How Price Promotions Influence Postpurchase Consumption Experience over Time
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
The current research examines how price promotions influence postpurchase hedonic consumption experience. On the one hand, getting a good deal can elevate moods and dampen the “pain of payment,” thus enhancing consumption enjoyment. On the other hand, discounts also reduce sunk-cost considerations and the need to recover one's spending. As a result, price promotions can lower attention during consumption, which in turn diminishes consumption enjoyment. The authors posit that the time delay between payment and consumption plays an important role in determining the relative strength of these competing effects. Four experiments involving real spending and consumption demonstrate that when consumption occurs immediately after payment, discounts make consumption more enjoyable; however, this pattern reverses when consumption is delayed. The experiments provide support for the roles of feelings and attention, respectively, in accounting for these effects while ruling out several alternative explanations, including perceived quality, absolute paid price, and a direct sunk-cost account.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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