內隱理論對品牌吸引力的影響— 以產品種類廣度與搭銷商品互補性為干擾變數

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	蔡沛琪 Tsai, Pei-Chi
論文名稱：	內隱理論對品牌吸引力的影響— 以產品種類廣度與搭銷商品互補性為干擾變數 The Role of Consumers’ Implicit Theories in Brand Attractiveness: Assortment Size and Complementarity of Bundle Items as Moderators
指導教授：	高登第 Kao, Teng-Ti
口試委員:	莊世杰 Chuang, Shih-Chieh 駱少康 Lo, Shao-Kang
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	竹師教育學院 - 教育心理與諮商學系 Educational Psychology and Counseling
論文出版年：	2020
畢業學年度：	108
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	119
中文關鍵詞：	內隱理論、產品種類廣度、搭銷銷售、品牌吸引力
外文關鍵詞：	Implicit Theory, Assortment Size, Product Bundles, Brand Attractiveness
相關次數：	點閱：2 下載：0
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

本研究嘗試探討了消費者的內隱理論對於品牌的影響，加入了產品種類廣度的寬窄一起探討品牌是否會因為搭銷商品的互補性高低而影響品牌自身的吸引力。本研究結果顯示：（1）、相對於增長論消費者而言，實體論消費者對推出窄的產品種類廣度的品牌會產生較佳的品牌吸引力，但對增長論消費者而言，品牌推出寬的產品種類廣度的商品反而會產生較佳的品牌吸引力；（2）、相對於增長論消費者，實體論消費者更可能會對互補性高的搭銷產品產生較佳的品牌吸引力；相反地，相比實體論消費者，增長論消費者更可能會對互補性低的搭銷產品產生較佳的品牌吸引力；（3）、當品牌提供窄的產品種類廣度時同時搭銷互補性低的商品，增長論消費者與實體論消費者對於品牌吸引力無顯著差異，但當品牌提供窄的產品種類廣度時同時搭銷互補性高的商品，實體論消費者會比增長論消費者產生較佳的品牌吸引力；相對地，當品牌提供寬的產品種類廣度時同時搭銷互補性低的商品，增長論消費者會比實體論消費者產生較佳的品牌吸引力，但當品牌提供寬的產品種類廣度同時搭銷互補性高的商品，增長論消費者與實體論消費者對於品牌吸引力無顯著差異。

This research attempts to examine the impact of implicit theory on brand attractiveness, as well as the moderating roles of assortment size and complementarity of bundle items. Research findings demonstrate that (1) As compared with consumers who are incremental theorists, those who are entity theorists engender stronger brand attractiveness for brands characterized by small assortments; whereas on the contrary, consumers who are incremental theorists engender stronger brand attractiveness for brands characterized by large assortments; (2) As compared with consumers who are incremental theorists, those who are entity theorists tend to engender stronger brand attractiveness for brands that produce complementary bundles; whereas on the contrary, as compared with consumers who are entity theorists, those who are incremental theorists tend to engender stronger brand attractiveness towards brands that produce noncomplementary bundles; (3) In addition, for small assortments of products, when the brand produces bundles with noncomplementary products at the same time, it appears to engender no differential brand attractiveness from consumers, regardless of their implicit theory dispositions; however, for small assortments of products, when the brand produces bundles with complementary products at the same time, it appears to engender stronger brand attractiveness for consumers who are entity theorists over incremental theorists. In contrast, for large assortments of products, when the brand produces bundles with noncomplementary products at the same time, it appears to engender stronger brand attractiveness for consumers who are incremental theorists over entity theorists; however, for large assortments of products, when the brand produces bundles with complementary products at the same time, it appears to engender no differential brand attractiveness for consumers, regardless of their implicit theory dispositions.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1
Introduction----------------------------1
CHAPTER 2
Theoretical Background------------------5
2.1 Brand Attractiveness----------------5
2.2 Implicit Theory---------------------5
2.3 Assortment Size---------------------9
2.3.1 Interaction Effects of Implicit Theory and Assortment Size on Brand Attractiveness--------------------11
2.4 Complementarity of Bundle Items-----14
2.4.1 Interaction Effects of Implicit Theory and Complementarity of Bundle Items on Brand Attractiveness----17
2.4.2 Interaction Effects of Implicit Theory, Assortment Size and Complementarity of Bundle Items on Brand Attractiveness----19
CHAPTER 3
Methodology-----------------------------25
3.1 Research Framework------------------25
3.2 Pretests of Stimulus Material-------25
3.3 Sample and Data Collection----------27
3.4 Questionnaire Design and Measure----29
3.4.1 Study 1---------------------------29
3.4.2 Study 2---------------------------31
CHAPTER 4
Results---------------------------------33
4.1 Study 1 Results---------------------33
4.2 Study 2 Results---------------------41
CHAPTER 5
Conclusions-----------------------------51
5.1 General Discussion------------------51
5.1.1 Interaction Effects of Implicit Theory and Assortment Size on Brand Attractiveness--------------------51
5.1.2 Interaction Effects of Implicit Theory and Complementarity of Bundle Items on Brand Attractiveness----52
