Bibliographic record
Abstract
The marketing literature suggests that positioning a brand in terms of brand gender (i.e., brand masculinity and brand femininity) generates favorable consumer responses, yet there is little research on how brand gender perceptions arise. This research examines whether type font can be employed to create brand gender perceptions in the context of unfamiliar brands. Building on the theoretical framework of personality inferences based on static cues, three studies involving a range of type fonts, brand names, and product categories demonstrate that type font influences consumers' perceptions of brand gender. Type font effects emerged for brand names presented in isolation (Study 1), brand names presented on signage (Study 2a), and brand names on product labels (Studies 2b and 3). Importantly, type font effects on brand gender persisted in the presence of a competing brand gender cue (i.e., brand name with gender associations), and type font and brand name influenced brand gender perceptions independently. A fourth study demonstrates that type fonts representing the brands influence consumers' likelihood to recommend the brand. The article concludes with a discussion of theoretical and brand management implications.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".