Construal Matching in Online Search: Applying Text Analysis to Illuminate the Consumer Decision Journey
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
As consumers move through their decision journey, they adopt different goals (e.g., transactional vs. informational). In this research, the authors propose that consumer goals can be detected through textual analysis of online search queries and that both marketers and consumers can benefit when paid search results and advertisements match consumer search–related goals. In bridging construal level theory and textual analysis, the authors show that consumers at different stages of the decision journey tend to assume different levels of mental construal, or mindsets (i.e., abstract vs. concrete). They find evidence of a fluency-driven matching effect in online search such that when consumer mindsets are more abstract (more concrete), consumers generate textual search queries that use more abstract (more concrete) language. Furthermore, they are more likely to click on search engine results and ad content that matches their mindset, thereby experiencing more search satisfaction and perceiving greater goal progress. Six empirical studies, including a pilot study, a survey, three lab experiments, and a field experiment involving over 128,000 ad impressions provide support for this construal matching effect in online search.
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 | 0.027 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it