Can human brands help consumers eat better? Influence of emotional brand attachment, self‐identification, and brand authenticity on consumer eating habits
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 This research studies the positive role of culinary human brands in helping consumers improve their eating habits (i.e., eat healthier, adopt a varied diet, and cook more) through the influence of emotional brand attachment—induced by actual and ideal self‐congruence—and while considering the moderating role of perceived brand authenticity. An online questionnaire was administered to 501 adults from a panel. Participants had to meet specific criteria—having a strong interest in food and cooking and being highly attached to a culinary human brand. Results were analyzed through structural equation modeling. Results reveal the influence of attachment in helping consumers improve their eating habits. The role of connection with consumer identity in inducing attachment is supported and characterized by a greater impact of the actual self. The moderating influence of brand authenticity is confirmed. This research suggests that culinary human brands can positively influence consumer food‐related decisions by serving as relevant identity resources. Results indicate that focusing on authenticity is a promising strategy to pursue human brands. Overall, this research calls for brands to think about how they can positively impact consumer lives, more specifically by helping them make better food decisions, ultimately contributing to their well‐being.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it