5.1.3 Interaction Effects of Implicit Theory, Assortment Size and Complementarity of Bundle Items on Brand Attractiveness---52
5.2 Theoretical Contribution------------54
5.3 Practical Implications--------------57
5.4 Limitations and Future Research-----59
References------------------------------61
Appendix
1. Implicit Theory of Personality Scale-71
2. Questionnaire 1----------------------72
3. Questionnaire 2----------------------76
4. Questionnaire 3----------------------88
5. Questionnaire 4----------------------84
6. Questionnaire 5----------------------88
7. Questionnaire 6----------------------92
8. Questionnaire 7----------------------96
9. Questionnaire 8----------------------100
10. Questionnaire 9---------------------104
11. Questionnaire 10--------------------108
12. Questionnaire 11--------------------112
13. Questionnaire 12--------------------116
 
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 1. Research Framework------------25
Figure 2. Interaction of implicit theory × assortment size on brand attractiveness--------------------------35
Figure 3. Interaction of implicit theory × bundle item complementarity on brand attractiveness-37
Figure 4. Interaction of implicit theory × small assortment × bundle item complementarity on brand attractiveness---39
Figure 5. Interaction of implicit theory × large assortment × bundle item complementarity on brand attractiveness---41
Figure 6. Interaction of implicit theory × assortment size on brand attractiveness--------------------------43
Figure 7. Interaction of implicit theory × bundle item complementarity on brand attractiveness-45
Figure 8. Interaction of implicit theory × small assortment × bundle item complementarity on brand attractiveness---47
Figure 9. Interaction of implicit theory × large assortment × bundle item complementarity on brand attractiveness---49
 
LIST OF TABLE
Table 1. Study 1 Descriptive Summary of Participants----27
Table 2. Study 2 Descriptive Summary of Participants----28
Table 3. Univariate Analysis of the Effects of Implicit Theory and Assortment Size on Brand Attractiveness-----------------33
Table 4. Dependent Measure across Implicit Theory × Assortment Size    --------------------------------------------------------34
Table 5. Univariate Analysis of the Effects of Implicit Theory and Bundle Item Complementarity on Brand Attractiveness-----36
Table 6. Dependent Measure across Implicit Theory × Bundle Item Complementarity-----------------------------------------36
Table 7. Univariate Analysis of the Effects of Implicit Theory and Bundle Item Complementarity on Brand Attractiveness-----37
Table 8. Dependent Measure across Implicit Theory × Bundle Item Complementarity-----------------------------------------38
Table 9. Univariate Analysis of the Effects of Implicit Theory and Bundle Item Complementarity on Brand Attractiveness-----39
Table 10. Dependent Measure across Implicit Theory × Bundle Item Complementarity-----------------------------------------40
Table 11. Univariate Analysis of the Effects of Implicit Theory and Assortment Size on Brand Attractiveness-----------------42
Table 12. Dependent Measure across Implicit Theory × Assortment Size    --------------------------------------------------------43
Table 13. Univariate Analysis of the Effects of Implicit Theory and Bundle Item Complementarity on Brand Attractiveness-----44
Table 14. Dependent Measure across Implicit Theory × Bundle Item Complementarity-----------------------------------------45
Table 15. Univariate Analysis of the Effects of Implicit Theory and Bundle Item Complementarity on Brand Attractiveness-----46
Table 16. Dependent Measure across Implicit Theory × Bundle Item Complementarity-----------------------------------------47
Table 17. Univariate Analysis of the Effects of Implicit Theory and Bundle Item Complementarity on Brand Attractiveness-----48
Table 18. Dependent Measure across Implicit Theory × Bundle Item Complementarity-----------------------------------------49
Table 19. Hypothesis Results----------------------------50

                                

Adam, A. (2020). Beauty is in the eye of the beautiful: Enhanced eyelashes increase perceived health and attractiveness. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences. doi:10.1037/ebs0000192
Ablard, K. E., & Mills, C. J. (1996). Implicit theories of intelligence and self-perceptions of academically talented adolescents and children. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 25(2), 137. doi:10.1007/BF01537340
