MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2975068084 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v11n4p26

The Effect of Reference Price on Customers’ Decisions in Online Shopping

2019· article· en· W2975068084 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yihan Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReference priceSignificant differenceValue (mathematics)MarketingPsychologyWillingness to payAdvertisingBusinessMicroeconomicsEconomicsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this research, we examined the effect that different reference prices have on online customers in their shopping process. We hypothesized that the actual price paid will be higher for participants who saw a higher reference price. We designed two different surveys targeting potential customers - the only difference between the two versions was the price for reference shown to the participants at the beginning of the survey. Designed to mimic the actual online shopping scenario, the surveys collected 136 responses in total, and the results suggest there is a difference of $22.93 in the mean values of the price customers are willing to pay. The Hedges' g value for the mean difference is 0.42, which indicated that there is a practical significance. This result indicates that customers’ willingness to pay will rise as the reference prices increase.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicConsumer Market Behavior and PricingFrench-language works237,207