Running Head: Hemispheric Processing of Slogans Brand Familiarity in Advertisement Slogans: The Role of the Left and Right Cerebral Hemispheres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research shows that brand familiarity can affect purchase behavior, such that a familiar brand will be preferred over a less familiar brand. Previous research also shows that the use of metaphoric advertisements increases purchase intent. However, it is unknown how consumers implicitly process familiar brands when reading advertisements. Through the divided visual field paradigm, we investigated how the left and right cerebral hemispheres process familiar brands when presented with advertisement slogans. Participants in this experiment read familiar brand names and were presented with metaphoric, literal, or neutral slogans. Participants responded to related target words briefly shown to either the right or left hemisphere. The right hemisphere showed greater facilitation for literal than for metaphoric slogans when consumers were presented with familiar brands. Purchase intent ratings were higher when targets were presented to the left hemisphere. These findings suggest that brand familiarity influences consumers’ processing of slogans in the right hemisphere and affects purchase intent ratings in the left hemisphere.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".