Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 82 (2025) 104113

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Effect of location-based advertising filtering mechanism in smart service☆

Chih-Hui Shieh a , I-Ling Ling b, Yenming J. Chen c , Yi-Fen Liu d,*
a
Department of Marketing and Distribution Management, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, No.1, University Rd., Yanchao Dist., Kaohsiung
City, 82445, Taiwan
b
Department of Marketing and Tourism Management, National Chiayi University, No.580, Shin-Min Rd., Chiayi City, 600355, Taiwan
c
Department of Information Management, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, No.1, University Rd., Yanchao Dist., Kaohsiung City, 82445,
Taiwan
d
Department of Logistics Management, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, No.1, University Rd., Yanchao Dist., Kaohsiung City, 82445, Taiwan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Prof. H. Timmermans Location-based advertising (LBA) refers to the delivery of marketing messages to mobile devices based on
consumer location. The literature finds that LBA improves marketing effectiveness; however, distrust threatens
Keywords: consumers’ acceptance of LBA. This research suggests that an LBA filtering mechanism, which allows consumers
Location-based advertising to select advertising categories according to their preferences autonomously, may overcome the distrust. Its
Filtering
effect was empirically investigated in a smart retailing service platform. Two field experiments were conducted
Smart service
in a large shopping center with a total of 360 consumers. The results reveal that filtered (vs. unfiltered) LBA leads
Trust
Psychological distance to more favorable behavioral intention through serial mediation of reduced psychological distance and enhanced
Regulatory focus trust. Moreover, the effect of LBA filtering in reducing psychological distance is more prominent for consumers
with a prevention (vs. promotion) focus and with (vs. without) a purchase plan. The findings have implications
for the system design and marketing of LBA.

1. Introduction more tailored marketing messages directly to mobile devices and has
been found to boost physical store visits (Meents et al., 2020; Verhagen
The proliferation of mobile phones and advancements in geo- et al., 2022) and in-store purchases (Shieh et al., 2019). Thus, the global
information technology have fueled the development of location-based LBA market is rapidly increasing; it was estimated at USD 80.5 billion in
advertising (LBA), a subset of location-based services (LBS). LBA, 2022 and is expected to reach USD 219.4 billion by 2030, representing a
using advanced technologies to deliver personalized marketing mes­ compound annual growth rate of 13.3% (ReportLinker, 2024).
sages or services based on a user’s real-time geographic location and As encouraging as these developments sound for marketers, serious
needs (Unni and Harmon, 2007; Xu et al., 2011), is a prime example of challenges also emerged, including privacy concerns, perceived intru­
smart service. Smart service involves providing services through con­ siveness, and distrust, which threaten the acceptance of LBA. The
nected objects or interfaces that autonomously monitor their environ­ tracking of consumers’ behavior on mobile devices is perceived as an
ment, allowing for real-time data collection and analysis, continuous invasion of consumer privacy (Gupta, 2013), and the appearance of a
communication, and interactive responses (Allmendinger and Lom­ considerable number of messages is considered as annoying and intru­
breglia, 2005; Wünderlich et al., 2015). sive (Andrews et al., 2016). There also are questions about whether the
Recently, the capabilities of LBA have been significantly augmented service provider can guarantee the privacy of consumer information, act
by integrating smart service technologies, such as the Internet of Things in the consumers’ best interest, and offer the desired service, which
(IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), and location-based sensors. These erodes consumer trust in LBS providers (Chen et al., 2008; Wang and
cutting-edge advancements allow devices to perceive their environment Lin, 2017). Trust, defined as the belief that an exchange partner per­
and collect valuable user behavior, preferences, and location informa­ forms actions that are important and will result in positive outcomes for
tion. By harnessing this abundant data, LBA platforms can now deliver their customers (Fang et al., 2011; Morgan and Hunt, 1994), is

The first author is thankful for the financial support from the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan, MOST 109-2410-H-992-016. The first author
☆

would also like to thank Ms. Shu-Wei Wu for collecting part of the research data.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.-H. Shieh), [email protected] (I.-L. Ling), [email protected] (Y.J. Chen), [email protected] (Y.-F. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.104113
Received 6 February 2024; Received in revised form 1 October 2024; Accepted 4 October 2024
Available online 10 October 2024
0969-6989/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.
C.-H. Shieh et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 82 (2025) 104113

recognized as a crucial factor in shaping customers’ attitudes and mindset of consumers who try to prevent errors of “commission” in
acceptance toward LBA (Jung and Heo, 2022; Le et al., 2024; Souiden purchase decisions (Crowe and Higgins, 1997; Liberman et al., 1999).
et al., 2019) and to induce purchase intention in targeted advertising For consumers who tend to prevent errors of “commission,” such as
(Cheng et al., 2023). those with a prevention focus (Crowe and Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1997)
The challenges described above are rooted in two fundamental issues or with a specific purchase plan (Loomes and Sugden, 1982; Spears,
regarding the practices of LBA providers: privacy management and in­ 2006), filtered LBA may be appealing. For consumers who tend to pre­
formation service quality. Privacy management is concerned with vent errors of “omission,” such as those who have a promotion focus
ensuring that companies access and use consumers’ personal informa­ (Crowe and Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1997) or have no purchase plans
tion reasonably (Hong and Thong, 2013). A large body of research has (Rook and Fisher, 1995; Spears, 2006), filtered LBA may not be
examined consumer privacy concerns about LBA, including the ante­ preferred. As such, this research suggests that consumers’ regulatory
cedents and consequences of such concerns and ways to reduce con­ focus and purchase plans may influence the effectiveness of LBA filtering
sumer privacy concerns and improve privacy management (e.g., Bauer and, thus, examines the moderating role of these factors. Based on the
and Strauss, 2016; Shieh et al., 2024; Unni and Harmon, 2007; Xu et al., above discussion, a conceptual model of the effect of LBA filtering is
2011). Information service quality issues, however, concern whether developed and shown in Fig. 1.
service providers offer accurate, relevant, helpful, personalized, com­ The innovation of this article lies in the implementation of an LBA
plete, and timely information with an easy-to-navigate interface in a filtering mechanism in smart service, which allows consumers to select
responsive manner (Wang and Lin, 2017; Zhou, 2011). While several advertising categories based on their preferences autonomously and
studies have examined how various aspects of service quality impact enables the investigation of its effects on consumers’ cognitive, attitu­
consumers’ adoption of LBA (e.g., Kim et al., 2012; Lin et al., 2016; dinal, and behavioral responses. Through a deep understanding of the
Thapa et al., 2024), rare have explored how the design of LBA systems relationship between LBA filtering, psychological distance, trust, and
can enhance service quality, consequently boosting consumer trust and behavioral intention, as well as how consumers’ individual differences
acceptance of LBA. This gap in research highlights the need for further affect this relationship, the current research not only contributes to the
investigation in this area. LBA literature but also provides practical insights for LBA marketers in
Consumers automatically receive a large amount of information from targeting and system design.
LBA, including irrelevant and unwanted information, causing interrup­ The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 delves
tion, intrusion, and loss of control (Unni and Harmon, 2007; Xu et al., into the theoretical foundations of the relationships between the LBA
2009). These interruptions disrupt consumers’ natural cognitive flow, filtering mechanism, psychological distance, trust, regulatory focus,
potentially corroding their decision-making performance and satisfac­ purchase plans, and behavioral intention. Section 3 outlines the design
tion (Xia and Sudharshan, 2002). Such experiences of frustration may and outcomes of two field experiments that validate the proposed hy­
lead customers to perceive poor service quality and distrust the service potheses. Finally, Section 4 wraps up the paper with a discussion of the
providers. Building on the notion that people tend to favor, trust, and academic and practical implications of the findings.
rely on self-selected advertisements (Shavitt et al., 2004), the current
research emphasizes the importance of implementing a filtering mech­ 2. Literature review and hypotheses
anism in LBA systems that allows consumers to autonomously select
advertising categories based on their preferences, such that the messages 2.1. Construal level theory and psychological distance
are customized to match consumers’ shopping needs. This research aims
to explore how an LBA filtering mechanism affects consumers’ intention Construal level theory posits that individuals can mentally construe a
to inquire, purchase, and recommend as mediated by psychological target item (e.g., object, person, event, action, concept, choice) at a low
distance and trust in the retailing setting. Viewing LBA filtering through or high level (Liberman and Trope, 2008; Trope and Liberman, 2010).
the lens of construal level theory (Liberman and Trope, 2008; Trope and Low construal levels make people think concretely and emphasize local,
Liberman, 2010), the research argues that filtered LBA could enhance subordinate, and contextualized features of an item; high construal
service quality by improving the relevance and connection between the levels cause people to think abstractly and be concerned with general,
delivered messages and the recipients. This increased relevance and superordinate, and decontextualized aspects of the item. Different con­
connection may reduce the psychological distance (Trope and Liberman, strual levels motivate people to rely on different considerations to make
2010), thereby enhancing trust and favorable behavioral intentions decisions. Individuals with a low construal level focus on an item’s pe­
(Darke et al., 2016). ripheral features and specific details, leading them to depend on
This research also attempts to clarify the boundary conditions for the means-related “how” and “feasibility” considerations in
LBA filtering effect. Filtered LBA may increase the relevance of mar­ decision-making. In contrast, individuals with a high construal level
keting messages and, thus, reduce psychological distance. The reduced attach more weight to the central meaning of an item, leading them to
psychological distance may lead to low-level construals that fit the focus on ends-related “why” and “desirability” considerations (Trope

Fig. 1. Conceptual model of the effect of LBA filtering.

