MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086279032 · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2010.08.005

The role of computational ease on the decision to spend loyalty program points

2010· article· en· W2086279032 on OpenAlex
Jessica Y. Y. Kwong, Dilip Soman, Ka Yan Ho

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Psychology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoyalty programLoyaltyPoint (geometry)CashMarketingFunction (biology)Point of saleCurrencyAdvertisingComputer scienceMicroeconomicsBusinessLoyalty business modelEconomicsFinanceMathematicsMonetary economicsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many consumers today hold loyalty program points which function as a currency, but are not cash. This paper examines factors that influence consumers' decisions to keep or spend their accumulated points. We found that consumers are more likely to spend points when they can easily anticipate the benefits they can enjoy with the points. Specifically, the decision to spend points is facilitated when it is easier to compute the percentage savings one can get by using the points. This computational ease has effects on point spending beyond that of saving magnitude.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.371 · 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