Brand Community Motives and Engagement: The Impact of Gender
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brand communities are of great interest to marketers, and motivating participation in these communities has been explored from many different perspectives. The current study examined how men and women differ in the motives (i.e., entertainment, receiving and sharing information, social integration, self-discovery, and status enhancement) behind their behavior rather than the more often discussed difference between men and women regarding actual behavior and attitudes. A survey sample (N = 195) was collected to explore this, and the data were analyzed with PLS-SEM. The model of participation motives for women was compared to the model for men, and differences (and similarities) were analyzed. The findings indicate that the genders have different motivations to participate in these brand communities. Specifically, the self-discovery and sharing information motives were significantly more important for males, while the social integration motive was significantly more important for females. However, the genders had no differences regarding entertainment, receiving information, and status enhancement motives.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 it