MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801857624 · doi:10.1002/mar.21094

Understanding cross‐product purchase intention in an IT brand extension context

2018· article· en· W2801857624 on OpenAlexaff
Yue Guo, Ying Zhu, Stuart J. Barnes, Yongchuan Bao, Xiaotong Li, Khuong Le‐Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Marketing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContinuanceBrand extensionProduct (mathematics)AdvertisingExpectancy theoryContext (archaeology)MarketingBrand awarenessPerceptionPsychologyBusinessSocial psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study investigates why some customers of a brand tend to purchase IT products launched by the same brand in a different category, but others do not. Combining insights from marketing and information systems research, this study develops an integrative model of cross‐category purchases of IT products in a brand extension context. This research extends the information system (IS) continuance model by integrating brand extension factors such as perceived fit into the new model. The proposed model is empirically tested using data collected from 342 Xiaomi customers. The results show that in addition to post‐acceptance usefulness perceptions and brand satisfaction, the perceived service quality and perceived fit of the initial purchase also have strong effects on consumers’ continuance purchase intentions toward a brand extension product. Hedonic and utilitarian expectancy mediate the relationship between consumers’ post‐consumption views of the initial purchase and their intention of the subsequent purchase of a different product under the same brand.

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)0.003
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 score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations29
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology and MarketingSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207