This brand is who I am… or is it? Examining changes in motivation to maintain brand attachment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate consumer motivation to maintain brand attachment when faced with brand transgressions. This study investigated consumer motivation to maintain brand attachment when faced with brand transgressions. Design/methodology/approach This study consisted of two experiments using student participants ( n 1 = 383 and n 2 = 535) who examined how, from a customer prioritization strategy, perceived value- and image-based transgressions affect the motivation to maintain brand attachment and subsequent behaviors. Hypotheses were developed and tested using moderating mediation models that included attribution of blame and perceived threat. Findings Value- and image-based transgressions interacted to affect the motivation to maintain brand attachment and the consequent behavioral intentions among consumers with strong brand attachment. Generally, the interaction had a negative effect on motivation to maintain brand attachment; however, this effect was mediated through perceived threat and moderated by attributions of blame. Depending on the level of motivation to maintain brand attachment and the attribution of blame for the brand transgression (the brand, self- or noncontrollable factors), participants reflected different behavioral intentions: reengagement, contention and/or avoidance. Overall, severe value-based transgression coupled with absence (vs presence) of image-based transgression were perceived more threatening by consumers with strong brand attachment leading to lower motivation to maintain attachment and higher intentions to dissolve the relationship. Originality/value Little is known about the conditions that increase or decrease the motivation of strongly attached consumers to maintain their attachment. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to explore the potential effects of brand transgressions on the motivation to maintain brand attachment and the consequent behavioral intentions stemming from perceived transgressions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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".