2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.05.025
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dissociation from beloved unhealthy brands decreases preference for and consumption of vegetables

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
(93 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Identity-PEB research is mostly conducted in either the laboratory (Crimston et al, 2016) or the field (Trump et al, 2015). Empirical associations may be strongest in a laboratory setting due to demand characteristics (Wood et al, 2015).…”
Section: Aim 4-6: Measures Research Setting and Samples As Moderatorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Identity-PEB research is mostly conducted in either the laboratory (Crimston et al, 2016) or the field (Trump et al, 2015). Empirical associations may be strongest in a laboratory setting due to demand characteristics (Wood et al, 2015).…”
Section: Aim 4-6: Measures Research Setting and Samples As Moderatorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Results substantiate the importance of attachment and shed light on the transformative power of this attachment by stimulating positive food-related behaviors. Although the role of branding in influencing food decisions has been explored (Harrison et al , 2017; Hartmann et al , 2017; Trump et al , 2015), the importance of attachment in inducing healthy eating is explored for the first time in this research. In addition, whereas the principal studied consequences of attachment are situated at the attitudinal level (e.g.…”
Section: Contributionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The pretest randomly assigned participants to either a Nike ethical or Nike unethical condition to examine the efficacy of the ethical/unethical brand perception manipulation. The Nike ethical (unethical) condition asked participants to “list three things that you know about or have heard about Nike that gives you the impression that they are an ethical (unethical) company.” This manipulation draws from prior research that uses brief writing tasks to make particular associations in memory more salient (Brinol, Rucker, Tormala, & Petty, ; Trump, Connell, & Finkelstein, ). In this case, the manipulation primed participants to associate Nike with the concept of ethical or unethical, depending on the condition.…”
Section: Studymentioning
confidence: 99%