MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2935237654 · doi:10.1177/1470785319838747

How consumer involvement influences consumption-elicited emotions and satisfaction

2019· article· en· W2935237654 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Market Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsumption (sociology)Affect (linguistics)Multivariate analysis of variancePsychologyConsumer behaviourSocial psychologyNegative emotionConsumer satisfactionAdvertisingMarketingBusinessSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is scarce research on the relationship between the level of consumer involvement and consumption-elicited emotions. So, we address the following questions: What is the influence of consumer involvement on consumption-elicited emotions?; Are positive emotions prevailing in highly involved consumers?; and Are negative emotions more dominant in low-involved consumers?. For this purpose, three different levels of consumer involvement have been considered—low ( n = 228), medium ( n = 493), and high ( n = 601). A Manova test was developed to analyze the relationship between consumption emotions and the level of consumer involvement. The results suggest that consumers should surpass an involvement threshold to develop a negative emotional appraisal and provoke negative affect. Similarly, our findings indicate that medium-involved consumers experience higher unpleasant emotions.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.271 · 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