MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2303197262 · doi:10.1108/ejm-12-2014-0746

The brand authenticity effect: situational and individual-level moderators

2016· article· en· W2303197262 on OpenAlex
Amélie Guèvremont, Bianca Grohmann

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

VenueEuropean Journal of Marketing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituational ethicsPsychologyFeelingOriginalityAdvertisingSocial psychologyBrand engagementValue (mathematics)BusinessSocial media

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper aims to examine under what conditions consumers develop emotional attachment toward authentic brands. It proposes that authentic brands’ ability to evoke attachment is contingent upon situational (i.e. need to belong and need to express the authentic self) and consumer individual difference variables (i.e. brand engagement in self-concept [BESC] and personal authenticity). Design/methodology/approach Two experiments empirically test the effects of brand authenticity on emotional brand attachment. Experiment 1 considers the moderating roles of social exclusion and BESC. Experiment 2 examines the moderating roles of situationally induced feelings of self-inauthenticity and enduring personal authenticity. Findings Consumers with a high level of BESC show greater emotional brand attachment to authentic (versus less authentic) brands when they feel socially excluded. Consumers with a high level of enduring personal authenticity show greater emotional brand attachment to authentic (versus less authentic) brands when they experience situations that make them feel inauthentic. Practical implications This paper has implications for brand communication strategies adopted by brands that are positioned strongly on authenticity. Originality/value This paper is one of the few to examine the effect of brand authenticity on brand attachment taking into account the moderating role of situational and individual difference variables. The findings contribute to the brand attachment and brand authenticity literatures.

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)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.237 · 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