Agarwal, M. K., & Chatterjee, S. (2003). Complexity, uniqueness, and similarity in between bundle choice. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12, 358–376. doi:10.1108/10610420310498795
Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Gruen, T. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of customer-company identification: Expanding the role of relationship marketing. Journal of applied psychology, 90(3), 574. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.574
Ahluwalia, R., & Gurhan-Canli, Z. (2000). The effects of extensions on family brand name: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal Consumer Research, 27(3), 371–381. doi:10.1086/317591
Akturan, U., & Bozbay, Z. (2018). Attractiveness, purchase intention, and willingness to pay more for global brands: Evidence from Turkish market. Journal of Promotion Management, 24(6), 737–754. doi:10.1080/10496491.2017.1408522
Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Effects of fluency on psychological distance and mental construal (or why New York is a large city, but New York is a civilized jungle). Psychological Science, 19(2), 161–167. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02062.x.
Aydinli, A., Gu, Y., & Pham, M. T. (2017). An experience-utility explanation of the preference for larger assortments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(3), 746–760. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2017.06.007
Broniarczyk, S. M. (2008). Product assortment. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr, & F. R. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology. (Vol. 4, pp. 755–779). Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berger, J., Draganska, M., & Simonson, I. (2007). The influence of product variety on brand perception and choice. Marketing Science, 26(4), 460–472. doi: 10.1287/mksc.1060.0253
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer–company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of marketing, 67(2), 76–88. doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609
Broniarczyk, S. M., & Alba, J. W. (1994). The importance of the brand in brand extension. Journal of marketing research, 31(2), 214–228. doi: 10.2307/3152195
Bullard, O., Penner, S., & Main, K. J. (2019). Can implicit theory influence construal level? Journal of Consumer Psychology (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), 29(4), 662–670. doi:10.1002/jcpy.1101
Chernev, A. (2003). When more is less and less is more: The role of ideal point availability and assortment in consumer choice. Journal of consumer Research, 30(2), 170–183. doi:10.1086/376808
Chernev, A. (2006). Decision focus and consumer choice among assortments. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 50–59. doi:10.1086/504135
Cantor, N., & Mischel, W. (1979). Prototypes in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 4-51). New York: Academic Press.
Chen, P., Ellsworth, P. C., & Schwarz, N. (2015). Finding a fit or developing it: Implicit theories about achieving passion for work. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(10), 1411–1424. doi: 10.1177/0146167215596988
Chernev, A., & Hamilton, R. (2009). Assortment size and option attractiveness in consumer choice among retailers. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 410-420. doi:10.1509/jmkr.46.3.410
Chiu, C. Y., Hong, Y. Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of personality. Journal of personality and social psychology, 73(1), 19. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.19
Chung, J., & Rao, V. R. (2003). A general choice model for bundles with multiple-category products: Application to market segmentation and optimal pricing for bundles. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(2), 115–130. doi:10.1509/jmkr.40.2.115.19230
Cinelli, M. D., & Yang, L. (2016). The role of implicit theories in evaluations of “plus-size” advertising. Journal of Advertising, 45(4), 472–481. doi:10.1080/00913367.2016.1230838
Currás-Pérez, R., Bigné-Alcañiz, E., & Alv arado-Herrera, A. (2009). The role of self-definitional principles in consumer identification with a socially responsible company. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 547–564. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-0016-6
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Essays in social psychology.Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press.
