外文翻譯--消費者評價品牌延伸的信息和動機影響

1、<p><b>　　中文3950字</b></p><p>　　標題：informational and motivational influences on consumer evaluations of line and brand extensions</p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p&

2、gt;　　theoretical background</p><p>　　Line/brand extensions are, by definition, products that are extended from the parent brand. To the extent that consumers recognize a relationship between an extension a

3、nd the original brand, they will make their evaluation of the extension in relation to the category that the original brand is classified into (original brand category, hereafter). Thus, their knowledge

4、 and expectations about the original brand category can have a substantial influence on cognitive processes u</p><p>　　Category-based versus Piecemeal Processes </p><p>　　As mentioned earlier,

5、 previous research has indicated that consumers engage in a categorization process when evaluating line/brand extensions. However, the categorization process does not seem to be the only process underlying evaluati

6、ons of extensions. According to categorization literature (Cohen & Basu, 1987; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Fiske & Pavelchak, 1986; Smith & Medin, 1981), people develop a number of categories of objects

7、 in an effort to organize and understand them. Sp</p><p>　　In regards to this question, the existing literature can be largely placed into two groups: one group arguing for information consisten

8、cy with category knowledge as a primary determinant of the two types of processing (Fiske, 1982; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Fiske & Pavelchak, 1986; Sujan, 1985), and the other advocating the perceiver'

9、s motivation levels as a determinant (Borgida & Howard-Pitney, 1983; Brewer, 1988; Howard-Pitney, Borgida, & Omoto, 1986; Omoto & Borgida, 1988)</p><p>　　These two groups place an uneven em

10、phasis on either one of informational and motivational factors as the determinant of the alternative types of processing. Thus, in this study, both of these factors are examined. It is believed that both

11、would operate on different phases of the evaluation processes. As an example, categorization failure due to the lack of a fitting category might not automatically lead to a piecemeal integration, unless a cert

12、ain level of motivati</p><p>　　Assimilation versus Contrast Evaluation Processes </p><p>　　It has been well-documented in social psychology and consumer behavior that the context in whic

13、h a stimulus is embedded has significant effects on people's evaluation of that stimulus. That is, in the present research context, evaluations of extensions are affected not only by their own characteristi

14、cs but also by the characteristics of the original brand category retrieved from memory (Biernat, Manis, & Nelson, 1991; Kahneman & Miller, 1986). Two processes that des</p><p>　　Thes

15、e two processes can be used in evaluations of line/brand extensions; with the present category (or the original brand category) serving as a standard of comparison, evaluations can be made in the same direction of the

16、 category affect (assimilated) or in the opposite direction from it (contrasted). In their assimilation/contrast theory, Sherif and Hovland (1961) argue that messages are assimilated toward the perceiver's position

17、 when they are acceptable to begin with (i.e., when they fa</p><p>　　In summary, based on the existing literature discussed thus far, it is conceptualized that there are at least three types of pro

18、cess consumers can use in evaluating a brand: (a) category-based (or assimilation), (b) contrast, and (c) piecemeal process. It is expected that these alternative types of process are determined by the tw

19、o factors: (a) consistency of brand information with the category schema and (b) level of motivation to process the information. More s</p><p>　　Research hypotheses</p><p>　　A set of hyp

20、otheses is developed and tested in this study in order to understand different information processing strategies consumers use when evaluating line/brand extensions and to predict final evaluations. These hypoth

21、eses are built upon the same basic premises that past theoretical models are based upon (see Brewer, 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Fiske & Pavelchak, 1986). That is, it is assumed that (a) u

22、nless the incoming brand information satisfies the mi</p><p>　　Suppose consumers find the brand information sufficiently interesting and relevant to their goal. Under this condition, the case where they

23、obtain brand information without any category expectations is considered extremely rare (Wilson, Lisle, Kraft, & Wetzel, 1989). Even when encountering a novel brand, they must have at least rudimentary e

24、xpectations about the product category to which the brand would belong. Thus, upon obtaining the brand information, they will first </p><p>　　Evaluations of Original Brands </p><p>　

25、　Consider the following information of a T.V. set: a Sony stereo color T.V. set with some unique features (e.g., on-screen graphic display, multi-functional remote control, 4-speaker system, and automatic s