2
C.-H. Shieh et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 82 (2025) 104113

and Liberman, 2010). purchase amount (Wu and Ma, 2022). In the LBA literature, personally
The psychological distance to the item influences the construal level relevant advertising also increases store visits (Verhagen et al., 2022)
that people use to mentally express items. People can only experience and brand usage intention (Thapa et al., 2024). Once the likelihood of a
themselves directly in the here and now; anything indirectly experi­ purchase rises, the hypothetical psychological distance further decreases
enced causes psychological distance (Liberman and Trope, 2008; Trope (Bar-anan et al., 2006; Trope and Liberman, 2010). Accordingly, the
and Liberman, 2010). Psychological distance is defined as the percep­ following hypotheses are proposed:
tion of how close or far a target item is from oneself in the here and now
H1a–H1c. Compared with unfiltered LBA, filtered LBA leads to (H1a)
(Trope and Liberman, 2010). This concept encompasses four di­
lower psychological distance, (H1b) greater trust, and (H1c) more
mensions: temporal, spatial, social, and hypothetical. Temporal distance
favorable behavioral intention.
pertains to how far an item is perceived to be from the present moment
in time. Spatial distance refers to how far an item is perceived to be from Regarding the relationship between LBA filtering, psychological
the current location. Social distance describes the closeness, relevance, distance, trust, and behavioral intention, this research further suggests
and connection of an item to oneself in social relationships. Hypothetical that the impact of LBA filtering on behavioral intention may be serially
distance relates to the perceived reality, tangibility, and definiteness of mediated by psychological distance and trust. First, it is well-established
an item or the likelihood of an event occurring. Mental construals shift that external stimuli sequentially affect individuals’ perceptions, atti­
between proximate and distant perspectives on items; a psychologically tudes, behavioral intentions, and finally, their actual behaviors (e.g., the
proximate (distant) item is associated with a low (high) construal level technology acceptance model (TAM), Davis et al., 1989; the attention,
(Bar-anan et al., 2006; Trope and Liberman, 2010). interest, desire, action (AIDA) model, Strong, 1925). Trust, the belief
that an exchange partner performs actions that are important and will
2.2. Effect of LBA filtering result in positive outcomes for their customers (Fang et al., 2011;
Morgan and Hunt, 1994), is an attitude that one can hold toward the
Based on the concept that consumers prefer, trust, and rely on self- exchange partner. Based on this literature, it is expected that LBA
selected more than non-selectable advertisements (Shavitt et al., filtering (an external stimulus), through the serial mediation of psy­
2004), in this research, an LBA filtering mechanism is defined as a chological distance (a perception) and trust (an attitude), affects con­
feature in an LBA system that allows consumers to independently choose sumers’ behavioral intention.
advertising categories based on their preferences and shopping re­ Further, research indicates that psychological proximity enhances
quirements at any given time. Consumers then receive advertisements trust and relationship success (Harwood and Lin, 2000). Studies have
exclusively from nearby stores within the selected categories. In also shown that increased consumer trust leads to greater attitude and
contrast, unfiltered LBA, like most traditional LBA, excludes the selec­ usage intention toward LBA and LBS (Jung and Heo, 2022; Le et al.,
tion step, and the LBA systems actively transmit advertisements when­ 2024; Souiden et al., 2019; Zhou, 2013) as well as higher purchase in­
ever consumers are detected by any stores. tentions in both traditional and online buying contexts (Aguirre et al.,
Although filtering in LBA could be easily implemented, most LBA 2015; Benedicktus et al., 2010; Cheng et al., 2023). Moreover, in the
service providers do not incorporate such a mechanism in their adver­ context of online retailing, reduced psychological distance is found to
tising systems. As a result, consumers often receive a considerable contribute to a sequential increase in trust and purchase intention
number of advertisements through their mobile devices, especially upon (Darke et al., 2016). Based on the above literature, this research
entering large shopping facilities. Because most of these advertisements proposes:
are irrelevant and unwanted, they create annoyance, interruption,
H2. The effect of LBA filtering on behavioral intention is serially
intrusion, and loss of control (Andrews et al., 2016; Unni and Harmon,
mediated by psychological distance and trust.
2007; Xu et al., 2009). Even worse, these interruptions disrupt con­
sumers’ natural cognitive processes, further impairing the quality of
their decisions and satisfaction (Xia and Sudharshan, 2002). Eventually, 2.3. Moderation of regulatory focus
these irrelevant and annoying advertisements cause lower perceived
value, acceptance, and purchase intention (Bauer and Strauss, 2016; Although H1 suggests that filtered (vs. unfiltered) LBA produces a
Shieh et al., 2024; Unni and Harmon, 2007; Xu et al., 2011). lower psychological distance, this research does not assume that its ef­
However, with a filtering mechanism in LBA, the situation may be fect applies to all types of consumers. It further argues that consumers’
quite different. Consumers can decide what kind of advertisements to regulatory focus would moderate the effect of LBA filtering. As centered
receive based on their preferences, thus making the delivered adver­ on self-regulation to reach the desired end state, regulatory focus theory
tisements better match their shopping needs. As a result, compared with (Higgins, 1997, 2000) divides desired goals into two major categories:
unfiltered advertisements, the relevance to the customer and connection those related to safety and security and those related to progress and
between the filtered advertisements and the customer may be improved. growth. The theory further postulates the existence of different regula­
In addition, filtered LBA may make the image of a purchase more vivid tory mechanisms that are linked to the attainment of different categories
and tangible in the consumer’s mind. By definition, increased relevance of goals. Prevention-focused individuals regulate their attitudes and
and connection are associated with shortened social psychological dis­ behaviors to achieve safety and security, while promotion-focused in­
tance, and enhanced reality and tangibility are related to reduced hy­ dividuals regulate their attitudes and behaviors to attain progress and
pothetical distance (Bar-anan et al., 2006; Trope and Liberman, 2010). growth (Crowe and Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1997, 2000).
Moreover, high-quality (e.g., relevant, accurate, and timely) informa­ Besides, prevention-focused and promotion-focused individuals
tion increases trust in information service providers (Fang et al., 2011; differ in their approaches to achieving their goals. Prevention-focused
Zhou, 2011). Self-selected (vs. non-selectable) advertisements have been individuals prioritize safety and security, leading them to adopt a
found to lead to more favorable perceptional, attitudinal, and behavioral strategy of vigilance. They aim to prevent errors of “commission” by
responses toward the advertisements and advertised products, including abstaining from pursuing alternatives that might result in mistakes or
liking, trusting, buying, relying on information to make decisions, and losses. In contrast, promotion-focused individuals pursue growth and
perceiving good quality and cost-effectiveness (Shavitt et al., 2004). achievement, employing an eagerness strategy to seek complete alter­
Moreover, within the retail and consumer services sector, targeted and natives and prevent errors of “omission” (Crowe and Higgins, 1997;
personalized marketing or advertising can prevent consumers from Liberman et al., 1999). Applying this distinction to the LBA context, this
abandoning their shopping carts (Khan et al., 2022), improve customer research expects that filtered LBA, in which consumers receive only
satisfaction and brand loyalty (Behera et al., 2020), and increase self-selected advertisements and, thus, have limited alternatives, would

