MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391066105 · doi:10.5539/ijms.v16n1p14

Examining the Influence of Nostalgic Versus Informative Advertising on Persuasion Process and Brand Attachment

2024· article· en· W4391066105 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Marketing Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicNostalgia and Consumer Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersuasionAdvertisingRelevance (law)PsychologyTest (biology)Style (visual arts)Structural equation modelingBrand managementProcess (computing)MarketingConceptual modelEmpirical researchBusinessSocial psychologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nostalgia is actually a concept with great interest for researchers in different domains such as marketing. Several studies underlined the potential that nostalgia has for persuasive advertising. Despite theoretical relevance, little is known about the real impact of nostalgic advertising style on brand attachment. This research investigates the impact of the ad capacity to evoke nostalgia on persuasion process and brand attachment in the food industry. To test the relationship between variables, an experiment including two different advertisement style was conducted on 360 individuals in Tunisia. We used structural equation modelling to test the conceptual model. The results indicated that nostalgic ad has some more favorable responses of consumers than the informative ad. Also, it appears that past orientation has a positive impact on nostalgia proneness that can explain the positive reaction of the individuals to the nostalgic ad and brand attachment. This research provides empirical insight into the brand attachment literature and can be considered as a source of information for managers who wish to target consumers through nostalgic persuasive communication. Limitations and future research directions are stipulated.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.361 · 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