26、hutoff). In this case, the brand name will immediately bring to the consumers' mind a category label of Sony stereo color T.V. set with its typical attributes as well as expected performance levels of th

27、ese attributes. The consumers are now in a position to te</p><p>　　To the extent that the attribute information is a good fit with the current category, regardless of the motivation le

28、vel, the affect associated with the category label will be automatically activated and used as a basis for the overall judgment (Fiske & Pavelchak, 1986; Fiske & 480 Neuberg, 1990; Srull & Wye

29、r, 1989). From a cognitive economy perspective, it is believed that this kind of category-based process is much more efficient than any other types </p><p>　　HI: Regardless of the motivation l

30、evel, when evaluating an original brand, consumers will engage in a category-based (or an assimilation) process. </p><p>　　Evaluations of Line Extensions </p><p>　　A line extension st

31、rategy modifies some features of attributes of an original brand. Thus, from a consumer's perspective, a line extension creates a moderate degree of discrepancy between the attribute descriptions and th

32、e category expectations. In this situation, consumers will react to the brand differently depending on their level of motivation to process the brand information.</p><p>　　Under a Low Motivation

33、 Condition. Under a low motivation condition, even if one finds the brand information inconsistent with the current category schema, one would not bother either trying to form a betterfitting category o

34、r going through the brand information in an attribute- by-attribute manner. The judgment will simply be made on the basis of the category that happens to be activated in the categorization stage. This category

35、 will serve as a substitute for a p</p><p>　　H2a: when evaluating a line extension, unless consumers are highly motivated to process the brand information, they will use a category-based (or an

36、 assimilation) process. </p><p>　　Under a High Motivation Condition. It has been suggested that the motivational factor has a substantial impact on information processing. For instance, in the cont

37、ext of social cognition, Borgida and HowardPitney (1983) found that highly motivated perceivers engaged in systematic (or piecemeal) processing of stimulus information, whereas low motivated perceivers used &quo

38、t;top of the head" processing. Likewise, in the consumer domain, Celsi and Olson (1988) demonstrated that </p><p>　　H2b: When evaluating a line extension, if consumers are highly motivat

39、ed, they will engage in a piecemeal process. </p><p>　　Evaluations of Brand Extensions </p><p>　　A brand extension is a situation where the brand name is used to enter a complet

40、ely different product category. Thus, consumers are likely to perceive a brand extension to be extremely inconsistent with the current category schema. Again, in this situation, their reaction to th

41、e brand will depend upon their level of motivation to process the brand information. </p><p>　　Under a Low Motivation Condition. When the inconsistency is perceived to be extremely strong, the br

42、and cannot be considered as an instance of the current category. Besides, piecemeal processing is not likely to occur under this low motivation condition. In this case, a contrast process will be used; it is expected

43、 that the present category will serve as a standard of comparison and the overall evaluation will simply be made in an opposite direction from the category, since this </p><p>　　H3a: When evalua

44、ting a brand extension, unless consumers are highly motivated to process the brand information, they will use a contrast process. </p><p>　　Under a High Motivation Condition. When consumers are

45、 highly motivated, they will use a piecemeal process to evaluate a brand extension, on the same ground that Hypothesis 2b is built upon. The process entails an integration of available information in a

46、n attribute-by-attribute fashion (Anderson, 1974; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Fiske & Pavelchak, 1986; Fiske et al., 1987; Pavelchak, 1989; Shocker & Srinivasan, 1979; Sujan & Bettman, 1989).

47、 Thus, it is hypot</p><p>　　H3b: When evaluating a brand extension, if consumers are highly motivated, they will engage in a piecemeal process. </p><p>　　出處：Moonkyu lee.informational

48、 and motivational influences on consumer evaluations of line and brand extensions [J]. journal of business and psychology. 1994.8(4), pp.476-482.</p><p>　　標題：消費者評價品牌延伸的信息和動機影響</p><p><b>　　

49、譯文：</b></p><p><b>　　理論背景</b></p><p>　　根據(jù)定義，產(chǎn)品從母品牌延伸出來被稱為渠道/品牌延伸，當消費者認識原始品牌和延伸品牌之間的關系，到某種程度上時，他們對延伸品牌的評價，將與母品牌種類聯(lián)系起來 (原有品牌范疇，以后)。因此，他們關于原品牌的知識和期望，在他們對延伸品牌的評價認知過程中，有實質性的影響。這些過程在下

