Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
標題: 品牌延伸相似性對品牌延伸評價的影響
The Effects of Extension Similarity on Evaluations of Brand Extension
作者: Yen-Chu Tseng
關鍵字: 品牌延伸相似性;品牌年齡;認知年齡;品牌延伸評價;brand extension similarity;brand age;cognitive age;brand extension evaluation
引用: 一、中文部分 黃昭蕙. (2009). 認知年齡與品牌年齡一致性對不同產品類型品牌偏好程度之影響. (碩士), 國立政治大學, 台北市. 二、英文部分 Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions.Journal of marketing, 54(1), 27-41. Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research,34(3), 347-356. Barak, B., & Schiffman, L. G. (1981). Cognitive age: a nonchronological age variable.Advances in consumer research, 8(1), 602-606. Bhat, S., & Reddy, S. K. (1998). Symbolic and functional positioning of brands. TheJournal of Consumer Marketing, 15(1), 32-43. Bhat, S., & Reddy, S. K. (2001). The impact of parent brand attribute associations andaffect on brand extension evaluation. Journal of Business Research, 53(3),111-122. Boush, D. M., & Loken, B. (1991). A process-tracing study of brand extensionevaluation. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 28(1), 16-28. Broniarczyk, S. M., & Alba, J. W. (1994). The Importance of the Brand in BrandExtension. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 214-228. Carrigan, M., & Szmigin, I. (1999). The representation of older people inadvertisements: ageism in advertising. International Journal of MarketResearch, 41(3), 311-326. Chang, C. (2008). Chronological age versus cognitive age for younger consumers:Implications for Advertising Persuasion. Journal of Advertising, 37(3), 19-32. Chang, C. (2011). Is That Website for Me? Website-Self Congruency EffectsTriggered by Visual Designs. International journal of advertising, 31(4),835-860. Crocker, G. B. (1984). A physical model for predicting the thermal conductivity ofbrine-wetted snow. Cold Regions Science and Technology, 10(1), 69-74. Diamantopoulos, A., Smith, G., & Grime, I. (2005). The impact of brand extensionson brand personality: experimental evidence. European Journal of Marketing,39(1-1), 129-149. Edson Escalas, J. (2004). Narrative processing: Building consumer connections tobrands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1), 168-180. Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory inconsumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-353. Grohmann, B. (2009). Gender dimensions of brand personality. Journal of MarketingResearch, 46(1), 105-119. Guido, G., Amatulli, C., & Peluso, A. M. (2014). Context Effects on OlderConsumers' Cognitive Age: The Role of Hedonic versus Utilitarian Goals.Psychology & Marketing, 31(2), 103-114. Gwinner, K. P., & Stephens, N. (2001). Testing the implied mediational role ofcognitive age. Psychology & Marketing, 18(10), 1031-1048. Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept: lawrence Erlbaum associates, Inc.Hedrick-Wong, Y. (2008). The future and me: Power of the youth market in Asia.John Wiley & Sons Incorporated.Huber, F., Meyer, F., Vogel, J., Weihrauch, A., & Hamprecht, J. (2013). Endorser ageand stereotypes: Consequences on brand age. Journal of Business Research,66(2), 207-215. Huifang, M., & Krishnan, H. S. (2006). Effects of Prototype and Exemplar Fit onBrand Extension Evaluations: A Two-Process Contingency Model. Journal ofConsumer Research, 33(1), 41-49. Kastenbaum, R., Derbin, V., Sabatini, P., & Artt, S. (1972). ' The ages of me':Toward personal and interpersonal definitions of functional aging. TheInternational Journal of Aging and Human Development, 3(2), 197-211. Keller, K. L., & Aaker, D. A. (1992). The effects of sequential introduction of brandextensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(1), 35-50. Keller, K. L., & Aaker, D. A. (1997). Managing the corporate brand: the effects ofcorporate marketing activity on consumer evaluations of brand extensions.REPORT-MARKETING SCIENCE INSTITUTE CAMBRIDGEMASSACHUSETTS.Lehu, J. M. (2004). Back to life! Why brands grow old and sometimes die and whatmanagers then do: An exploratory qualitative research put into the Frenchcontext. Journal of Marketing Communications, 10(2), 133-152. Lin, Y.-T., & Xia, K.-N. (2012). Cognitive age and fashion consumption.International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36(1), 97-105. Liu, J., & Smeesters, D. (2010). Have You Seen the News Today? The Effect ofDeath-Related Media Contexts on Brand Preferences. Journal of MarketingResearch (JMR), 47(2), 251-262. Müller, B., Kocher, B., & Crettaz, A. (2013). The effects of visual rejuvenationthrough brand logos. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 82-88.Milberg, S. J., & Sinn, F. (2008). Vulnerability of global brands to negative feedbackeffects. Journal of Business Research, 61(6), 684-690. Park, C. W., Jun, S. Y., & Shocker, A. D. (1996). Composite branding alliances: aninvestigation of extension and feedback effects. Journal of MarketingResearch, 453-466. Park, C. W., McCarthy, M. S., & Milberg, S. J. (1993). The Effects of Direct andAssociative Brand Extension Strategies on Consumer Response to BrandExtensions. Advances in consumer research, 20(1), 28-33. Park, C. W., Milberg, S., & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: therole of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal ofConsumer Research, 18(2), 185-193. Plummer, J. T. (1985). How personality makes a difference. Journal of AdvertisingResearch, 24(6), 27-31. Raju, P. S. (1977). PRODUCT FAMILIARITY, BRAND NAME, AND PRICEINFLUENCES ON PRODUCT EVALUATION. Advances in consumerresearch, 4(1), 64-71. Roscoe, A., LeClaire, A., & Schiffman, L. G. (1977). Theory and ManagementApplications of Demographics in Buyer Behavior. Consumer and IndustrialBuying Behavior, 67-76. Sood, S., & Keller, K. L. (2012). The Effects of Brand Name Structure on BrandExtension Evaluations and Parent Brand Dilution. Journal of MarketingResearch, 49(3), 373-382. Sternberg, R. J., & Jordan, J. (2005). A handbook of wisdom: Psychologicalperspectives: Cambridge University Press.Sujan, M., & Bettman, J. R. (1989). The Effects of Brand Positioning Strategies onConsumers' Brand and Category Perceptions: Some Insights from SchemaResearch. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(4), 454-467. Supphellen, M., Eismann, O., & Hem, L. E. (2004). Can advertisements for brandextensions revitalise flagship products? An experiment. International journalof advertising, 23(2), 173-196. Taylor, V., & Bearden, W. (2002). The effects of price on brand extension evaluations:The moderating role of extension similarity. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 30(2), 131-140. Te'eni-Harari, T., Lehman-Wilzig, S. N., & Lampert, S. I. (2009). The importance ofproduct involvement for predicting advertising effectiveness among youngpeople. International journal of advertising, 28(2), 203-229. Völckner, F., Sattler, H., & Kaufmann, G. (2008). Image feedback effects of brandextensions: evidence from a longitudinal field study. Marketing Letters, 19(2),109-124. Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the Hedonic andUtilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude. Journal of Marketing Research,40(3), 310-320. Weber, R., & Crocker, J. (1983). Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypicbeliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(5), 961-977. Worth, L. T., Smith, J., & Mackie, D. M. (1992). Gender schematicity and preferencefor gender‐typed products. Psychology & Marketing, 9(1), 17-30. Yeo, J., & Park, J. (2006). Effects of Parent-Extension Similarity and Self RegulatoryFocus on Evaluations of Brand Extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology,16(3), 272-282.
The brand extension is considered as an important strategy for enterprises to launch new products. There is no conclusion in the similarity of brand extension on
brand evaluations. This study further proposes two important moderators in order to clarify the effects of the similarity of brand extension on brand evaluations. Prior research indicated that the successful of brand extension was influenced by brand personality. Following previous findings, this study further explores the moderating role of brand age, which one factor under the concept of brand personality. In addition to brand age, this study also considers consumers' cognitive age rather than real age as a moderating role, because the effects of cognitive age on consumer behaviors are more important than real age.
In order to verify the hypotheses, this study conducted two experiments. Study 1 adopted a 2 (brand extension similarity:similarity vs. dissimilarity) X 2 (brand age:young vs. old) between-subject design. Study 2 used a 2 (brand extension similarity:similarity vs. dissimilarity) X 2 (consumers' cognitive age:young vs. old)between-subject design. Consumers' cognitive age was a measured variable and dependent variable was attitudes toward brand extension.
The results revealed that when consumers considered brand as young, they will response more positive evaluations toward brand extension for similar brand extension than for dissimilar brand extension. However, when consumers considered brand as old, brand extension evaluations will not influenced by similarity of brand extension. Moreover, in the condition of old brand, when consumers' cognitive age is young, which inconsistent with brand age, they will response more positive evaluations toward brand extension for similar brand extension than for dissimilar brand extension. However, when consumers' cognitive age is old, which consistent with old brand, brand extension evaluations will not influenced by similarity of brand extension. The findings provide a guideline for brand manager in the strategy of brand
extension. A successful brand extension strategy was determined by band age and cognitive age.

實驗一採2 (品牌延伸相似性:相似vs.不相似)* 2(品牌年齡:年輕vs.老)之受測者組間設計,而實驗二為2 (品牌延伸相似性:相似vs.不相似)*2(消費者認知年齡:年輕vs.老)之受測者組間設計,認知年齡乃用衡量方式再分群,品牌延伸評價為依變數。研究結果發現,當消費者知覺品牌年齡較為年輕時,對於不相似之品牌延伸會有較佳之評價,然而當品牌年齡被知覺為年老時,品牌評價則不受延伸策略影響。此外,面對老品牌之品牌延伸策略,若消費者的認知年齡年輕時,表示消費者認知年齡與品牌年齡存在不一致的狀況,此時,消費者對於相似性延伸之品牌評價會較不相似為佳。反之,若消費者的認知年齡年老時,表示消費者認知年齡與品牌年齡一致,此時,消費者對品牌的評價則不受延伸策略的影響。
Rights: 不同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務
Appears in Collections:行銷學系所

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat Existing users please Login
nchu-103-7100044020-1.pdf2.54 MBAdobe PDFThis file is only available in the university internal network    Request a copy
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.