3
C.-H. Shieh et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 82 (2025) 104113

be more consistent with the strategic tendencies of prevention-focused When minimizing regret through risk-avoiding, consumers antici­
consumers who seek to reduce errors of commission. In contrast, pate and reduce regret by taking actions to make their purchases safer,
promotion-focused consumers seek to minimize errors of omission and more secure, or more conservative (Simonson, 1992). The best, safest,
would, therefore, be more satisfied with unfiltered LBA, which provides and most conservative purchase decisions are made through a refined
them with a large number of advertisements and alternatives. plan that eliminates as much uncertainty or risk as possible (Spears,
Studies also reveal that prevention-focused individuals may construe 2006). In a planned purchase, consumers minimize expected
messages at a low level, whereas promotion-focused individuals tend to post-purchase regret and avoid the risks associated with inferior choices
construe messages at a high level (Freitas et al., 2001; Lee et al., 2010). through a refined plan that involves planning, searching, and carefully
This distinction arises because low-level construals represent an event in deliberating (Bell, 1982; Loomes and Sugden, 1982).
a more concrete and detailed form, describing the feasibility of the event On the contrary, when minimizing regret through risk-seeking,
and specifying how something was performed, which provides the in­ consumers may engage in purchases on impulse (Luo et al., 2021;
formation needed to limit errors of commission. In contrast, higher-level Rook and Fisher, 1995). Unplanned or impulsive purchases are driven
construals represent an event in a more abstract and general form that is by the anticipation of pleasure and immediate gratification (Rook,
informative about the desirability of an event and describes why 1987). The regret being minimized in this case is the missed opportunity
something is done, providing a basis for considering multiple ways of to enjoy the pleasure and immediate gratification of the purchase, to
reaching a goal, and, thus, limiting errors of omission (Lee et al., 2010; indulge in an enjoyment, to escape from boredom, to restore a mood, or
Liberman et al., 1999). to gain freedom from restraints in a constrained situation (Rook, 1987;
Moreover, as aforementioned, construal level theory (Liberman and Rook and Fisher, 1995; Thompson et al., 1990). Thus, regret over
Trope, 2008; Trope and Liberman, 2010) asserts that low-level (vs. missing out on the opportunity for pleasure is minimized by making a
high-level) construals are associated with psychological proximity. risky choice based on the impulse to purchase immediately (Spears,
Thus, it is expected that because prevention focus encourages low-level 2006).
construals, it may be more likely to be linked to proximal psychological A risk-avoiding strategy in planned purchases, characterized by ac­
distance, whereas promotion focus encourages high-level construals tions to make purchases safer, more secure, or more conservative
and, thus, may tend to be associated with distant psychological distance. (Simonson, 1992), is akin to a strategy to prevent errors of commission,
Research has shown support for this notion. For instance, Pennington which limits the chances of making mistakes and incurring losses
and Roese (2003) discovered that a proximal temporal view is related to (Crowe and Higgins, 1997; Liberman et al., 1999). Conversely, a
a prevention focus, while a distal temporal view is correlated with a risk-seeking strategy in unplanned purchases, involving making risky
promotion focus. Luan et al. (2023) and Mogilner et al. (2008) noted choices to minimize regret over missing an opportunity for pleasure
that the appeal of prevention-framed products increases when con­ (Spears, 2006), is similar to a strategy to prevent errors of omission,
sumers’ purchases are temporally close, whereas promotion-framed which embraces any possible means to satisfy a need (Crowe and Hig­
products are more preferred when their purchases are temporally gins, 1997; Liberman et al., 1999). As aforementioned, strategies that
distant. limit errors of commission are associated with low construal levels and
Based on the above literature, this research posits that, in the LBA psychological distance, whereas strategies that limit errors of omission
context, the effect of LBA filtering would be moderated by consumers’ are linked to high construal levels and psychological distance (Lee et al.,
regulatory focus. H1 suggests that filtered (vs. unfiltered) LBA produces 2010; Liberman et al., 1999; Mogilner et al., 2008; Trope and Liberman,
a lower psychological distance. This research further proposes that 2010). Thus, it is expected that, compared to unplanned purchases,
because a prevention (promotion) focus is more often accompanied by planned purchases, which tend to be risk-avoiding rather than
low (high) psychological distance (Mogilner et al., 2008; Pennington risk-seeking, might be more likely to be related to lower construal levels
and Roese, 2003), the ability of LBA filtering to decrease psychological and shorter psychological distances. This means that stimuli that lead to
distance may be more salient for prevention-focused consumers than for short (vs. long) psychological distance may be more compatible with the
promotion-focused consumers. mindset of consumers who make planned (vs. unplanned) purchases.
Situating this in the LBA setting, this research argues that the effect of
H3. The effect of LBA filtering on psychological distance is moderated
LBA filtering would be moderated by consumers’ purchase plans. The
by consumers’ regulatory focus. The effect of LBA filtering on psycho­
ability of LBA filtering to reduce psychological distances, as proposed in
logical distance is more prominent for consumers with a prevention
H1, would be more pronounced for consumers with a specific purchase
focus than for those with a promotion focus.
plan than for those without.
H4. The effect of LBA filtering on psychological distance is moderated
2.4. Moderation of purchase plans
by consumers’ purchase plans. The effect of LBA filtering on psycho­
logical distance is more prominent for consumers with a purchase plan
In addition to consumers/ regulatory focus, this research proposes
than for those without a purchase plan.
that whether consumers have a purchase plan also affects their construal
levels and, thus, their perceived psychological distance toward the
3. Methodology and results
filtered LBA. Planned purchases define the situation where consumers
have a specific purchase task, product category, or brand in mind before
3.1. Design overview
entering a store. On the other hand, unplanned purchases are those
made by consumers who are influenced by external stimuli after
The research involved two field experimental studies in real retailing
entering a store, even though they did not initially intend to make such a
to test the proposed hypotheses. Adopting experimental design in
purchase (Beatty and Ferrell, 1998; Park et al., 1989).
consumer-related behavior research allows precise control and manip­
Regret theory states that people compare the actual outcome with
ulation of variables, establishes causality, and ensures replicability. It
the outcome they would have had if they had chosen the alternative
enhances internal validity through random assignment, provides
(Loomes and Sugden, 1982; Sugden, 1985). People feel regret when the
detailed quantitative data, and addresses ethical considerations, leading
alternative not chosen is better (Bell, 1982; Loomes and Sugden, 1982).
to robust, reliable, and ethical insights applicable to marketing and
Individuals are regret-averse and, thus, are driven to minimize regret
consumer research (Shadish et al., 2002). The research focuses on an
(Hetts et al., 2000; Zeelenberg et al., 1996). Regret minimization may
LBA filtering mechanism that allows consumers to select advertising
lead to risk-avoiding decisions or risk-seeking decisions (Rook, 1987;
categories according to their preferences autonomously. The mechanism
Zeelenberg et al., 1996).

4
C.-H. Shieh et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 82 (2025) 104113

can overcome distrust and increase purchase intention. Therefore, study.

