An Experimental Application of the Brand Equity Pyramid Using a Healthy Movement Product Brand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:The brand equity pyramid is a theory that explains how people develop a relationship with a brand. Although the theory has received some support, few studies have tested it using a product brand, and no study has experimentally tested the theory.Research Question:The study tested whether brand equity pyramid variables pertaining to a health behavior promotion product brand (the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth) can be experimentally manipulated. The first objective was to examine whether brand equity of the guidelines would be higher in the intervention group compared to the control group. The second objective was to explore whether parental attitudes and intentions toward support, support behaviors, and parent-perceived child behavior would be higher in the intervention group compared to the control.Method:Using an online survey platform in Canada, all participants first viewed the guidelines. Participants in the intervention group were then presented with a video targeting key brand equity variables, whereas the control group received no video. Participants were 161 Canadian parents (M age = 38.17, SD = 7.33 years) with a child 5–12 years of age. Measurements of brand equity and behavioral variables were taken at Time 1 (immediately post-intervention) and 2 weeks later at Time 2.Results:The intervention group had greater brand awareness than the control group and also showed a more positive attitude toward ensuring their child is less sedentary. However, generally, the 1-time intervention had limited effects.Recommendations for Research or Practice:This study indicates that a single exposure to stimuli targeting brand equity constructs can enhance awareness and some proximal cognitions. Future studies should examine whether repeated exposures to brand advertisements result in change in more important, distal variables such as brand loyalty and actual behavior.Limitations:This study lacked a true baseline measurement time point, there was only one exposure to brand stimuli, and parent-perceived child behavior was measured rather than behavior reported by the children themselves.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".