Dennis, J., & Vander Wal, J. (2010). The cognitive flexibility inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34, 241–253. doi.:10.1007/s10608-009-9276-4
Diehl, K., & Poynor, C. (2010). Great expectations?! Assortment size, expectations, and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2), 312-322. doi:10.1509/jmkr.47.2.312
Draganska, M., & Jain, D. C. (2005). Product‐line length as a competitive tool. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 14(1), 1-28. doi:10.1111/j.1430-9134.2005.00032.x
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C. Y., & Hong, Y. Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological inquiry, 6(4), 267-285. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1
Engeset, M. G., & Opstad, B. (2017). Evaluation effects of bundle size and price presentation. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 34(5), 393–403. doi:10.1108/JCM-02-2015-1320
Erdley, C. A., & Dweck, C. S. (1993). Children’s implicit personality theories as predictors of their social judgments. Child Development, 64(3), 863–878. doi:10.2307/1131223
Froehlich, L., Martiny, S. E., Deaux, K., Goetz, T., & Mok, S. Y. (2016). Being smart or getting smarter: Implicit theory of intelligence moderates stereotype threat and stereotype lift effects. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55(3), 564-587. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12144
Guiltinan, J. P. (1987). The price bundling of services: A normative framework. Journal of marketing, 51(2), 74-85. doi:10.2307/1251130
Gaeth, G. J., Levin, I. P., Chakraborty, G., & Levin, A. M. (1991). Consumer evaluation of multi-product bundles: An information integration analysis. Marketing letters, 2(1), 47–57. doi:10.1007/BF00435195
Gervey, B. M., Chiu, C. Y., Hong, Y. Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Differential use of person information in decisions about guilt versus innocence: The role of implicit theories. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(1), 17-27. doi:10.1177/0146167299025001002
Goodman, J. K., & Malkoc, S. A. (2012). Choosing here and now versus there and later: The moderating role of psychological distance on assortment size preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 751-768. doi:10.1086/665047
Harlam, B. A., Krishna, A., Lehmann, D. R., & Mela, C. (1995). Impact of bundle type, price framing and familiarity on purchase intention for the bundle. Journal of business research, 33(1), 57-66. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(94)00014-6
Harris, J., & Blair, E. A. (2006). Consumer preference for product bundles: The role of reduced search costs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 506–513. doi:10.1177/0092070306288405
Haselhuhn, M. P., Schweitzer, M. E., & Wood, A. M. (2010). How implicit beliefs influence trust recovery. Psychological Science, 21(5), 645-648. doi:10.1177/0956797610367752
Hayes, J. B., Alford, B. L., Silver, L., & York, R. P. (2006). Looks matter in developing consumer‐brand relationships. Journal of Product & Brand Management. 15(4/5), 306–315. doi:10.1108/10610420610685875
Herrmann, A., Huber, F., & Coulter, R. H. (1997). Product and service bundling decisions and their effects on purchase intention. Pricing Strategy and Practice, 5(3), 99-107.
Hillebrandt, I., Rauschnabel, P. A., Hartmann, C. O., & Ivens, B. S. (2014). The Effect of Employer Evaluations on Employer Brand Attractiveness: An Empirical Investigation. AMA Winter Educators’ Conference Proceedings, 25, A-17-A-18.
Hoch, S. J., Bradlow, E. T., & Wansink, B. (1999). The variety of an assortment. Marketing Science, 18(4), 527-546.