empirically investigating an LBA smart retailing service filtering plat­ In the filtered LBA condition (Fig. 2a), participants could proactively
form using experimental designs seems a good method for discovering filter the advertisements by selecting a category (e.g., food court) from
the research gaps. the nine ad categories through the app in which they were interested.
The debate about the replication and replicability of experimental The app then filtered the stores in the selected category and automati­
results has a long and diverse history since the 1980s (Earp and Trafi­ cally sent advertisements for those stores to the participants when they
mow, 2015). The references provide a solid foundation for under­ were within a 20-m radius of any of the filtered stores. In the unfiltered
standing the importance of replication in scientific research, especially LBA condition (Fig. 2b), participants were not required to specify in­
in experimental and social sciences. Steinle (2016) integrates a historical terests or select an ad category. The app automatically sent advertise­
analysis that highlights important aspects and differentiations of the ments from any of the stores in the nine categories to the participants
debate that enrich the contemporary discussion. The author agrees and when they were within a 20-m radius of any stores.
emphasizes that replication has been central to scientific credibility, According to Hair et al. (2019), to ensure the generalizability of the
stressing the need for repeated experiments to establish reliable find­ results, the ratio of samples to scale items should be better than 10:1;
ings. Killeen (2005) indicated that while no method guarantees cer­ thus, the sample size for 15 scale items should be over 150 in Study 1. A
tainty, robust experimental design and empirical replication are total of 200 valid participants were recruited (51% male; mean age =
essential for reliable scientific inference. Therefore, to confirm the 26.51; age range = 16–50). A detailed profile of the participants is
reliability of our field experimental results, refine theories, build sci­ provided in Table 1.
entific credibility, and ensure the practical applicability of our findings,
we follow the suggestion of prior research to conduct an experiment in 3.2.2. Measures
Study 1 first and replicate the main effect of Study 1 in Study 2 for After trying out the LBA app for a few minutes, each participant
robustness. completed a questionnaire that comprised three sections. The first sec­
Study 1 focused on the direct effects of LBA filtering (filtered vs. tion assessed participants’ psychological distance, trust, and behavioral
unfiltered LBA) on psychological distance, trust, and behavioral inten­ intention toward the advertised stores and products. The second section
tion (H1); the serial mediating role of psychological distance and trust in included manipulation checks for LBA filtering, with two items devel­
the relationship between LBA filtering and behavioral intention (H2); oped by the authors of this research based on the definitions of the
and how consumers’ regulatory focus (prevention vs. promotion focus) construct. The last section collected participants’ regulatory focus and
moderates the effects of LBA filtering on psychological distance (H3). demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, education level, and
Study 2 replicates H1 and H2 to develop the robustness of the findings occupation.
and further investigates how consumers’ purchase plans (with vs. All items were measured using a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1
without a purchase plan) moderate the effect of LBA filtering on psy­ (highly disagree) to 6 (highly agree) to avoid a central tendency of re­
chological distance (i.e., H4). sponses (Chang, 1994). The psychological distance was measured by
This research focused on the retail segment because retail outlets are four items partially modified from Darke et al. (2016) and partially
projected to contribute USD 90.8 billion in 2030, representing almost developed by the authors of this research to embrace temporal, spatial,
41.4% of the global LBA market (USD 219.4 billion) (ReportLinker, social, and hypothetical distance. Four items, adopted from Darke et al.
2024). To obtain findings applicable to real market conditions, this (2016) and Zhou (2013), were used to evaluate trust. Behavioral
research refers to the work of Shieh et al. (2019) to conduct experiments intention, including the intention to inquire, purchase, and recommend,
in a large shopping mall in southern Taiwan. was assessed by four items modified from Darke et al. (2016), Goyette
et al. (2010), and Tan and Zhao (2003). The regulatory focus was
3.2. Study 1 evaluated by two items, one for prevention focus (reversed item) and
one for promotion focus, modified from Fellner et al. (2007), Freitas and
3.2.1. Design, participants, and procedure Higgins (2002), and Lee et al. (2010) (see Table 2 for the scale items).
Study 1 tested the effect of LBA filtering and consumers’ regulatory A SmartPLS version 4.0 structural equation model (SEM) was
focus on psychological distance, trust, and behavioral intention, as well adopted to assess the measurement (Ringle et al., 2022). All factor
as the serial mediation of psychological distance and trust. A 2 (LBA loadings of psychological distance, trust, behavioral intention, and
filtering: filtered vs. unfiltered) × 2 (regulatory focus: prevention vs. regulatory focus were significant (p < 0.01) and greater than 0.5
promotion) between-subject experimental design was conducted. In the (Table 2). Table 3 shows that the composite reliability (rho-A, rho-C)
experiment, a smartphone LBA app was created. Numerous advertise­ and Cronbach’s α were above 0.7 for all variables, which indicated
ments were designed and organized according to the product classifi­ that the scales had high consistency and good reliability. The average
cation of the shopping mall, a 4.3 million sq. ft. shopping district with variance extracted (AVE) exceeded the minimum threshold value of 0.5,
centralized management. The advertisements are divided into nine confirming the convergent validity of the measures (Hair et al., 2019).
categories: home life, food court, sports and leisure, international bou­ The results also revealed that the square root of each variable’s AVE was
tiques, cinema entertainment, cosmetics, parent-child world, fashion higher than the correlation with any other variable (Fornell and Larcker,
clothing, and 3C (computers, communications, and consumer elec­ 1981), indicating good discriminant validity.
tronics) technology products.
Participants were voluntarily recruited at and near the mall, within a 3.2.3. Manipulation check
3-km radius, and were randomly assigned to either the filtered or This research examined the two LBA filtering approaches by asking
unfiltered LBA condition. All participants were instructed to turn on the participants to rate the extent to which the received advertisements
global positioning system (GPS) function on their smartphones to were what they had anticipated. The findings show that both approaches
receive advertisements from the app. Participants in the filtered and are effective (Mfiltered = 5.51 vs. Munfiltered = 2.13; t (198) = 44.65, p <
unfiltered LBA scenario were invited to try out an LBA app, following the 0.001), and the manipulation was successful.
steps illustrated in Fig. 2. Then, they had to complete a questionnaire
regarding their feelings about the app, advertisements, and advertised 3.2.4. Hypothesis testing
store and product. Consumers’ regulatory focus was measured and then To test H1 (effect of LBA filtering on psychological distance, trust,
grouped into either a prevention or promotion focus condition using a and behavioral intention), three separate one-way ANOVAs on psycho­
tertile method. Each participant received a 100 NTD (New Taiwan logical distance, trust, and behavioral intention with LBA filtering as the
Dollar; 1 USD ~ 31 NTD) coupon as a reward upon completion of the independent variable were conducted. The results indicated a significant

5
C.-H. Shieh et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 82 (2025) 104113

Fig. 2. Experiment scenarios.

6
C.-H. Shieh et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 82 (2025) 104113

Table 1 effect of LBA filtering on behavioral intention was significant (β = 0.552,

Participants’ profile. t = 4.14, p < 0.001, CI95% = [0.289, 0.815]). Second, two indirect ef­
Variable Study 1 Study 2 fects were significant (Ind. 1: β = 0.154, SE = 0.062; 95% CI95% =
[0.039, 0.283]; Ind. 3: β = 0.110, SE = 0.049; CI95% = [0.025, 0.216];
n % n %
however, the other indirect path was insignificant (Ind. 2: β = 0.048, SE
Gender = 0.039, p > 0.10; CI95% = [− 0.021, 0.128]). The analysis indicated that
Male 102 51.00% 72 45.00%
Female 98 49.00% 88 55.00%
LBA filtering was serially mediated through psychological distance and
Education trust to influence behavioral intention. Thus, H2 was supported.
High school 47 23.50% 25 10.00% To verify H3 (moderation of regulatory focus on the effect of LBA
Bachelor’s degree 109 54.50% 171 68.40% filtering on psychological distance), a two-way ANCOVA was conducted
Graduate degree 44 22.00% 72 21.60%
on psychological distance with LBA filtering and regulatory focus as the
Marriage status
Married 175 87.50% 115 71.90% independent variables and age, gender, and education as covariates. The
Unmarried 25 12.50% 45 28.10% results showed no significant effects of age, gender, or education on
Occupation psychological distance (all ps > 0.1). There was a significant interaction
Student 76 38.00% 64 40.00% between LBA filtering and regulatory focus on psychological distance (F
Householder 5 2.50% 8 5.00%
Employee 99 49.50% 78 49.70%
(1,193) = 241.76, p < 0.001). Further analyses of the simple main ef­
Other 20 10.00% 10 6.30% fects are shown in Fig. 3a. In the condition of prevention focus, filtered
Monthly income (NTD)a LBA (vs. unfiltered LBA) led to significantly shorter psychological dis­
Under 10,000 83 41.50% 62 38.80% tance (Mfiltered = 5.16 vs. Munfiltered = 2.88, higher scores indicate
10,001–20,000 94 47.00% 26 16.30%
shorter psychological distance; t = 21.02, p < 0.001). In the promotion
20,001–40,000 17 8.50% 62 38.70%
Above 40,000 6 3.00% 10 6.30% focus condition, however, filtered LBA caused a longer psychological
distance than unfiltered LBA (Mfiltered = 3.53 vs. Munfiltered = 4.21; t =
Note.
a − 5.62, p < 0.001). Thus, H3 was supported. The effect of LBA filtering in
NTD: new Taiwan dollar; 1 USD ~31 NTD.
shortening psychological distance was more prominent for consumers
with a prevention focus than with a promotion focus.
Table 2
Scale items. 3.3. Study 2
Variable Factor Loading
3.3.1. Design, participants, and procedure
Study Study
Study 2 examined how LBA filtering and consumers’ purchase plans
1 2
affect psychological distance, trust, and behavioral intention. A 2 (LBA
Psychological Distance (revised items) filtering: filtered vs. unfiltered) × 2 (purchase plan: with vs. without a
I think I will visit the store soon (temporal distance). 0.741 0.811
I think the store is nearby (spatial distance). 0.745 0.847
purchase plan) between-subject experiment was conducted. This study
I think the advertisements are relevant to me (social 0.805 0.850 followed a procedure similar to that used in Study 1 to manipulate LBA
distance). filtering. With or without a purchase plan was manipulated by asking
I feel realistic about the stores and the advertised products 0.793 0.856 the participants whether they had a specific plan or goal for visiting the
(hypothetical distance).
shopping mall. According to Hair et al. (2019), to ensure the general­
Trust
I trust the information provided by the store. 0.838 0.943 izability of the results, the ratio of samples to scale items should be
I rely on promotional ads to determine my shopping goals. 0.813 0.941 better than 10:1; thus, the sample size for 13 scale items should be over
I believe the store will fulfill the promotional commitment. 0.823 0.934 130 in Study 2. A total of 160 valid participants were included (55%
Behavioral Intention female; mean age = 30.49; age range = 16–75). A detailed profile of the
I would like to know more about this promotion activity. 0.762 0.914
I am going to the store to learn more about the promotional 0.837 0.929
participants is provided in Table 1.
items. In the scenario of “filtered LBA + with a purchase plan,” the par­
I am willing to go to the store to make a purchase. 0.809 0.914 ticipants who were confirmed to have a purchase plan were asked to
I would recommend that others buy in the store. 0.700 0.915 specify their shopping goal (e.g., dining) and then to filter the adver­
Manipulation Check: LBA Filtering
tisements by selecting the ad category (e.g., food court) according to
I can choose the advertisements according to my preferences. 0.961 0.971
The advertisements I chose match my needs. 0.970 0.976 their shopping goal. The app filtered the stores of the selected category
Regulatory Focus (Study 1 only) and then automatically sent advertisements of the selected stores to the
I often worry about buying the wrong products (revised 0.896 ​ participants when they were within a 20-m radius of any of the selected
items). stores. In the scenario of “filtered LBA + without a purchase plan,” the
I often compare many messages to acquire more benefits. 0.861
participants who were confirmed to have no specific plan for visiting the
​