50、面的介紹中被確定和描述。</p><p><b>　　基于種類的漸進過程</b></p><p>　　如前所述，先前的研究顯示，消費者進行渠道/品牌延伸的評價時，從事分類過程。然而，分類過程似乎并不是潛在的評價品牌延伸的唯一過程。根據(jù)分類文學(Cohen & Basu, 1987; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Fiske &

51、Pavelchak, 1986; Smith & Medin, 1981)， 人們發(fā)展了一些種類來試圖理解它們。具體地說，就某一特定類別來說，人們不僅發(fā)展了對范疇成員的知識，還包括典型范疇成員屬性的期望，稱為種類知識或模式，和對種類的情感的反應，稱為類別影響(Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Fiske & Pavelchak, 1986; Mandler & Parker, 197

52、6)。有人建議，當人們對一個目標進行評價判斷時，他們經(jīng)歷兩個過程中的任何一個：有時他們簡單地對目標進行分類，根據(jù)類別影響做出判斷；一些時侯他們根據(jù)目標的個別屬性的評價，整合他們的判斷。這兩個評價的過程，形成研究社會學和認知心理學的兩個不同層次的基礎。第一種過程，稱為基于種類的過程，是由分類研究人員斷定的(Burnstein & Schul, 19</p><p>　　關于這個問題，現(xiàn)有文獻很大程度上被分成

53、兩組：一組討論分類知識信息的一致性，作為兩種處理類型的主要的決定因素(Fiske, 1982; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Fiske & Pavelchak, 1986; Sujan, 1985)， 另一組倡導感官的動機水平，作為一種決定因素(Borgida & Howard-Pitney, 1983; Brewer, 1988; Howard-Pitney, Borgida, &a

54、mp; Omoto, 1986; Omoto & Borgida, 1988)。第一組討論和演示了目標刺激的知覺特點 (例如，擬合模式可用性)，觸發(fā)了不同的處理模式，基于種類的過程，發(fā)生于當刺激信息符合一個把感官融入評價情況的種類模式中。而零星的過程，被使用于信息不一致時。第二組，在另一方面，指出感官者處理有關資料的能動性，是不同類型的處理過程的唯一的決定因素，各層級分類類目處理，發(fā)生于缺乏動力的情況，而零星的處理，發(fā)生在

55、高動機的情況下。</p><p>　　這兩個組織，扮演信息化和激勵因素中任何一個，作為處理過程中替代類型的決定因素的不均勻重點。因此，在這項研究中，這兩種因素都被探討。據(jù)說兩者都可能使用于不同的階評估過程段。作為一個例子，分類失敗是由于缺少一個恰當?shù)?，可能不會自動零星的整合類別，除非一定程度的動機是令人滿意的。</p><p><b>　　同化與對比評估過程</b>&

56、lt;/p><p>　　在社會心理和消費行為方面，嵌入式激勵的語境，在人們的評價因素中具有顯著的影響。這就是說目前的研究背景﹑延伸品牌的評價不僅受到自己的特點的影響，而且還受有關原品牌特點的影響(Biernat, Manis, & Nelson, 1991; Kahneman & Miller, 1986)。兩種過程，描述人們?nèi)绾卧u估由語境產(chǎn)生的影響被同化和對比(Sherif &

57、; Hovland, 1961; Sherif, Sherif, & Nebergall, 1965)。 同化發(fā)生在目標刺激納入現(xiàn)在的范疇時，在類別影響的基礎上提出評價。因此，同化帶來了一些基于類別過程的評價結果。另一方面，對比發(fā)生在當目標刺激與種類對比時，評價產(chǎn)生于種類影響的相反方向。</p><p>　　這兩個過程可被用于評估線路/品牌延伸，以現(xiàn)在的類別(或原品牌類別)作為一個對比標準，評

