The bittersweet of consumer–human brand relationships in the social media context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The current research proposes an integrated model to investigate both the bright and the dark sides of consumer–human brand relationships facilitated by social media on consumers' lives. Grounded in the duality of social media and self‐regulation theory, the findings show that human brand attachment improves consumers' daily performance through stress relief, which in turn increases life satisfaction (Study 1). However, the findings also indicate that human brand attachment can cause consumers' daily performance to deteriorate as a result of compulsive human brand consumption on social media and human brand‐personal conflict, which diminishes life satisfaction (Study 2). Collectively, the findings may suggest that strong consumer–human brand relationships tend to be detrimental to consumers' well‐being as the indirect negative impact of human brand attachment on daily performance and life satisfaction overpowers its indirect positive impact (Study 3). Such detrimental effects are moderated by self‐regulatory focus (Study 4). Moreover, the findings indicate that the indirect negative effect of human brand attachment is attenuated when consumers have a higher level of work/study–life balance. Accordingly, the current research advances the theoretical understanding of the consumer–human brand relationship facilitated by social media, by highlighting its dual effects associated with the nature of technology and consumers' self‐regulatory focuses.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".