mall did not need to specify their shopping goal but still needed to select
effect of LBA filtering on psychological distance (Mfiltered = 4.26 vs. an ad category in which they were interested. The app filtered the stores
Munfiltered = 3.92; F(1,198) = 6.64, p < 0.01), trust (Mfiltered = 4.34 vs. of the category and then automatically sent advertisements of the
Munfiltered = 3.92; F(1,198) = 8.57, p < 0.01), and behavioral intention selected stores to the participants when they were within a 20-m radius
(Mfiltered = 4.32 vs. Munfiltered = 3.78; F(1,198) = 11.44, p < 0.001). of any of the filtered stores.
Consumers in the filtered scenario had a higher score on psychological In the scenario of “unfiltered LBA + with a purchase plan,” the
distance than did those in the unfiltered scenario (high scores imply participants who were confirmed to have a purchase plan were asked to
short psychological distance); thus, H1a was confirmed. Compared with specify their shopping goal but did not need to select an ad category. The
unfiltered LBA, consumers in the filtered LBA had greater trust and more app automatically sent advertisements of any stores of the nine cate­
favorable behavioral intention, confirming H1b and H1c. gories to the participants when they were within a 20-m radius of any
To test H2 (serial mediation of psychology distance and trust in the store. In the scenario of “unfiltered LBA + without a purchase plan,” the
effect of LBA filtering on behavioral intention), a PROCESS Model 6 participants who were confirmed to have no specific plan for visiting the
(5000 bootstrapping samples, 95% confidence interval; Hayes, 2022) mall did not need to specify their shopping goal or select an ad category.
was conducted. The results are presented in Table 4. First, the direct The app automatically sent advertisements of any stores of the nine
categories to the participants when they were within a 20-m radius of

7
C.-H. Shieh et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 82 (2025) 104113

Table 3
Descriptive statistics, reliability, validity, and correlations of study variables.
Variable M SD CR AVE α 1 2 3 4 5

Study 1
1. LBA Filtering 3.87 1.78 0.966 0.932 0.927 0.965 ​ ​ ​ ​
2. Psychological Distancea 4.09 0.94 0.857 0.601 0.779 0.162 0.775 ​ ​ ​
3. Trust 4.14 1.02 0.866 0.683 0.768 0.183 0.773 0.827 ​ ​
4. Behavioral Intention 4.06 0.97 0.856 0.600 0.778 0.267 0.733 0.769 0.775 ​
5. Regulatory Focus 3.26 1.29 0.906 0.764 0.847 0.376 0.207 0.251 0.299 0.874
Study 2
1. LBA Filtering 3.78 1.87 0.945 0.947 0.945 0.973 ​ ​ ​ ​
2. Psychological Distancea 3.97 1.20 0.869 0.708 0.869 0.255 0.841 ​ ​ ​
3. Trust 4.18 0.71 0.934 0.884 0.884 0.017 0.270 0.940 ​ ​
4. Behavioral Intention 4.05 1.38 0.938 0.843 0.843 0.094 0.536 0.793 0.918 ​

Note. M = mean, SD = standard deviation, CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; α = Cronbach’s alpha; the diagonal cells (marked in bold)
contain the square root of the AVE for each construct; correlations are reported below the diagonal. a. psychological distance was measured by reversed items, and
higher mean scores indicate shorter psychological distance.

trust, and behavioral intention), three one-way ANOVAs were con­

Table 4
ducted on psychological distance, trust, and behavioral intention with
Effects of LBA filtering on behavioral intention.
LBA filtering as the independent variable. The findings indicate a sig­
Effect β SE 95% LLCI 95% ULCI nificant effect of LBA filter on psychological distance (Mfiltered = 4.25 vs.
Study 1 Munfiltered = 3.69; F(1,153) = 56.09, p < 0.01; high scores imply short
Total 0.552 0.133 0.289 0.815 psychological distance), trust (M filtered = 4.28 vs. M unfiltered = 4.08; F
Direct 0.240 0.087 0.081 0.399
(1,153) = 4.39, p < 0.05), and behavioral intention (Mfiltered = 5.17 vs.
Indirect 0.312 0.109 0.097 0.528
Ind. 1 0.154 0.062 0.039 0.283 M unfiltered = 2.95; F(1,153) = 428.78, p < 0.001). Consumers in the
Ind. 2 0.048 0.039 − 0.021 0.128 filtered (vs. unfiltered) scenario had a shorter psychological distance,
Ind. 3 0.110 0.049 0.025 0.216 greater trust, and more favorable behavioral intention. Thus, H1a, H1b,
Study 2 and H1c received additional support.
Total 2.155 0.128 1.966 2.472
To replicate H2 (serial mediation of psychology distance and trust), a
Direct 1.985 0.107 1.774 2.197
Indirect 0.170 0.061 0.055 0.301 PROCESS Model 6 (5000 bootstrapping samples, 95% confidence in­
Ind. 1 0.165 0.058 0.057 0.286 terval; Hayes, 2022) was conducted. The results are illustrated in
Ind. 2 0.002 0.008 − 0.012 0.025 Table 4. First, the direct effect of LBA filtering on behavioral intention
Ind. 3 0.003 0.006 0.000 0.016
was significant (β = 2.155, SE = 0.128, t = 18.52, p < 0.001, CI95% =
Note. SE = standard error, LLCI = the lower limit confidence interval, ULCI = [1.966, 2.472]). Second, two indirect effects were significant (Ind. 1: β
the upper limit confidence interval. = 0.165, SE = 0.058; 95% CI95% = [0.057, 0.286]; Ind. 3: β = 0.003, SE
Indirect effect paths: = 0.006; CI95% = [0.000, 0.016]); however, the other indirect path was
Ind. 1: LBA filtering → psychological distance → behavioral intention. insignificant (Ind. 2: β = 0.002, SE = 0.008; CI 5% = [− 0.012, 0.025]).
Ind. 2: LBA filtering → trust → behavioral intention. The analysis indicated that LBA filtering was serially mediated through
Ind. 3: LBA filtering → psychological distance → trust → behavioral intention.
psychological distance and trust to influence behavioral intention. Thus,
H2 received additional support.
any store. To test H4 (moderation of purchase plans on the effect of LBA
filtering on psychological distance), a two-way ANCOVA was conducted
3.3.2. Measures on psychological distance with LBA filtering and purchase plans as the
After trying out the LBA app for a few minutes, each participant independent variables and age, gender, and education as covariates. The
completed a questionnaire. The measurement items were the same as in result revealed no significant differences in psychological distance
Study 1, except that regulatory focus was not measured in Study 2. A across different ages, genders, or levels of education (all ps > 0.1).
SmartPLS version 4.0 SEM was adopted to assess the measurement Meanwhile, there was a significant interaction between LBA filtering
(Ringle et al., 2022). All factor loadings of psychological distance, trust, and purchase plans on psychological distance (F(1,153) = 664.93, p <
and behavioral intention were significant (p < 0.01) and greater than 0.001). The results of further analyses of simple main effects are shown
0.5 (Table 2). Table 3 shows that the composite reliability and Cron­ in Fig. 3b. In the condition of with a purchase plan, filtered LBA filtering
bach’s α were above 0.7 for all variables, which indicated that the scales (vs. unfiltered LBA) led to significantly shorter psychological distance
had high consistency and good reliability. The AVE exceeded the min­ (Mfiltered = 5.57 vs. Munfiltered = 3.00; t(78) = 23.43, p < 0.001; higher
imum threshold value of 0.5, confirming the convergent validity of the scores indicate shorter psychological distance). In the without a pur­
measures (Hair et al., 2019). The results also revealed that the square chase plan condition, however, filtered LBA caused a longer psycho­
root of each variable’s AVE was higher than the correlation with any logical distance than did unfiltered LBA (Mfiltered = 2.94 vs. Munfiltered =
other variable, indicating good discriminant validity (Fornell and 4.38; t(78) = − 12.64, p < 0.001). The effect of LBA filtering in short­
Larcker, 1981). ening psychological distance was more prominent for consumers with a
purchase plan than those without a purchase plan. Thus, H4 was
3.3.3. Manipulation check supported.
The two LBA filtering conditions were examined by using the same
method as in Study 1. The findings show that both LBA filtering ap­ 4. General discussion and conclusions
proaches are effective (Mfiltered = 4.76 vs. Munfiltered = 3.01; t(158) =
10.86, p < 0.001), and the manipulation was successful. 4.1. Findings and theoretical contributions

3.3.4. Hypothesis testing As the market for LBA has grown exponentially, LBA has become a
To replicate H1 (effect of LBA filtering on psychological distance, research area that has captured substantial attention. An analysis of the

8
C.-H. Shieh et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 82 (2025) 104113

Fig. 3. Moderation of regulatory focus and purchase plan.

