Investigating the Role of Brand Equity in Predicting the Relationship Between Message Exposure and Parental Support for Their Child’s Physical Activity
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
Social marketing researchers have identified brand equity as a potential mediator of the relationship between campaign message exposure and resulting behavior. This study examined whether message exposure and components of brand equity contribute to overall brand equity changes over the course of a 12-month campaign evaluation. In addition, we examine whether brand equity consistently accounts for covariance (i.e., mediation) in the relationship between message exposure and parental support (PS). Data were drawn from ParticipACTION’s “Think Again” campaign evaluations that targeted parents, specifically moms, with children between the ages of 5 and 11 years (three independent samples: March 2011, N = 702 [T1]; September 2011, N = 706 [T2]; March 2012, N = 670 [T3]). Univariate analyses of variance were used to examine changes in message exposure and components of brand equity over time, while structural equation modeling was used to examine the brand equity model relationship. Findings revealed that message exposure was greatest at T3 ( ps < .01) and that brand equity was greatest at T2 ( ps < .05). Model fit statistics revealed modest to good fit. Results demonstrated that Think Again message exposure was related to brand equity (standardized effects .10–.28) and that brand equity was related to PS (standardized effects .30–.40; ( ps < .01). Importantly, an indirect effect of message exposure on PS through brand equity (standardized effects .03–.09) emerged in all models ( ps < .05). This study demonstrates the utility of branding social marketing campaigns to increase campaign effectiveness.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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