Companion shopping: the influence on mall brand experiences
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the influence of a shopping companion on mall brand experience. Design/methodology/approach The quantitative multi-group structural equation model study contrasts three shopper types: those shopping alone; those shopping with friends; and those shopping with family. Two categories are shoppers in a group. Nine hypotheses evaluate the impact of shopping with a companion. Findings The results show that companions enhance the emotional brand experience. Further, shoppers with family companions are most able to enhance brand evaluation from mall brand experience. Shopping companions help co-create the shopping brand experience. Research limitations/implications The findings are limited to Australian shoppers and contrast with Canadian studies, emphasizing friends. Alone shoppers place priority on price and only the alone shoppers are price-sensitive. The findings help address the gap in the literature, namely, understanding focal retail consumers in a group situation. Practical implications Retailers and mall managers in planned shopping centers could consider developing different retail strategies and brand experiences, which address the specific types of customer groups or alone shoppers. Social implications The paper is explicitly about social influences. Originality/value This original research contributes new perspectives to understanding the role of companion shoppers as co-creators of the focal shopper’s mall brand experience.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it