MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789274888 · doi:10.5539/ijms.v10n1p39

Revising the Effects of Online Advertising Attributes on Consumer Processing and Response

2018· article· en· W2789274888 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abubaker Shaouf

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Marketing Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdvertisingModerationOnline advertisingPleasureProcess (computing)The InternetNative advertisingAdvertising researchMarketingBusinessConsumer behaviourPsychologyComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With advances in technology, the internet has allowed advertisers to design advertisements with unique features that can help capture consumers’ visual attention and enhance their psychological states such as attitudes and emotions. Yet, web advertising features and attributes can significantly contribute to online consumer behaviors. This paper strives to provide guidelines for researchers and advertisers as to what outlines the effects of online advertising design on consumers’ processing and multiple outcomes. The findings indicated that exposure to a well-designed online advertisement can influence several cognitive and emotional responses, such as attention to the ad, motivations to process the ad, depth of processing, pleasure, arousal, and online purchase intention. According to the present review, consumer involvement is regarded as an important moderator in the relationships between web advertising content as well as design and several responses, including consumers’ intention to search and process information. The article concludes by identifying several areas of opportunities for advancing our understanding of web advertising effects. Marketers and advertisers will find the current work useful, as it can be used to maximize the effectiveness of web advertising.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Marketing StudiesSame topicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and IdentificationFrench-language works237,207