Social Cues-Customer Behavior Relationship: The Mediating Role of Emotions and Cognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the effect of social cues in a mall’s shopping environment on customer behavior. Two competing mediation scenarios are assessed: emotion-cognition and cognition-emotion in a stimulus-organism-response (SOR)-based framework. Although the role of social cues in driving customer behavior in shopping contexts is largely addressed in the extant literature, the mechanism of the effect is still under-researched area and this study is an attempt to fill this gap.The conceptual model is validated through a questionnaire survey of 1028 shopping mall customers from three cities in Jordan. Two different conceptual models are tested. The analysis reveals that the cognition-emotion mediated model is more robust in predicting the effect of social cues than emotion-cognition mediated model. The findings indicate that a) social cues have a significant positive effect on customers’ emotion of pleasure; cognition; and behavioral response; and b) only pleasure and cognition mediate the effect of social cues on customers’ behavioral response.Theoretically, this study provides a comprehensive understanding of the mechanism by which customers’ emotions and cognition mediate the effect of social cues on customer behavior; and practically, it asserts the significance of social cues as a marketing tool.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".