The Innovation Effect of User Design: Exploring Consumers’ Innovation Perceptions of Firms Selling Products Designed by Users
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 authors study consumer perceptions of firms that sell products designed by users. In contrast with the traditional design mode, in which professional designers employed by firms handle the design task, common design by users involves the firm's user community in creating new product designs for the broader consumer market. In the course of four studies, the authors find that common design by users does not decrease but actually enhances consumers’ perceptions of a firm's innovation ability. This “innovation effect of user design” leads to positive outcomes with respect to purchase intentions, willingness to pay, and consumers’ willingness to recommend the firm to others. The authors identify four defining characteristics of common design by users that underlie this innovation inference; namely, the number of consumers, the diversity of their background, the lack of company constraints, and the fact that consumer designers actually use the designed product all contribute in building positive perceptions. Finally, the authors identify consumer familiarity with user innovation and the design task's complexity as important moderators that create boundary conditions for the innovation effect of user design.
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 | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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