MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Attitude accessibility, certainty and the attitude—behaviour relationship: an empirical study of ad repetition and competitive interference effects

2002· article· en· W2231062641 on OpenAlex
Michel Laroche, Mark Cleveland, Irene Maravelakis

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

VenueInternational Journal of Advertising · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertaintyAdvertisingContext (archaeology)Competition (biology)Repetition (rhetorical device)Positive attitudePsychologyPropositionEmpirical researchBusinessMarketingSocial psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This empirical study considers the influence of both advertising repetition and brand share on attitudes, attitude accessibility, attitude certainty, and the overall attitude-behaviour (a-b) relationship in the context of television advertisements. Levels of ad exposure and target brand market share were manipulated. Similar to earlier research, ad repetition was found to benefit attitude accessibility only for the low brand share target products. Differential patterns of attitude accessibility were obtained between the competition (reverse U-shape) and no-competition (U-shape) conditions, across increasing levels of ad exposures. Surprisingly, little support was found for the notion that attitude accessibility exerts a strong influence on purchase intentions. Some evidence, however, was found to support the proposition that attitude certainty plays a role in the a-b relationship. Directions for future research are also proposed.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.285 · 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