The role of brand personality in the formation of consumer affect and self-brand connection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to explore the role of brand personality traits in explaining how different levels of brand favorability evoke affect from and forge connections to consumers. Design/methodology/approach The authors used a quantitative approach consisting of within-subjects (Study 1) and between-subjects (Study 2) experimental designs. Mediation analyses were tested using OLS regression with the MEMORE and PROCESS macros. Findings Findings suggest increases in brand excitement and sincerity to be related to differences in positive affect evoked by favorable and unfavorable brands; decreases in brand sincerity to be related to differences in negative affect between favorable and unfavorable brands (Study 1); brand competence and excitement to be related to the relationship between brand favorability and self-brand connection; and brand competence and excitement to best distinguish favorable brands from unfavorable brands (Study 2). Originality/value These results support the importance of brand personality traits that are considered to be universally positive and provide managers with an initial roadmap for which brand personality traits should be prioritized when communicating with consumers.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".