MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110907425 · doi:10.1086/655855

No Pain, No Gain? How Fluency and Construal Level Affect Consumer Confidence

2010· article· en· W2110907425 on OpenAlexaff
Claire I. Tsai, Ann L. McGill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluencyConstrual level theoryPsychologyProcessing fluencyAffect (linguistics)FeelingSocial psychologyCognitive psychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Choice confidence is affected by fluency and moderated by construal levels that evoke different theories to interpret the feelings of fluency. At lower construal levels, fluency informs the feasibility of completing the concrete steps of the decision process to choose well, but at higher construal levels, fluency informs (insufficient) effort invested for the desirability of the outcome. We manipulated fluency by varying the font of product descriptions or the number of thoughts we asked participants to recall. Our studies showed that fluency increased confidence for people processing at lower construal levels but decreased confidence for those processing at higher construal levels. Construal level does not affect the persuasiveness of consumers' thoughts, supporting the hypothesis that it is the interpretation of fluency experienced during judgment, not the thought content, that leads to the moderating effects of construal level.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.230 · 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.

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

Citations12
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consumer ResearchSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207