Consumer Attitude and Behavior of Religious Consumers towards Offensive Advertisements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study attempts to investigate the effect of controversial advertisements on consumer attitude, behavior and purchase intention of religious consumers. The study also aims to investigate what difference of attitude is prevailing between men and women. 200 participants ranging in age from 20 to 25 at first were randomly selected. Religious Commitment Inventory – 10 was distributed to the 200 participants. 40 participants (20 males; 20 females) having the highest and nearly equal scores on the RCI-10 were selected. The selected participants were shown censored advertisements first and the responses were collected on Consumer Attitude Questionnaire and Juster’s 11 Point Probability Scale. After collecting the questionnaires, participants were shown uncensored versions of the same advertisements, and responses were then collected again on same scales. The analysis of results using t-test and Pearson correlation co-efficient suggested that controversial advertisements negatively affect the consumer attitudes of religious consumers; moreover females with high religiosity are more offended by controversial advertisements as compared to males with high religiosity. However, the analysis of results showed that consumer attitude is not a strong predictor of consumer behavior, as there might be other mediating and moderating variables that shape the ultimate purchase intention and consumer behavior.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".