MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2199172276 · doi:10.1086/653947

The Influence of Implicit Attitudes on Choice When Consumers Are Confronted with Conflicting Attribute Information

2010· article· en· W2199172276 on OpenAlex
Melanie Dempsey, Andrew A. Mitchell

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyPsychologyAdvertisingBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important issue in consumer behavior is whether affect created by low-level processes, such as evaluative conditioning, will influence brand choice when consumers have also been exposed to relevant product information. To examine this issue, in two experiments implicit attitudes were created by evaluative conditioning where the participants were unaware of the contingencies. This creates an “I like it, but I don’t know why” effect. The participants also had conflicting product information available in memory. We find that the participants rely on their implicit attributes when making a brand choice if they have not formed an explicit evaluation based on the product attribute information. This occurs even when the attribute information is available in memory and the participants are highly motivated to retrieve it. These findings provide evidence that implicit attitudes can have a significant influence on behavior, despite conflicting product information, and increased levels of motivation and opportunity.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.382 · 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