situations more than their North American counterparts. Potential explanations are discussed. © 2006 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it