MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377943582 · doi:10.1002/jcpy.1364

Getting political: The value‐protective effects of expressed outgroup outrage on self‐brand connection

2023· article· en· W4377943582 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammad S. Kermani, Theodore J. Noseworthy, Peter R. Darke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityTrent University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOutragePremiseValue (mathematics)Social psychologyAdvertisingBrand engagementPoliticsPsychologySocial mediaMarketingBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Brands are increasingly engaging in social marketing campaigns that take stances on important social issues. Such campaigns can garner considerable awareness and effectively encourage consumers to purchase the focal brand. However, they can also outrage other consumer segments who disapprove of the brand's social stance. While social campaigns that outrage consumer groups would normally be undesirable, our research investigates how they can alternatively have a positive impact for brands that support the attacked value. This prediction is based on the premise that outrage expressed towards a social campaign threatens the value involved, causing consumers who want to defend that value to engage in symbolic protective responses by strengthening self‐brand connections and increasing purchase intentions. Five experiments validate this theorizing, and further show that these social threat effects are moderated by the type of outgroup that expressed the outrage and the level of viral support the expressed outrage received. Implications for the social marketing and brand relationship literatures are discussed.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.351 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consumer PsychologySame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207