58、估可以在范疇影響的同一方向(吸收)或者是從相反的方向(對比)。在他們的同化/對比理論中，Sherif和Hovland(1961)認為，當他們開始接受時，息信被同化向感官的位置 (即當他們屬于接受的范圍)，但是當它們距離遙遠和不被接受時，它們被排擠。相對于目前的研究背景，據(jù)推斷當對同類別的感知相似時，品牌被當前類別同化，而當其描述與種類不同時，被比較。到目前為止，然而，卻很少有對消費行為的研究，檢驗這兩個因素的同步效果，種類模式和參與目標

59、刺激相似。此外， 同化對比理論不考慮漸進的過程發(fā)生的可能。</p><p>　　總之，從現(xiàn)有文獻的基礎上討論了到目前為止，已有至少有三種類型，消費者可以用來評估一個品牌： (a)各層級分類類目(或同化)(b)對比，和(c)漸進的過程。預計這些過程的替代類型，是由兩種因素決定︰ (a) 分類模式的品牌信息的一致性和(b)處理有關信息的能動水平。更具體的，有關消費者對原始品牌和延伸品牌的的預測，在下一部分有所發(fā)展。&

60、lt;/p><p><b>　　研究假設</b></p><p>　　在研究中，一套假設不斷地發(fā)展和檢測，以了解當消費者評價線路/品牌延伸和預測最終評估結果時，用的處理策略的不同信息。這些假設是建立在過去理論模型的基礎上(see Brewer, 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Fiske & Pavelchak,

61、1986)。也就是說，我們假定 (a)，除非進來的品牌信息，滿足最低的興趣程度水平，與有評價目標的用戶相關，沒有進一步的處理，(b)試圖首選分類目標品牌。</p><p>　　假如消費者發(fā)現(xiàn)品牌信息足夠的有趣，和與他們的目標相關。在這種情況下，沒有任何類別期望的情況下，他們獲得品牌信息是極其罕見的(Wilson, Lisle, Kraft, & Wetzel, 1989)。甚至當遇到一種新奇的品牌，他們

62、必須至少有初步的對產(chǎn)品類別的預測，這樣品牌才能長久。因此，在獲得品牌信息時，他們都會先了解品牌信息，并弄懂它然后把品牌分類。</p><p>　　原始品牌的評估，考慮以下電視頻道的情報：一個索尼的立體顏色電視頻道，提供特別的特征(例如，屏幕上的圖形顯示﹑多功能遙控，4-speaker系統(tǒng)，和自動關閉)。在這種情況下，品牌名稱將立即給消費者提供一個索尼立體顏色頻道類別標志，以其典型的屬性，同時預期這些屬性表現(xiàn)水平。

63、消費者現(xiàn)在處在假設這個品牌確實屬于那個類別，通過驗證對剩下的信息的描述性含義。</p><p>　　為達到屬性信息很適合當前的范疇的程度，不考慮動機水平，類別標志的影響范疇將被自動激活，并被使用為綜合判斷的基礎(Fiske & Pavelchak, 1986; Fiske & 480 Neuberg, 1990; Srull & Wyer, 1989)。從經(jīng)濟認知的角度來看，

64、據(jù)說這種各層級分類類目過程效率，遠高于其它任何形式的過程(Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Fiske & Taylor, 1984)。也就是說，即使消費者有高度的積極性處理品牌信息，除非他們找到了品牌的不同之處，他們不認為有必要精心于屬性信息。因此，屬性信息，在這種情況下，僅用于檢查其符合類別模式的一致性，而不是作出最后的評估。相反，類別影響效果被使用。換言之綜合評價將被類別影響的范疇同化(Aaker

65、& Keller, 1990; Boush & Loken, 1991; Fiske, Neuberg, Beattie, & Milberg, 1987; Pavelchak, 1989; Sujan & Bettman, 1989; University of Mi</p><p>　　假設1：不管動機水平，當評估一項原有品牌時，消費者將參加一項各層級分類類目(或

66、一種同化)的過程。</p><p><b>　　線路延伸評估</b></p><p>　　一個線路延伸戰(zhàn)略，修改一個原始品牌屬性的特征。因此，從消費者角度來看，一個品牌延伸，在屬性描述和類別期望之間，創(chuàng)建一個中等程度差異。在這種情況下，消費者將依據(jù)對品牌信息加工的動機，做出不同的反應。</p><p>　　在缺乏動力條件下，即使你發(fā)現(xiàn)品牌信息與

