Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines how consumers value promotions for delayed consumption depending on the time of redemption, the types of benefits offered, and the scope of the offering. The specific focus is on promotions that are redeemed in the future at the time of consumption, which we label "advance promotions". In the first essay, results from three studies demonstrate that consumers value hedonic advance promotions differently from delayed consumption of stand-alone goods or delayed incentives (rebates). Hedonic advance promotions are consistently overvalued, unless they are incongruent with consumers' consumption goals (e.g., when consumers regulate their consumption of the hedonic benefits). In contrast, advance utilitarian promotions are overvalued only when they are congruent with the consumption context of the target product (e.g., when the target consumption is also utilitarian). In general, we find that valuation of future utilitarian promotions depends on the consumption context but valuation of future hedonic promotions depends on when the target product is consumed. These findings are explained by the focalism bias that was originally suggested by affective forecasting and Construal Level Theory and are further expanded in this dissertation.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".