Shopping under the Influence: Nonverbal Appearance‐Based Communicator Cues Affect Consumer Judgments
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 Researchers have conducted much work to examine the influence of advertising, branding, product appearance, and store layout on consumer judgments in retail contexts. Very limited research, in comparison, has assessed the impact of nonverbal employee cues on retail communication. The present work therefore examined the influence of nonverbal, dominance‐related communicator cues on perceivers’ judgments of information delivered by the communicator. Specifically, this research assessed the impact of communicator clothing color (Studies 1a–1c) and facial width‐to‐height ratio (Study 2) on perceived information accuracy. Perceivers judged the information presented by the communicator to be more accurate when the communicator (a) was wearing red rather than white or blue, or (b) possessed a high versus low facial width‐to‐height ratio. Thus, although explicit information in the retail environment undoubtedly affects consumers’ judgments, they may also be influenced by more subtle cues.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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