Hong, Y. Y., Chiu, C. Y., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M. S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: a meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 77(3), 588. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.588
Hong, Y., Chiu, C., & Dweck, C. S. (1995). Implicit theories of intelligence: Reconsidering the role of confidence in achievement motivation. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem. (pp. 197–216). Plenum Press.
Inman, J. J. (2001). The role of sensory-specific satiety in attribute-level variety seeking. Journal of Consumer research, 28(1), 105-120. doi:10.1086/321950
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995–1006. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995
Jain, S. P., Mathur, P., & Maheswaran, D. (2009). The influence of consumers’ lay theories on approach/avoidance motivation. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 56-65. doi:10.1509/jmkr.46.1.56
Janiszewski, C., & Cunha Jr, M. (2004). The influence of price discount framing on the evaluation of a product bundle. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(4), 534-546. doi:10.1086/380287
Judge, T. A., Hurst, C., & Simon, L. S. (2009). Does it pay to be smart, attractive, or confident (or all three)? Relationships among general mental ability, physical attractiveness, core self-evaluations, and income. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 742–755. doi:10.1037/a0015497
Kanouse, D. E. (1984). Explaining negativity biases in evaluation and choice behavior: Theory and research. Advances in Consumer Research, 11(1), 703–708.
Kao, D. T. (2019). The impact of envy on brand preference: Brand storytelling and psychological distance as moderators. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 28(4), 515–528. doi:10.1108/JPBM-08-2018-2004
King, R. B. (2019). Mindsets are contagious: The social contagion of implicit theories of intelligence among classmates. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 349–363. doi:10.1111/bjep.12285
Kurt Salmon Associates (1993), Efficient Consumer Response:Enhancing Consumer Value in the Grocery Industry. Washington,DC: Food Marketing Institute.
Karataş, M., & Gürhan, C. Z. (2020). When consumers prefer bundles with noncomplementary items to bundles with complementary items: The role of mindset abstraction. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30(1), 24–39. doi:10.1002/jcpy.1125
Kareklas, I., Carlson, J. R., & Muehling, D. D. (2014). I eat organic for my benefit and yours”: Egoistic and altruistic considerations for purchasing organic food and their implications for advertising strategists. Journal of advertising, 43(1), 18-32. doi:10.1080/00913367.2013.799450
Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2010). Price-framing effects on the purchase of hedonic and utilitarian bundles. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(6), 1090–1099. doi:10.1509/jmkr.47.6.1090
Kim, C. K., Han, D., & Park, S.B. (2001). The effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty: Applying the theory of social identification. Japanese Psychological Research, 43(4), 195-206. doi:10.1111/1468-5884.00177
Kim, H., Rao, A. R., & Lee, A. Y. (2009). It's time to vote: The effect of matching message orientation and temporal frame on political persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 877–889. doi: 10.1086/593700
Koukova, N. T., Kannan, P. K., & Ratchford, B. T. (2008). Product form bundling: Implications for marketing digital products. Journal of Retailing, 84(2), 181–194. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2008.04.001
Kray, L. J., Howland, L., Russell, A. G., & Jackman, L. M. (2017). The effects of implicit gender role theories on gender system justification: Fixed beliefs strengthen masculinity to preserve the status quo. Journal of personality and social psychology, 112(1), 98. doi:10.1037/pspp0000124
Kwon, J., & Nayakankuppam, D. (2015). Strength without elaboration: The role of implicit self-theories in forming and accessing attitudes. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(2), 316–339. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucv019
Labroo, A. A., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). Between two brands: A goal fluency account of brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 374-385. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.43.3.374
Lee, S., & Yi, Y. (2019). “Retail is detail! Give consumers a gift rather than a bundle”: Promotion framing and consumer product returns. Psychology & Marketing, 36(1), 15–27. doi:10.1002/mar.21154
Leszczyc, P. T. P., & Häubl, G. (2010). To bundle or not to bundle: Determinants of the profitability of multi-item auctions. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 110-124. doi:10.1509/jmkg.74.4.110
Levav, J., & Zhu, R. (2009). Seeking freedom through variety. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(4), 600-610. doi:10.1086/599556
