Need for cognitive closure and mobile personalization: a cluster analysis
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 This study aims to profile mobile users based on their need for cognitive closure (NFC) (preference for order, preference for predictability, discomfort with ambiguity, close-mindedness and decisiveness) and identify differences among the groups regarding their perceptions of personalized preferences and privacy concerns. Design/methodology/approach Based on the data from 285 participants, the authors seek to identify and profile unique consumer segments (mobile users) generated based on their NFC. Second, once the segments are established, the authors analyze how the segments differ across their personalized preferences and privacy concerns. Findings The data generated three distinct consumer segments: equivocal users, structured users and eclectic users. Across the segments, there were differences in their mobile personalization (experience, value and actions) and preference for information privacy (perceived risks and fabrication of personal information). Research limitations/implications United States (US)-based sample may restrict the generalizability of this research. Thus, future research should include participants from other geographic regions to increase external validity. Practical implications Retail managers can apply this knowledge to implement appropriate personalization strategies for these distinct target groups. Originality/value Segmenting clusters based on differences in consumption trait (NFC) provides key insights to retailers looking to deliver personalized customer experience, particularly in a mobile shopping context.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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