67、當前的分類模式符合，也不會去想形成一個適合的類別或以一個屬性的態(tài)度了解品牌信息。這個審判將根據(jù)發(fā)生在分類階段的類別形成。這一類將作為完美擬合范疇的替代品，在這種情況下，最后的評估將被同化或對比，取決于品牌信息和當前類別模式之間的矛盾(Herr, 1986, 1989; Herr, Sherman, & Fazio, 1983; Sujan & Bettman, 1989, Wilson et al., 1989)

68、。當不一致被認為是唯一適度的，因此還過得去的話，不相一致的資訊，將會被忽略或打折扣，從而導致現(xiàn)在的影響范疇的綜合評價被同化，這個過程類似于原始品牌評價(看假設3a極端不一致的情況下的預測)。因此，預計如下：</p><p>　　假設2a：當評估一個線路延伸時，除非消費者對處理品牌信息有高度的積極性，他們將用各層級分類類目(或一種同化)的過程。</p><p>　　在高動機條件下，這也暗示了

69、激勵因子在信息加工過程中，有實質性的影響。比如，在社會認知中，Borgida和HowardPitney(1983)發(fā)現(xiàn)，高度動機的對象在系統(tǒng)(或零星) 的激勵信息處理中，而低動機對象用“上面的頭”的處理方法。同樣地，在消費者領域，Celsi and Olson (1988)表明在處理產(chǎn)品信息的過程中，充滿激情的消費者比低激情的消費者產(chǎn)生了更多的認知的努力。雖然特色信息(明確的說，信息一致性對稱的程度)，沒有在提到的任何一個研究中被操縱

70、，也可以推斷出，消費者的動機水平更高，更敏感﹑更細心的消費者對品牌預期的信息，變得很小的程度不一致。因此，在此基礎上，提出：</p><p>　　假設2b：當評估一個延伸品牌時：如果消費者有高度的積極性，他們將加入漸進的過程。</p><p><b>　　品牌延伸的評估</b></p><p>　　一個品牌延伸，是一個品牌名稱被使用進入一種完全

71、不同類別產(chǎn)品的情況。因此，消費者都會感知一個品牌延伸與當前的類別范疇非常符合。再次，在這種情況下，他們對品牌的反應，將取決于其處理品牌信息的動機水平。</p><p>　　在缺乏動力條件下，當不一致被感知極強時，品牌不能被認為是目前類別范疇實例，此外，零星的處理，不可能發(fā)生在這種缺乏動力的條件下。在這種情況下，對比的過程將會被使用；它預計現(xiàn)在的范疇，將會作為一個比較標準和綜合評價，在范疇的相反方向產(chǎn)生，因為這種過

72、程的類型，比一個零星的過程容易得多。Herr和他的同事發(fā)現(xiàn)的結果，對對比過程的假說有很大的鼓舞作用(Herr, 1986, 1989; Herr et al., 1983)。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)，因為不相配對比處理，發(fā)生在人們不考慮刺激作為一個基本的范疇成員時。他們假設，基本的類別仍然提供了一個對比的外部標準來比較刺激。在相同的情況下，Boush和Loken(1991)表明，延伸品牌和原始品牌的對比中，更典型的品牌延伸的評估影響，更迅速和

73、負面，一個對比過程的現(xiàn)有概念的相似過程。雖然動機的影響，沒有在上述研究中進行過檢測，提出了對比過程，在較低的動機的情況下，比較高的動機情況下更有可能出現(xiàn)，因為比起零星的苦心經(jīng)營，他們必須要以更快和更簡單的方式來達成判斷。因此，它是預言：</p><p>　　假設3a：當評估一個品牌延伸時，除非消費者對處理品牌信息有高度的積極性，他們將使用對比的過程。</p><p>　　在高動機條件下，當

74、消費者有高度的積極性，他們將使用一種漸進的過程，評價品牌延伸，而在相同的層面，在假說2b中已被建立。整個過程需要一個包含著有用屬性對屬性的改變整合(Anderson, 1974; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Fiske & Pavelchak, 1986; Fiske et al., 1987; Pavelchak, 1989; Shocker & Srinivas