Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to address a novel information sharing phenomenon among many hospitality consumers, that is, sharing information during, rather than weeks after, a hospitality consumption experience. Specifically, this study tests if including a temporal contiguity cue in a review can significantly enhance the purchase intention of other consumers toward the reviewed business. Design/methodology/approach A 2 (personal sense of power) × 2 (temporal contiguity cue: manipulated to be absent vs present) quasi-experiment was conducted in this research. Floodlight analysis with the Johnson–Neyman technique was used to test the interaction effect. Hayes’ PROCESS procedure was used to test the mediation effects. Findings The study found that, for powerless consumers, temporal contiguity cue can effectively enhance the perceived trustworthiness of the review and purchase intention toward the reviewed business. Conversely, for powerful consumers, temporal contiguity cue can significantly reduce the perceived trustworthiness of the review and purchase intention toward the business. Mediation test further revealed evidence for the underlying psychological mechanism for these effects. Originality/value Revealing the mixed effects of a novel factor, temporal contiguity cue, on consumer responses toward online hospitality reviews, the current research contributes to the expanding stream of theoretical and managerial knowledge on online review management in social media platforms.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".