Conditional effects of consumer-brand relationships on admired and non-admired brands, and its impact on schadenfreude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extant literature on schadenfreude, a pleasure towards the misfortune of others, is concentrated on brand rivalry however is silent about situations when one own brand causes the schadenfreude. Based on brand relationship theory we advance knowledge on this topic by investigating how one brand’s bad malicious strategy leads to schadenfreude for admired and non-admired brands and is mitigated when admired brands interact with positive feelings elicited by brand-consumer relationship to protect against their own bad behavior. Through three experimental studies we point out the feelings elicited exact region of moderations. The first study tests the mitigating effect of congruence between brand and Self. Study two tests higher-order affective levels such as brand love, as a negative moderating construct for schadenfreude. Study three advances previous studies on consumers’ self-promoting feelings and their interaction with brands to produce schadenfreude. Finally, we discuss the findings and further directions for research on schadenfreude.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".