臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

消費者的思考方式可分為兩種，一種是強調整體，關注事物間的因果聯繫，認為未來是波動而較難以預測的「整體型思考（Holistic thinking）」；另一種是強調局部，聚焦事物其本身細節，認為未來是線性而較容易預測的「分析型思考（Analytic thinking）」（Nisbett et al. 2001）。品牌延伸方式，則可分為「相似產品類別的延伸」與「相似產品利益（功能）的延伸」。
過去的研究指出兩種不同的「自我調節焦點（Self-regulatory focus）」對品牌延伸方式的評價，會因為關注的焦點是利益或是風險，而對品牌的延伸方式，有不同的評價（Chang et al. 2010）。依此推論，思考方式差異導致對資訊關注焦點的差異，也可能影響不同品牌延伸方式的評價。
本研究即透過一2（整體型思考 vs. 分析型思考）× 2（相似類別延伸 vs. 相似利益延伸）的受測者間問卷實驗設計，探討思考方式與品牌延伸方式間的交互作用對品牌延伸產品評價的影響。
研究結果顯示，整體型思考的消費者給予相似利益延伸方式的延伸產品評價高於相似類別的延伸方式；而分析型思考的消費者面對不同的品牌延伸方式，對延伸產品的評價則沒有顯著差異。

Individuals can be classified into two styles of thinker, holistic and analytic thinker, which mean using different cognitive processes. Holistic thinker tends to focus on the field and relationships between subjects, and possesses a cyclical view that assumes constant fluctuations. In contrast, analytic thinker tends to focus on attributes of the object detached from its context, and maintains a linear perspective that expects similar patterns of change (Nisbett et al. 2001).
Past research shows that self-regulatory focus moderates the relative impacts of benefit overlap versus category similarity on brand extension evaluations: because of the different of focus, promotion-focused consumers prefer benefit overlap extensions while prevention-focused consumers prefer category similarity extensions (Chang et al. 2010). Comparatively, different styles of thinkers having unlike focus on information could moderate the relative impacts of brand extension types on brand extension evaluation.
This result of an experiment support the prediction that benefit overlap extensions have greater significance for holistic thinkers, however types of brand extension do not affect the extension evaluations of analytic thinkers significantly.

口試委員會審定書.......................................................................I
致謝……................................................................................... II
中文摘要................................................................................... III
ABSTRACT............................................................................... IV
目錄……................................................................................... V
圖目錄…................................................................................... VII
表目錄…................................................................................... VIII
第壹章、緒論............................................................................. 1
第貳章、文獻探討與研究假說.......................................................2
第一節 思考方式................................................................... 2
第二節 品牌延伸方式..................... ........................................5
第三節 自我調節焦點與品牌延伸方式的對延伸評價的影響.......... 7
第參章、研究架構與研究方法...................................................... 8
第一節 研究假說與研究架構................................................... 8
第二節 研究設計................................................................... 10
第三節 研究樣本................................................................... 10
第四節 操弄方法................................................................... 11
第五節 衡量工具................................................................... 13
第六節 實驗程序................................................................... 17
第肆章、實驗結果...................................................................... 18
第一節 樣本結構................................................................... 18
第二節 敘述統計、信度分析及事後分群................................... 18
第三節 假設檢定之結果......................................................... 21
第伍章、研究結論與建議............................................................. 24
第一節 研究結論................................................................... 24
第二節 行銷意涵................................................................... 25
第三節 研究限制................................................................... 26
第四節 未來研究建議............................................................. 27
參考文獻................................................................................... 28

Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L.(1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54, 27-41.
Boush, D. M., & Loken, B. (1991). A process-tracing study of brand extension evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 16-28.
Broniarczyk, S. M., & Alba, J. W. (1994). The importance of the brand in brand extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 214-228.
Chang, C. C., Lin, B. C., & Chang, S. S. (2010). The relative advantages of benefit overlap versus category similarity in brand extension evaluation: The moderating role of self-regulatory focus. Marketing Letters. (Online publication)
Choi, I., Dalal, R., Kim-Prieto, C., & Park, H. (2003). Culture and judgment of causal relevance. Journal of Personality and Cocial Psychology, 84, 46-59.
Choi, I., Koo, M., & Choi, J. A. (2007). Individual differences in analytic versus holistic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 691-705.
Choi, I., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). Situational salience and cultural differences in the correspondence bias and in the actor-observer bias. Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 890-905.
Choi, I., Nisbett, R. E., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 47-63.
Choi, I., Nisbett, R. E., & Smith, E. E. (1997). Culture, categorization and inductive reasoning. Cognition, 65, 15-32.
Chua, H. F., Boland, J. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (2005) Cultural variation in eye movements during scene perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 12629-12633.
Dacin, P. A., & Smith, D. C. (1994). The effect of brand portfolio characteristics on consumer evaluations of brand extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 229-242.
Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 421-435.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. The American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.
Hedden, T., Ji, L., Jing, Q., Jiao, S., Yao, C., Nisbett, R. E., et al. (2000). Culture and age differences in recognition memory for social dimensions. Paper presented at the Cognitive Aging Conference, Atlanta, GA.
Herr, P., Farquhar, P. H., & Fazio, R. H. (1996). Impact of Dominance and Relatedness on Brand Extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(2), 135-159.
Ji, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (2001). Culture, Language and relationships vs. categories in cognition. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Ji, L., Nisbett, R. E., & Su, Y. (2001). Culture, change, and prediction. Psychological Science, 12, 450-456.
Ji, L., Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Culture, control, and perception of relationships in the environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 943-955.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57. 1-22.
Keller, K. L. (2002). Branding and brand equity. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Keller, K. L., & Aaker, D. A. (1992). The effects of sequential introduction of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 35-50.
Lee, F., Hallahan, M., & Herzog, T. (1996). Explaining real life events: How culture and domain shape attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 732-741.
Mandler, G. (1982). The structure of value: accounting for taste. In M. S. Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition: The seventeenth annual Carnegie symposium on cognition (pp. 3-36). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Masuda, T. & Nisbett, R. E. (2001). Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 922-934.
Meyers-Levy, J., Louie, T. A., & Curren, M. T. (1994). How does the congruity of brand names aggect evaluations of brand name extensions? The Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 46-53.
Meyvis, T., & Janiszewski, C. (2004). When are broader brands stronger brands? An accessibility perspective on the success of brand extensions. Journal of Consumer Research, 44,663-670.
Miller, J. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 961-978.
Morris, M., Nisbett, R. E., & Peng, K. (1995). Culture understanding across domains and cultures. In D. Sperber, D. Permack, & A. J. Premack (Eds.), Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate (pp. 577-612). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 949-971.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291-310.
Norenzayan, A., Smith, E. E., Kim, B. J., & Nisbett, R. E. (2002). Culture preferences for formal versus intuitive reasoning. Cognitive Science, 26, 653-684.
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, 185-193.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741-754.
Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2005). Individualism: A valid and important dimension of cultural differences between nations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 17-31.