Levy, S. R., Stroessner, S. J., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Stereotype formation and endorsement: The role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1421-1436. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1421
Liu, P. J., Lamberton, C., & Haws, K. L. (2020). The aggregated extremes effect: Not all routes to “balanced” bundles are equally appealing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30(2), 219-239. doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1134
Luna, D., Peracchio, L. A., & de Juan, M. D. (2002). Cross-cultural and cognitive aspects of web site navigation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(4), 397-410. doi:10.1177/009207002236913
Maheswaran, D. (2012). Consumers’ implicit theories about personality influence their brand personality judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(4), 545–557. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2012.01.005
Martin, B. A., Lang, B., Wong, S., & Martin, B. A. (2003). Conclusion explicitness in advertising: The moderating role of need for cognition (NFC) and argument quality (AQ) on persuasion. Journal of Advertising, 32(4), 57-66. doi:10.1080/00913367.2003.10639148
Mathur, P., Jain, S. P., & Maheswaran, D. (2012). Consumers' implicit theories about personality influence their brand personality judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(4), 545-557. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2012.01.005
Maxwell, R., & Knox, S. (2009). Motivating employees to “live the brand”: a comparative case study of employer brand attractiveness within the firm. Journal of Marketing Management, 25(9–10), 893–907. doi:10.1362/026725709X479282
McQuilken, L., Robertson, N., Polonsky, M., & Harrison, P. (2015). Consumer perceptions of bundles and time‐limited promotion deals: Do contracts matter? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14(3), 145–157. doi:10.1002/cb.1513
Mogilner, C., Rudnick, T., & Iyengar, S. S. (2008). The mere categorization effect: How the presence of categories increases choosers' perceptions of assortment variety and outcome satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 202-215. doi:10.1086/588698
Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Finding" meaning" in psychology: A lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American Psychologist, 61(3), 192–203. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.192
Monga, A. B., & John, D. R. (2007). Cultural differences in brand extension evaluation: The influence of analytic versus holistic thinking. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 529–536. doi: 10.1086/510227
Pfeifer, C. (2012). Physical attractiveness, employment and earnings. Applied Economics Letters, 19, 505–510. doi:10.1080/13504851.2011.587758
Park, C. W., Milberg, S., & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: The role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of consumer research, 18(2), 185-193. doi: 10.1086/209251
Park, J. K., & John, D. R. (2010). Got to get you into my life: Do brand personalities rub off on consumers?. Journal of consumer research, 37(4), 655-669. doi:10.1086/655807
Park, J. K., & John, D. R. (2012). Capitalizing on brand personalities in advertising: The influence of implicit self-theories on ad appeal effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 424–432. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.05.004
Park, J. K., & John, D. R. (2018). Judging a book by its cover: The influence of implicit self‐theories on brand user perceptions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(1), 56–76. doi:10.1002/jcpy.1014
Poon, C. S., & Koehler, D. J. (2006). Lay personality knowledge and dispositionist thinking: A knowledge-activation framework. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 177–191. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.001
Rahinel, R., & Redden, J. P. (2013). Brands as product coordinators: matching brands make joint consumption experiences more enjoyable. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6), 1290-1299. doi:10.1086/668525
Rampl, L. V., & Kenning, P. (2014). Employer brand trust and affect: linking brand personality to employer brand attractiveness. European journal of marketing. doi: 10.1037/t69943-000
Ronda, L., Valor, C., & Abril, C. (2018). Are they willing to work for you? An employee-centric view to employer brand attractiveness. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 27(5), 573–596. doi:10.1108/JPBM-07-2017-1522
Roose, G., Vermeir, I., Geuens, M., & Van Kerckhove, A. (2019). A match made in heaven or down under? The effectiveness of matching visual and verbal horizons in advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(3), 411–427. doi:10.1002/jcpy.1088
Shugan, S. M. (1980). The cost of thinking. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(2), 99-111. doi:10.1086/208799
Sivaramakrishnan, S. (2007). It’s all in how you look at it-the impact of having an incremental or entity theory on consumer behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 34, 274–275.