LBA literature by Bauer and Strauss (2016) revealed that only 1.5% of intentions.
studies used social science experimental methods to examine LBA uti­ In addition to bridging a methodological research gap, this work
lization; thus, the authors advocated for more empirical experiments to makes theoretical contributions to understanding the determinants of
address this topic. Gutierrez et al. (2019) also encouraged using exper­ LBA acceptance.
imental studies to manipulate better the variables that affect consumers’ Bernritter et al. (2021) urge research into the impact of trust on LBA
acceptance of LBA. As one of the few field experimental studies inves­ effectiveness, and this study is among the first few to tackle this issue.
tigating consumers’ utilization of LBA, this research demonstrates sig­ Through replicated validations in two studies, this research establishes
nificant causal effects of LBA filtering, consumers’ regulatory focus, and the robustness of the relationship between LBA filtering, psychological
purchase plans on psychological distance, trust, and behavioral distance, trust, and behavioral intention. The findings indicate that

9
C.-H. Shieh et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 82 (2025) 104113

consumers perceive filtered LBA as significantly linked to shorter psy­ can utilize the scale developed in this research or Fellner et al.’s (2007)
chological distance, leading to higher trust and more favorable behav­ Regulatory Focus Scale to segment their consumers. Based on the reg­
ioral intentions than unfiltered LBA. This work is the first to examine the ulatory focus of their target audience, marketers can then choose to offer
impact of LBA system design through LBA filtering on the effectiveness LBA with or without filtering mechanisms to prevention-focused or
of LBA marketing. It also contributes to the LBA literature by adding to promotion-focused consumers, respectively.
our understanding of consumers’ psychological and behavioral re­ Finally, this research demonstrated that consumers without a pre­
sponses to LBA. Trust is critical in consumer-provider relationships, defined purchase plan respond more positively to unfiltered LBA which
especially for retailing (Alzaidi and Agag, 2022; Darke et al., 2016; Jung provides a substantial amount of information. While previous research
and Heo, 2022; Le et al., 2024). While the impact of psychological dis­ has indicated that consumers tend to rely on less information and spend
tance on trust has been verified in the e-retailing context (e.g., Darke less time searching for and evaluating information in unplanned pur­
et al., 2016), it has seldom been investigated in the context of LBA. This chases compared to planned ones (Dowling and Staelin, 1994), this
research demonstrates that the relationship between LBA filtering and doesn’t imply that consumers with unplanned purchases do not need
trust is mediated by psychological distance, thereby reinforcing the more information. Because consumers tend to make risk-seeking de­
significant role of psychological distance in fostering trust in the LBA cisions to limit errors of omission (Rook and Fisher, 1995; Spears, 2006),
context. providing more information can offer them a greater chance to fulfill
In addition, prior studies have seldom explored how consumers’ their desire for pleasure and gratification. Therefore, marketers can
individual differences interact with LBA system design to influence the stimulate unplanned or impulsive purchases by offering substantial in­
effects of LBA. Drawing on construal level theory, regulatory fit theory, formation through automated mechanisms like unfiltered LBA, where
and regret theory (e.g., Crowe and Higgins, 1997; Lee et al., 2010; consumers require little or no effort to seek information. LBA service
Loomes and Sugden, 1982; Spears, 2006; Trope and Liberman, 2010), providers can incorporate a simple function of asking consumers about
the current research investigates how consumers’ regulatory focus and their purchase plans or purposes in their LBA systems. If the consumers
purchase plans moderate the effect of LBA filtering, thus advancing the specify a purchase plan or purpose, the filtering interfaces that allow the
LBA literature in clarifying the boundary conditions for the effects of consumers to select preferred product categories could automatically
LBA filtering. By showing that the ability of LBA filtering to reduce appear. By contrast, if the consumers do not specify a purchase plan,
psychological distance is significantly heightened among consumers unfiltered LBA should be provided.
with a prevention focus and perchance plans, it offers insights into more
effective segmentation and targeting strategies in the LBA market. 4.3. Conclusions, limitations, and future research
Lastly, this study enhances our comprehension of how unplanned
purchases relate to LBA effectiveness. Traditionally, consumers’ un­ Overall, the current research is the first to investigate the effect of an
planned purchases are evoked by the limited information of their own LBA filtering mechanism in a smart service platform. The research
experiences or from what they can obtain in the store (e.g., product clarifies how LBA filtering sequentially contributes to psychological
displays and in-store crowds). Consequently, they typically spend less distance, trust, and behavioral intention. It also provides evidence that
time searching for and evaluating information before making a purchase consumers’ regulatory focus and purchase plans interfere with the above
(Dowling and Staelin, 1994). However, the advent of LBA has changed effects. As more research is conducted to understand the effect of LBA
the dynamics. When consumers are near or entering a store, they may filtering and the boundary conditions of its effect, LBA system design
receive a significant amount of information through LBA. In this situa­ and marketing are likely to become more effective.
tion, consumers do not necessarily spend less time searching and eval­ The current research’s limitations open avenues for future research.
uating information in unplanned purchases than in planned purchases. Specifically, this research leverages the relationship between decision
Also, having less information does not always align better with con­ strategies and construal levels to propose hypotheses regarding the
sumers’ needs and mindsets for unplanned purchases compared to moderating influence of consumers’ regulatory focus and purchase
planned ones. Notably, this research shows that consumers who make plans. Although this link can be inferred from the literature, particularly
unplanned purchases prefer to have a large amount of information via from construct level theory, regulatory fit theory, and regret theory (e.
unfiltered LBA, potentially reflecting their risk-seeking strategy to g., Crowe and Higgins, 1997; Lee et al., 2010; Loomes and Sugden, 1982;
minimize regret (Luo et al., 2021; Spears, 2006). This study is the first to Trope and Liberman, 2010), this research did not directly examine the
explore the distinctions between planned and unplanned purchases in an connection between decision strategies and construal levels under our
LBA context. It contributes to the literature on unplanned or impulse hypotheses. For a more comprehensive design, future research could
purchases by showing that unfiltered (compared to filtered) LBA pro­ assess decision types and construal levels among consumers with vary­
vides more information and elicits more favorable responses in terms of ing regulatory focuses and purchase plans to gain deeper insights into
psychological distance, trust, and behavioral intention among con­ how decision strategies and construal levels impact psychological dis­
sumers making unplanned purchases. tance, trust, and behavioral intention.
Moreover, given that the retail sector constitutes the primary
4.2. Managerial implications segment of the LBA market (ReportLinker, 2024), this study developed
an LBA filtering mechanism and validated its impact within a large
This research also has implications for marketers. First, the findings shopping center, focusing on retailers selling products with lower
indicate that consumers exhibit shorter psychological distances and knowledge required. However, the amount of information needed for
higher trust toward self-filtered advertisements. Therefore, LBA mar­ decision-making, the importance of trust, and the likelihood of un­
keters can improve their system design by incorporating filtering planned purchases may vary across products with different levels of
mechanisms that return some control to consumers and, thus, evoke knowledge required (Cobb and Hoyer, 1986). To thoroughly understand
trust from these consumers. The implementation of LBA filtering can be the boundary conditions affecting the effectiveness of LBA filtering
simple. For instance, LBA providers can equip their apps or websites mechanisms, future research could compare the impacts of LBA filtering
with a few layers of interactive interfaces, enabling consumers to select and consumers’ purchase plans on trust across products requiring
product or outlet categories based on their preferences at their different levels of knowledge.
convenience. Through two experiments, this research examined the effects of LBA
Second, this research revealed that filtered LBA elicits more positive filtering among 360 Taiwanese consumers in total. Although the sample
responses among prevention-focused consumers, while unfiltered LBA is size for each experiment satisfied the criteria suggested by the literature,
more attractive to promotion-focused consumers. As a result, marketers the sample is relatively small and could be expanded. Besides, it should

