The effect of multimodality on customers' decision-making and experiencing: A comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of this article is to present the findings of an experimental study on the use of a human-like “naturalistic” avatar (of both genders) for information presentations. The primary goal is to investigate how users' frame of mind, purchasing behavior, and satisfaction are affected by being presented with information by a naturalistic avatar that lacks expressive capabilities. Two different types of information presentations were developed and empirically tested on 48 participants, namely: (i) two dimensional static graphical and textual information presentation and (ii) non-expressive naturalistic avatar. For this comparative research study, a simplified version of the user experience model that was used in our earlier research (the EUX-DM) was selected to serve as the measurement model. Participants' perceived values of the measured qualities were found to be independent of both their own and the naturalistic avatar's gender, and the non-expressive avatar had a positive effect and a stronger encouragement on participants' intention to purchase, usage attitude, and satisfaction than other types of information presentations.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".