Consumer response to brand extensions: Construal level as a moderator of the importance of perceived fit
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
Abstract One of the most enduring findings from branding research is that consumers evaluate brand extensions on the basis of their perceived fit with the parent brand. In this article, we propose that the importance of perceived fit in extension evaluations is moderated by construal level. We draw upon construal level theory, which posits that individuals can construe stimuli in their environments in terms of abstract and generalized features (high‐level construals) or in terms of concrete and contextualized features (low‐level construals). Results from three studies confirm that consumers who construe their environment at a higher level place more importance on perceived extension fit in evaluating brand extensions. These consumers evaluate high fit extensions more favorably than moderate fit extensions, consistent with prior research. However, consumers who construe their environment at a lower level do not evaluate high and moderate fit extensions any differently, unless the importance of using fit perceptions is made salient.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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