Goal–Attribute Compatibility in Consumer Choice
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
This research advances the notion that product evaluations are a function of the compatibility of consumers’ goals with the attributes describing choice alternatives. Building on the concept of self-regulation, it is argued that attribute evaluations are moderated by individuals’ goal orientation and, specifically, that attributes compatible with individuals’ regulatory orientation tend to be overweighted in choice. This proposition is tested by examining the impact of goal orientation on consumer preferences in 3 different contexts: (a) hedonic versus utilitarian attributes, (b) performance versus reliability attributes, and (c) attractive versus unattractive (good vs. bad) attributes. The data show that prevention-focused individuals are more likely to overweight (in relative terms) utilitarian, reliability-related, and unattractive attributes than promotion-focused consumers, who are more likely to place relatively more weight on hedonic, performance-related, and attractive attributes. Considered together, these findings support the proposition that attributes compatible with individuals’ goal orientation tend to be overweighted in choice.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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