Connecting with and Converting Shoppers into Customers: Investigating the Role of Regulatory Fit in the Online Customer's Decision-making Process
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
Drawing on regulatory focus and regulatory fit theories, this study illustrates that, through the mechanism of engagement, promotion-focused (prevention-focused) shoppers who are faced with a website offering a more hedonic (utilitarian) shopping experience are more likely to both have a favorable attitude towards it and a higher intention to make a purchase. Moreover, by extending the goal compatibility principle to the online shopping context, this study shows that shoppers experiencing fit are able to sustain their regulatory orientation in subsequent decisions, resulting in a preference for products that emphasize the same regulatory goal. This study will help e-retailers increase sales by clarifying why, when, and to what extent they should offer hedonic versus utilitarian shopping experiences. In doing so, this study documents a new source of regulatory fit: a match between the hedonic or utilitarian online shopping experience and a shopper's promotion versus prevention regulatory orientation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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