1、中文 3950 字 标题： informational and motivational influences on consumer evaluations of line and brand extensions 原文： theoretical background Line/brand extensions are, by definition, products that are extended from the parent brand. To the extent that consumers recognize a relationship between an extensi
2、on and 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 and expectations about the original brand category can have a substantial influence on cognit
3、ive processes underlying their evaluations of extensions. These processes are identified and described in the sections that follow. Category-based versus Piecemeal Processes As mentioned earlier, previous research has indicated that consumers engage in a categorization process when evaluating line/b
4、rand extensions. However, the categorization process does not seem to be the only process underlying evaluations 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 o
5、bjects in an effort to organize and understand them. Specifically, with respect to a particular category, people develop not only their knowledge of category members but also their expectations about the attributes of a typical category member, called category knowledge or schema, and affective reac
6、tion to the category, termed category affect (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990； Fiske & Pavelchak, 1986； Mandler & Parker, 1976). It has been suggested that when people make an evaluative judgment of an object, they go through either one of two processes: sometimes they simply categorize the object and make th
7、eir judgment on the basis of the category affect； other times they piece together their judgment on the basis of their evaluations of the individual attributes of the object. These two processes of evaluation have formed the basis of two separate streams of research in social and cognitive psycholog
8、y. The first type of process, known as a category-based process, was posited by the categorization researchers (Burnstein & Schul, 1982, 1983； Fazio, 1986； Fazio, Powell, & Herr, 1983； Lingle & Ostrom, 1981), whereas the second type, known as a piecemeal process, was assumed by the multiattribute th
9、eorists (Anderson, 1974； Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Recently, in the consumer research area, a growing amount of evidence indicates that these alternative modes of information processing also mediate product evaluations by consumers (Herr, 1989； Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989； Sujan, 1985； Sujan & Bettman
10、, 1989). Then,when do people use a category-based, and when do they use a piecemeal process? In regards to this question, the existing literature can be largely placed into two groups: one group arguing for information consistency with category knowledge as a primary determinant of the two types of
11、processing (Fiske, 1982； Fiske & Neuberg, 1990； Fiske & Pavelchak, 1986； Sujan, 1985), and the other advocating the perceivers motivation levels as a determinant (Borgida & Howard-Pitney, 1983； Brewer, 1988； Howard-Pitney, Borgida, & Omoto, 1986； Omoto & Borgida, 1988).The first group argues and dem
12、onstrates that perceived characteristics of a target stimulus (i.e., availability of a fitting schema) trigger different modes of processing； category-based processing occurs when the stimulus information is descriptively consistent with a category schema that a perceiver brings to the evaluation si
13、tuation, whereas piecemeal processing is used when the information is inconsistent with it. The second group, on the other hand, posits that a perceivers level of motivation to process the information is the sole determinant of different types of processing； category-based processing occurs under lo
14、w motivation situations, whereas piecemeal processing takes place under high motivation situations. These two groups place an uneven emphasis 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
15、are examined. It is believed that both 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 certain level of motivation is satisfied. Assimilation v
16、ersus Contrast Evaluation Processes It has been well-documented in social psychology and consumer behavior that the context in which a stimulus is embedded has significant effects on peoples evaluation of that stimulus. That is, in the present research context, evaluations of extensions are affected
17、 not only by their own characteristics but also by the characteristics of the original brand category retrieved from memory (Biernat, Manis, & Nelson, 1991； Kahneman & Miller, 1986). Two processes that describe how people make their evaluations as influenced by the context are assimilation and contr
18、ast (Sherif & Hovland, 1961； Sherif, Sherif, & Nebergall, 1965). Assimilation occurs when a target stimulus is integrated into the present category and the evaluation is made on the basis of the category affect. Consequently, assimilation brings about the some evaluative outcome that a category-base
19、d process would. On the other hand, contrast occurs when a target stimulus is contrasted with the category and the evaluation is made in the opposite direction from the category affect. These two processes can be used in evaluations of line/brand extensions； with the present category (or the origina
20、l brand category) serving as a standard of comparison, evaluations can be made in the same direction of the 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 perceivers position when they are acceptable to begin with (i.e., when they fall within the latitude of acceptance), whereas they are contrasted away when they are distant and unacceptable to begin with
