MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151060174 · doi:10.1002/mar.20339

From a commodity to an experience: The moderating role of thematic positioning on congruity‐based product judgment

2010· article· en· W2151060174 on OpenAlexaff
Theodore J. Noseworthy, Karen Finlay, Towhidul Islam

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Marketing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchema (genetic algorithms)PsychologyPhenomenonThematic analysisThematic mapProduct (mathematics)Cognitive psychologySocial psychologyProduct categoryEpistemologyComputer scienceQualitative researchInformation retrievalSociologyCartographyMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Research in positioning strategy suggests that a product schema, when presented in a moderately incongruent fashion, can evoke a greater degree of positive evaluation than if presented congruently with consumer expectations. This phenomenon has been coined the schema congruity effect . To date, one of the limitations of the phenomenon is that it has been applied almost exclusively to taxonomic stimuli, with little reference to thematic, eventlike stimuli. Two experiments verified that taxonomic and thematic product categories differ with respect to their unique characteristics. Consequently, despite successful replication of the schema congruity effect during taxonomic interpretation, when pushed thematically, the schema congruity effect failed to manifest. Furthermore, both experiments confirmed that, unlike taxonomic product categories that benefit from abstract and moderately incongruent positioning, thematic product categories benefit from concrete and congruent positioning. Implications for understanding the moderating role of thematic positioning on congruity‐based product evaluation as well as the differences between taxonomic and thematic stimuli are discussed. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.282 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations29
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology and MarketingSame topicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and IdentificationFrench-language works237,207