MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407205470 · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115228

Going against the Tide: How Self-Construal Moderates Receptivity towards Popular Brand Activism

2025· article· en· W4407205470 on OpenAlexaff
Geetanjali Saluja, Eugene Y. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceptivityConstrual level theorySelf construalPsychologySocial psychologyAdvertisingBusinessPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Consumers’ self-construal can affect responses to brand activism. • Independents favor brands that oppose a popular view on a socio-political issue. • Both independents and interdependents favor brands that support the popular view. • Independents perceive brands that oppose the popular view as bold and courageous. Many brands in today’s marketplace choose to take a public stance on socio-political issues. For example, some brands have indicated support for or opposition to Israel, while there are brands that support or oppose same sex-marriages. This research examines the type of consumers to whom a brand supporting or opposing socio-political issues might appeal. Specifically, we focus on consumers with independent versus interdependent self-construal. Four studies offer evidence that independents consider brand activism that opposes prevailing public opinions regarding socio-political issues as “bold” and “courageous”. By contrast, independents and interdependents equally favor brands that support such majority public opinion. We discuss the limitations of these results and offer guidance for future researchers and brand managers. We situate our findings within the American political discourse and marketplace, discuss the relevance of our results for brands that are interested in activism, and acknowledge limitations to our work.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business ResearchSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207