10
C.-H. Shieh et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 82 (2025) 104113

be cautious when applying the research findings to consumers with a Cheng, J., Chen, B., Huang, Z., 2023. Collective-based ad transparency in targeted hotel
advertising: consumers’ regulatory focus underlying the crowd safety effect.
national culture quite different from Taiwanese or Chinese. Future
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 72, 103257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
research could testify to the effects of LBA filtering using a large-scale jretconser.2023.103257.
sample to increase the effect size and compare the differences in the Cobb, C.J., Hoyer, W.D., 1986. Planned versus impulse purchase behavior. J. Retailing
effects of LBA filtering across consumers with varying cultures. 62 (4), 384–409. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1988-12512-001.
Crowe, E., Higgins, E.T., 1997. Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: promotion
The experimental design used in this study tried to control for the and prevention in decision-making. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. 69 (2), 117–132.
influences of external factors on the results as much as possible, such as https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.2675.
shopping occasions and participants’ national culture and experience Darke, P.R., Brady, M.K., Benedicktus, R.L., Wilson, A.E., 2016. Feeling close from Afar:
the role of psychological distance in offsetting distrust in unfamiliar online retailers.
using mobile phones. Besides, this research included participants’ de­ J. Retailing 92 (3), 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2016.02.001.
mographics as covariates in the hypothesis testing and found no in­ Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R., 1989. User acceptance of computer
fluences of participants’ demographics on the results. However, technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 35 (8), 982–1003.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982.
alternative explanations cannot be completely ruled out. Future Dowling, G.R., Staelin, R., 1994. A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling
research could test variables that might affect consumers’ acceptance of activity. J. Consum. Res. 21 (1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1086/209386.
filtered and unfiltered LBA. For example, the choice overload effect Earp, B.D., Trafimow, D., 2015. Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in
social psychology. Front. Psychol. 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00621,
(Reutskaja et al., 2020) may be an alternative explanation for the more 621–621.
favorable reactions toward filtered than unfiltered LBA because filtered Fang, Y.H., Chiu, C.M., Wang, E.T., 2011. Understanding customers’ satisfaction and
LBA may alleviate consumers’ cognitive load by reducing the size of repurchase intentions: an integration of IS success model, trust, and justice. Internet
Res. 21 (4), 479–503. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241111158335.
options.
Fellner, B., Holler, M., Kirchler, E., Schabmann, A., 2007. Regulatory focus scale (RFS):
development of a scale to record dispositional regulatory focus. Swiss J. Psychol. 66
CRediT authorship contribution statement (2), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185.66.2.109.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18 (1), 39–50. https://doi.org/
Chih-Hui Shieh: Funding acquisition, Data curation. I-Ling Ling: 10.2307/3151312.
Formal analysis. Yenming J. Chen: Writing – original draft. Yi-Fen Liu: Freitas, A.L., Higgins, E.T., 2002. Enjoying goal-directed action: the role of regulatory fit.
Psychol. Sci. 13 (1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00401.
Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization. Freitas, A.L., Salovey, P., Liberman, N., 2001. Abstract and concrete self-evaluative goals.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80 (3), 410–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.80.3.410.
Goyette, I., Ricard, L., Bergeron, J., Marticotte, F., 2010. e-WOM scale: word-of-mouth
Declaration of competing interest
measurement scale for e-services context. Can. J. Adm. Sci. 27 (1), 5–23. https://doi.
org/10.1002/cjas.129.
There are no conflicts of interest to declare. Gupta, S., 2013. For mobile devices, think apps, not ads. Harv. Bus. Rev. 91 (3), 70–75.
https://hbr.org/2013/03/for-mobile-devices-think-apps-not-ads.
Gutierrez, A., O’Leary, S., Rana, N.P., Dwivedi, Y.K., Calle, T., 2019. Using privacy
Data availability calculus theory to explore entrepreneurial directions in mobile location-based
advertising: identifying intrusiveness as the critical risk factor. Comput. Hum. Behav.
Data will be made available on request. 95, 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.015.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2019. Multivariate Data Analysis.
Cengage.
References Harwood, J., Lin, M.C., 2000. Affiliation, pride, exchange, and distance in grandparents’
accounts of relationships with their college-aged grandchildren. J. Commun. 50 (3),
31–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02851.x.
Allmendinger, G., Lombreglia, R., 2005. Four strategies for the age of smart services.
Hayes, A.F., 2022. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process
Harvard Bus. Rev. 83 (10), 131. https://courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-1/f08/r
Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. Guilford Press.
eadings/StrategiesSmartServices.pdf.
Hetts, J.J., Boninger, D.S., Armor, D.A., Gleicher, F., Nathanson, A., 2000. The influence
Aguirre, E., Mahr, D., Grewal, D., De Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., 2015. Unraveling the
of anticipated counterfactual regret on behavior. Psychol. Market. 17 (4), 345–368.
personalization paradox: the effect of information collection and trust-building
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200004)17:4<345::AID-MAR5>3.0.CO;
strategies on online advertisement effectiveness. J. Retailing 91 (1), 34–49. https://
2-M.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2014.09.005.
Higgins, E.T., 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. Am. Psychol. 52 (12), 1280–1300.
Alzaidi, M.S., Agag, G., 2022. The role of trust and privacy concerns in using social media
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280.
for e-retail services: the moderating role of COVID-19. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 68,
Higgins, E.T., 2000. Making a good decision: value from fit. Am. Psychol. 55 (11),
103042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103042.
1217–1230. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1217.
Andrews, M., Luo, X., Fang, Z., Ghose, A., 2016. Mobile ad effectiveness: hyper-
Hong, W., Thong, J.Y., 2013. Internet privacy concerns: an integrated conceptualization
contextual targeting with crowdedness. Market. Sci. 35 (2), 218–233. https://doi.
and four empirical studies. MIS Q. 37 (1), 275–298. https://doi.org/10.25300/
org/10.1287/mksc.2015.0905.
MISQ/2013/37.1.12.
Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., 2006. The association between psychological
Jung, A.R., Heo, J., 2022. The effects of mobile phone use motives on the intention to use
distance and construal level: evidence from an implicit association test. J. Exp.
location-based advertising: the mediating role of media affinity and perceived trust
Psychol. Gen. 135 (4), 609–622. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.4.609.
and risk. Int. J. Advert. 41 (5), 930–947. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Bauer, C., Strauss, C., 2016. Location-based advertising on mobile devices: a literature
02650487.2021.1974204.
review and analysis. Manag. Rev. Quart. 66 (3), 159–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Killeen, P.R., 2005. Replicability, confidence and priors. Psychol. Sci. 16 (12),
s11301-015-0118-z.
1009–1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01653.x.
Beatty, S.E., Ferrell, M.E., 1998. Impulse buying: modeling its precursors. J. Retailing 74
Kim, Y.B., Yoon, Y., Kim, Y., Lee, B.G., 2012. Strategy to maximize mobile advertising
(2), 169–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(99)80092-X.
effect in the smart environment: focused on DuCoffe model and TAM. Int. J. Smart
Behera, R.K., Gunasekaran, A., Gupta, S., Kamboj, S., Bala, P.K., 2020. Personalized
Home 6 (3), 9–16. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=p
digital marketing recommender engine. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 53, 101799.
df&doi=3a219d375841792aa1a41636f514110f52bf083c.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.03.026.
Khan, A., Rezaei, S., Valaei, N., 2022. Social commerce advertising avoidance and
Bell, D.E., 1982. Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Oper. Res. 30 (5),
shopping cart abandonment: a fs/QCA analysis of German consumers. J. Retailing
961–981. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.30.5.961.
Consum. Serv. 67, 102976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.102976.
Benedicktus, R.L., Brady, M.K., Darke, P.R., Voorhees, C.M., 2010. Conveying
Le, H.T.P.M., Yoo, W., Park, J., 2024. The effects of brand trustworthiness and credibility
trustworthiness to online consumers: reactions to consensus, physical store presence,
on location-based advertising: moderating effects of privacy concern and social
brand familiarity, and generalized suspicion. J. Retailing 86 (4), 322–335. https://
influence. Int. J. Advert. 43 (5), 798–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/
doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2010.04.002.
02650487.2023.2251287.
Bernritter, S.F., Ketelaar, P.E., Sotgiu, F., 2021. Behaviorally targeted location-based
Lee, A.Y., Keller, P.A., Sternthal, B., 2010. Value from regulatory construal fit: the
mobile marketing. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 49 (4), 677–702. https://doi.org/10.1007/
persuasive impact of fit between consumer goals and message concreteness.
s11747-021-00784-0.
J. Consum. Res. 36 (5), 735–747. https://doi.org/10.1086/605591.
Chang, L., 1994. A psychometric evaluation of 4-point and 6-point Likert-type scales in
Liberman, N., Idson, L.C., Camacho, C.J., Higgins, E.T., 1999. Promotion and prevention
relation to reliability and validity. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 18 (3), 205–215. https://doi.
choices between stability and change. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77 (6), 1135–1145.
org/10.1177/014662169401800302.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1135.
Chen, J.V., Ross, W., Huang, S.F., 2008. Privacy, trust, and justice considerations for
Liberman, N., Trope, Y., 2008. The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science
location-based mobile telecommunication services. Info 10 (4), 30–45. https://doi.
322 (5905), 1201–1205. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1161958.
org/10.1108/14636690810887526.

