Influence of Goal-Framing Type and Product Type on Consumer Decision-Making: Dual Evidence from Behavior and Eye Movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In today’s fierce market competition, enterprises must quickly attract consumers’ attention to products and prompt them to make purchases. Based on regulatory focus theory, this study examines the impact of the congruence between different types of goal framing in advertising (promotion vs. prevention) and product types (hedonic vs. utilitarian) on individual consumer decision-making, as well as the underlying psychological mechanisms. The findings are as follows: (1) A goal-framing effect was observed, such that individuals allocated more attention and exhibited higher purchase intentions toward products presented with promotion-framed advertising. (2) A matching effect between goal-framing type and product type was identified: promotion framing increased purchase intentions for hedonic products, whereas prevention framing increased purchase intentions for utilitarian products. (3) Processing fluency mediated the effect of goal–product matching on consumer decision-making. (4) The presence of time pressure amplified the goal-framing effect, leading to stronger preferences under promotion-framed advertisements, as reflected in both longer fixation durations and higher purchase intentions. By integrating regulatory focus theory with product type matching, this study leverages eye-tracking data to reveal the cognitive processes underlying consumer decision-making and the moderating role of time pressure on goal-framing effects. The findings enrich the motivational perspective in consumer behavior research and provide empirical guidance for designing differentiated advertising strategies and optimizing advertising copy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".