Impact of Brand Equity, Advertisement and Hedonic Consumption Tendencies on Cognitive Dissonance: A Mediation Study
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
<p>Current study puts light on the role of brand equity, hedonic consumption tendencies, and advertisement on cognitive dissonance. Impulse Buying plays the role of a mediator in the study. Purpose of this study is to examine how brand equity, hedonic consumptions, and advertisement affect cognitive dissonance of the customers. Analyses of a sample of 370 customers, drawn from different outlets of famous fashion clothes in Multan city, revealed attention-grabbing findings. A mediation analysis was conducted through regression analysis in the study. Hedonic consumption tendencies and advertisement were found significant in predicting cognitive dissonance while brand equity was found having an insignificant relation with cognitive dissonance where impulse buying found significant in predicting cognitive dissonance being having positive relation. Further to this, impact of brand equity, advertisement and hedonic consumption tendencies found directly related to impulse purchase. Product category wise examination of current model adds new directions and findings in the future. Prior studies on purchase intentions have mainly focused on simple models at any given time. However, researchers increasingly argue that a complex representation may give better understanding of customers’ purchase intentions. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is one of the first empirical studies to address a complex structure of the proposed variables.</p>
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 | 0.002 | 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