11
C.-H. Shieh et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 82 (2025) 104113

Lin, T.T., Paragas, F., Bautista, J.R., 2016. Determinants of mobile consumers’ perceived Thompson, C.J., Locander, W.B., Pollio, H.R., 1990. The lived meaning of free choice: an
value of location-based advertising and user responses. Int. J. Mobile Commun. 14 existential-phenomenological description of everyday consumer experiences of
(2), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMC.2016.075019. contemporary married women. J. Consum. Res. 17 (3), 346–361. https://doi.org/
Loomes, G., Sugden, R., 1982. Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice 10.1086/208562.
under uncertainty. Econ. J. 92 (368), 805–824. https://doi.org/10.2307/2232669. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., 2010. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol.
Luan, J., Filieri, R., Xiao, J., Han, Q., Zhu, B., Wang, T., 2023. Product information and Rev. 117 (2), 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020319.
green consumption: an integrated perspective of regulatory focus, self-construal, and Unni, R., Harmon, R., 2007. Perceived effectiveness of push vs. pull mobile location
temporal distance. Inf. Manag. 60 (2), 103746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. based advertising. J. Interact. Advert. 7 (2), 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/
im.2022.103746. 15252019.2007.10722129.
Luo, H., Cheng, S., Zhou, W., Song, W., Yu, S., Lin, X., 2021. Research on the impact of Verhagen, T., Meents, S., Merikivi, J., Moes, A., Weltevreden, J., 2022. How location-
online promotions on consumers’ impulsive online shopping intentions. J. Theor. based messages influence customers’ store visit attitudes: an integrative model of
Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 16 (6), 2386–2404. https://doi.org/10.3390/ message value. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 50 (7), 781–798. https://doi.org/
jtaer16060131. 10.1108/IJRDM-09-2020-0364.
Meents, S., Verhagen, T., Merikivi, J., Weltevreden, J., 2020. Persuasive location-based Wang, E.S.T., Lin, R.L., 2017. Perceived quality factors of location-based apps on trust,
messaging to increase store visits: an exploratory study of fashion shoppers. perceived privacy risk, and continuous usage intention. Behav. Inf. Technol. 36 (1),
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 57, 102174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1143033.
jretconser.2020.102174. Wu, C.L., Ma, N.K., 2022. The impact of customised mobile marketing on passenger
Mogilner, C., Aaker, J.L., Pennington, G.L., 2008. Time will tell: the distant appeal of shopping Behaviour in the airport terminal. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 66, 102941.
promotion and imminent appeal of prevention. J. Consum. Res. 34 (5), 670–681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.102941.
https://doi.org/10.1086/521901. Wünderlich, N.V., Heinonen, K., Ostrom, A.L., Patrizio, L., Sousa, R., Voss, C.,
Morgan, R.M., Hunt, S.D., 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Lemmink, J.G.A.M., 2015. ‘Futurizing’ smart service: implications for service
J. Market. 58 (3), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252308. researchers and managers. J. Serv. Market. 29 (6/7), 442–447. https://doi.org/
Park, C.W., Iyer, E.S., Smith, D.C., 1989. The effects of situational factors on in-store 10.1108/JSM-01-2015-0040.
grocery shopping behavior: the role of store environment and time available for Xia, L., Sudharshan, D., 2002. Effects of interruptions on consumer online decision
shopping. J. Consum. Res. 15 (4), 422–433. https://doi.org/10.1086/209182. processes. J. Consum. Psychol. 12 (3), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1207/
Pennington, G.L., Roese, N.J., 2003. Regulatory focus and temporal distance. J. Exp. Soc. S15327663JCP1203_08.
Psychol. 39 (6), 563–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00058-1. Xu, H., Teo, H.H., Tan, B.C., Agarwal, R., 2009. The role of push-pull technology in
ReportLinker, 2024. Worldwide industry analysis: location based advertising. htt privacy calculus: the case of location-based services. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 26 (3),
ps://www.reportlinker.com/p05818085/Global-Location-Based-Advertising-LBA- 135–174. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222260305.
Industry.html?utm_source=GNW. Xu, H., Luo, X.R., Carroll, J.M., Rosson, M.B., 2011. The personalization privacy paradox:
Reutskaja, E., Iyengar, S., Fasolo, B., Misuraca, R., 2020. Cognitive and affective an exploratory study of decision making process for location-aware marketing.
consequences of information and choice overload. In: Routledge Handbook of Decis. Support Syst. 51 (1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.11.017.
Bounded Rationality. Routledge, pp. 625–636 chrome-extension:// Zeelenberg, M., Beattie, J., Van der Pligt, J., De Vries, N.K., 1996. Consequences of regret
efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/113571/1/Fasolo_c aversion: effects of expected feedback on risky decision making. Organ. Behav. Hum.
ognitive_and_affective_consequences_published.pdf. Dec. 65 (2), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0013.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Becker, J.M., 2022. SmartPLS 4. Oststeinbek: SmartPLS. https Zhou, T., 2011. Examining the critical success factors of mobile website adoption. Online
://www.smartpls.com. Inf. Rev. 35 (4), 636–652. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521111161972.
Rook, D.W., 1987. The buying impulse. J. Consum. Res. 14 (2), 189–199. https://doi. Zhou, T., 2013. An empirical examination of user adoption of location-based services.
org/10.1086/209105. Electron. Commer. Res. 13, 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-013-9106-3.
Rook, D.W., Fisher, R.J., 1995. Normative influences on impulsive buying behavior.
J. Consum. Res. 22 (3), 305–313. https://doi.org/10.1086/209452.
Chih-Hui Shieh is a Professor of Marketing in the Department of Marketing and Distri­
Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., Campbell, D.T., 2002. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental
bution Management, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.
Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin Company.
His research focuses on the retail consumer behavior, mobile marketing, retail consumer
Shavitt, S., Vargas, P., Lowrey, P., 2004. Exploring the role of memory for self-selected ad
perception and related topics. His research has been published in the Journal of Services
experiences: are some advertising media better liked than others? Psychol. Market.
Marketing, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Australasian Marketing Journal,
21 (12), 1011–1032. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20035.
Journal of Consumer Marketing and other journals.
Shieh, C.H., Ling, I.L., Liu, Y.F., 2024. The role of privacy-related factors in consumer
perceptions of smart advertising. J. Serv. Theory Pract. 34 (2), 216–241. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JSTP-11-2022-0252. I-Ling Ling is a Distinguished Professor of Marketing in the Department of Marketing and
Shieh, C.H., Xu, Y., Ling, I.L., 2019. How location-based advertising elicits in-store Tourism Management at National Chiayi University, Taiwan. Her research focuses on the
purchase. J. Serv. Market. 33 (4), 380–395. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-03-2018- psychological mechanisms underlying perception, judgment, and decision-making pro­
0083. cesses across the human lifespan, with a particular emphasis on sociocultural and
Simonson, I., 1992. The influence of anticipating regret and responsibility on purchase consumer-related contexts. Her work has been published in journals such as the Journal of
decisions. J. Consum. Res. 19 (1), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1086/209290. Retailing and Consumer Services, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Journal of Service
Souiden, N., Chaouali, W., Baccouche, M., 2019. Consumers’ attitude and adoption of Marketing, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Australasian Marketing Journal,
location-based coupons: the case of the retail fast food sector. J. Retailing Consum. Journal of Consumer Marketing, and others.
Serv. 47, 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.11.009.
Spears, N., 2006. Just moseying around and happening upon it versus a master plan:
Yenming J. Chen is a Professor of Information Management in the Department of Infor­
minimizing regret in impulse versus planned sales promotion purchases. Psychol.
mation Management, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology of
Market. 23 (1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20110.
Taiwan. His research interests include Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Internet of
Steinle, F., 2016. Stability and replication of experimental results: a historical
Things, Medical Intelligence, Behavioral Decision Making, and E-Commerce. His research
perspective. In: Atmanspacher, H., Maasen, S. (Eds.), Reproducibility: Principles,
has been published in the Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, Bioinformatics, Trans­
Problems, Practices, and Prospects. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 39–63. https://doi.
portation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Tourism Economics and
org/10.1002/9781118865064.ch3
other journals.
Strong, E.K., 1925. The Psychology of Selling and Advertising. McGraw-Hill.
Sugden, R., 1985. Regret, recrimination and rationality. Theor. Decis. 19 (1), 77–99.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134355. Yi-Fen Liu is a Professor of Marketing in the Department of Logistics Management, Na­
Tan, H.H., Zhao, B., 2003. Individual- and perceived contextual-level antecedents of tional Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan. Her research interests
individual technical information inquiry in organizations. J. Psychol. 137 (6), include advertising, service marketing, consumer behavior in healthcare service and
597–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980309600637. related topics. Her research has been published in the Journal of Business Research,
Thapa, S., Guzmán, F., Paswan, A., 2024. We are just 10 feet away! how does location- Journal of Service Marketing, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Asia Pacific Journal
based advertising affect consumer-brand engagement? J. Bus. Res. 172, 114425. of Marketing and Logistics, Tourism Economics, Journal of Consumer Marketing and other
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114425. journals. Yi-Fen Liu is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: yifenliu@nkust.
edu.tw.

12