How valuable is a well‐crafted design and name brand?: Recognition and willingness to pay
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 Preferences for similarly designed consumer products, evaluated blind and branded and also with and without prices, were tested in a consumer setting. The consumer's perceptual experience led to preference of the well‐crafted high‐priced option. This preference was enhanced by priming consumers with background information about the brand, perhaps causing the subjects to guess which choice was the well‐known brand before evaluation. Preferences for that choice increased again when brand names were visible during evaluation. When actual prices were added to the evaluations, preferences for the well‐known brand were very robust to high prices, indicating the strength of the brand name. Using the least preferred option and the lowest price as an anchor, the consumers' price threshold to pay for the preferred design and the brand name was computed. Attempts to explain and predict individual differences of choices using measures of inherent design acumen, prior experience, and purchasing behavior were largely unsuccessful. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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