Salerno, A., Laran, J., & Janiszewski, C. (2019). Bad can be good: When benign and malicious envy motivate goal pursuit.” Journal of Consumer Research, 46(2), 388-405. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucy077
Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., & Todd, P. M. (2010). Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload. Journal of consumer research, 37(3), 409–425. doi:10.1086/651235
Schwabe, M., Dose, D. B., & Walsh, G. (2018). Every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future: influences of regulatory focus on consumers’ moral self‐regulation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(2), 234-252. doi:10.1002/jcpy.1025
Sela, A., Berger, J., & Liu, W. (2009). Variety, vice, and virtue: How assortment size influences option choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 941-951. doi:10.1086/593692
Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1995). Bundling as a strategy for new product introduction: Effects on consumers’ reservation prices for the bundle, the new product, and its tie-in. Journal of Business Research, 33(3), 219–230. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(94)00071-L
Spassova, G., & Isen, A. M. (2013). Positive affect moderates the impact of assortment size on choice satisfaction. Journal of Retailing, 89(4), 397–408. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2013.05.003
Stephan, E., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2010). Politeness and psychological distance: A construal level perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 268–280. doi:10.1037/a0016960
Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J. G. (1998). Donations to charity as purchase incentives: How well they work may depend on what you are trying to sell. Journal of consumer research, 24(4), 434-446. doi:10.1086/209519
Stremersch, S., & Tellis, G. J. (2002). Strategic bundling of products and prices: A new synthesis for marketing. Journal of marketing, 66(1), 55-72. doi:10.1509/jmkg.66.1.55.18455
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403–421. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. doi:10.1037/a0018963
Van Herpen, E., & Pieters, R. (2002). The Variety of an Assortment: An Extension to the Attribute-Based Approach. Marketing Science, 21(3), 331–341. doi:10.1287/mksc.21.3.331.144
Venkatesh, R., & Kamakura, W. (2003). Optimal bundling and pricing under a monopoly: Contrasting complements and substitutes from independently valued products. Journal of Business, 76(2), 211–231. doi:10.1086/367748
Wakslak, C. J., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Alony, R. (2006). Seeing the forest when entry is unlikely: Probability and the mental representation of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 641–653. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.4.641
Wang, X., Sun, L., & Keh, H. T. (2013). Consumer responses to variety in product bundles: The moderating role of evaluation mode. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30(4), 335–342. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2013.03.005
Wang, Y., & Chang, Y. (2018). How specific and general self-confidence affect assortment decisions. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 46(10), 1687-1696. doi:10.2224/sbp.7063
Watkins, L. M., & Johnston, L. (2000). Screening job applicants: The impact of physical attractiveness and application quality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 76–84. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00135
Weigold, M. F., Flusser, S., & Ferguson, M. A. (1992). Direct response advertising. The contributions of price, information, artwork, and individual differences to purchase consideration. Journal of Direct Marketing, 6(2), 32-39. doi:10.1002/dir.4000060206
Wheeler, S. C., & Omair, A. (2016). Potential growth areas for implicit theories research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(1), 137–141. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.008
Whitley, S. C., Trudel, R., & Kurt, D. (2018). The influence of purchase motivation on perceived preference uniqueness and assortment size choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(4), 710-724. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucy031
Xie, C., Bagozzi, R. P., & Meland, K. V. (2015). The impact of reputation and identity congruence on employer brand attractiveness. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 33(2), 124–146.
doi:10.1108/MIP-03-2014-0051
Yadav, M. S. (1994). How buyers evaluate product bundles: A model of anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 342–353. doi:10.1086/209402
Yang, H., Stamatogiannakis, A., & Chattopadhyay, A. (2015). Pursuing attainment versus maintenance goals: The interplay of self-construal and goal type on consumer motivation. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(1), 93–108. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucv008
Yorkston, E. A., Nunes, J. C., & Matta, S. (2010). The malleable brand: The role of implicit theories in evaluating brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 74(1), 80–93. doi:10.1509/jmkg.74.1.80

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文