MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153065734 · doi:10.1509/jm.13.0253

Place the Logo High or Low? Using Conceptual Metaphors of Power in Packaging Design

2014· article· en· W2153065734 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marketing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogo (programming language)Package designAdvertisingFluencyPreferenceMetaphorMarketingBusinessBrand extensionPower (physics)Conceptual modelConceptual frameworkBrand managementComputer sciencePsychologySociologyEngineeringLinguisticsMathematicsEngineering drawingMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Across three studies, this research examines how marketers can capitalize on their brand's standing in the marketplace through strategic logo placement on their packaging. Using a conceptual metaphor framework, the authors find that consumers prefer powerful brands more when the brand logo is featured high rather than low on the brand's packaging, whereas they prefer less powerful brands more when the brand logo is featured low rather than high on the brand's packaging. Furthermore, the authors confirm that the underlying mechanism for this shift in preference is a fluency effect derived from consumers intuitively linking the concept of power with height. Given this finding, the authors then demonstrate an important boundary condition by varying a person's state of power to be at odds with the metaphoric link. The results demonstrate when and how marketers can capitalize on consumers’ latent associations through package design.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it