品牌間的品牌名稱與產品外觀的高低相似對於品牌稀釋的影響

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：49

、訪客IP：18.191.171.43

姓名

陳諭廷(Yu-Tin Chen) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

企業管理學系

論文名稱

品牌間的品牌名稱與產品外觀的高低相似對於品牌稀釋的影響
(The High and Low Likeness of the Product Aspect and the Brand Namebetween the brands Influence to the Brand Dilution)

相關論文

★ 網頁背景圖片對消費者產品偏好的影響	★ 組合商品的定價模式對消費者的滿意度與價值知覺
★ KTV消費型態與消費者類型之關聯	★ 蘋果沉浸度研究
★ 女性業務人員的配飾、妝容、上衣對業務職能特質知覺之影響	★ 男性業務人員服飾配件對職能特質知覺之影響
★ 個人辦公桌擺設對員工工作投入與專業職能知覺之影響	★ 飯店房間內擺設對消費者知覺與金錢價值之影響 --- 以人格特質為干擾變數
★ 療癒著色本對情緒轉換與風險偏好的影響	★ 名片設計對業務人員的職能特質與工作績效之知覺影響
★ 美語補習班的創新服務	★ 台灣工具機製造商之策略構面、組織構面及財務績效之關係研究：五大廠商之個案分析
★ 服務花朵的創新與競爭優勢:以五家牙科診所的個案分析	★ 反向策略之廣告效果研究
★ 不同性刺激形式所引發的性幻想程度對廣告效果之影響	★ 情緒在消費者決策行為中的影響

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

本研究探討的主要控制變數為品牌名稱在字形、字音以及字義上的高相似，並且搭配自變數為產品外觀的高低相似度，另外以認知需求程度為本研究的干擾變數，最後以兩種不同的記憶抽取方式作為應變數品牌記憶的量測，探討在兩品牌之間，其品牌名稱高相似時，且產品外觀有高相似與低相似的情形，對於品牌稀釋的影響。研究採用網路問卷法，以中央大學大學部與研究所以上的學生為主要問卷發放對象，共蒐集611份有效問卷，以三種品牌名稱高相似(字形、字音、字義)為基礎的實驗為主，在不同產品外觀(分類、屬性、包裝)的高低相似程度分類下，每個實驗共有三組實驗組(產品外觀其一低相似度)與對照組(產品外觀其一高相似度)的組合，分別就總共9組的實驗組與對照組的組別各自以單因子的ANOVA變異數分析進行驗證，並輔以加入認知需求程度為干擾變數的二因子ANOVA變異數分析，進行假設之驗證，研究結果顯示：
一、產品外觀的包裝的低相似不論在何種品牌名稱的相似基礎下，較晚品牌都無法對較早品牌有品牌稀釋的效果，而產品外觀的屬性的低相似以及產品外觀的分類的低相似，幾乎都會造成較晚品牌對於較早品牌產生品牌稀釋的效果，其中屬性的低相似稀釋效果又大於分類的稀釋效果。
二、從字形、字音和字義三種不同的品牌名稱相似基礎來看，字義相似的基礎搭配產品外觀的低相似造成的品牌稀釋效果最為明顯，字形相似的基礎次之，字音相似的基礎最弱，這樣的結果也符合文獻探討過程中，字形和字義為影響中文品牌記憶較大的因素，並且也符合表意文字(中文)系統較注重視覺判斷的文獻探討結果。
三、大多數從產品外觀來回應品牌名稱以及從品牌名稱來回應產品外觀的記憶抽取方式下，並沒有足夠多的顯著結果，來支持認知需求低的人比起認知需求高的人，較能從本研究的記憶衡量方式正確回應較早品牌的品牌記憶的假設。因此本研究不能說認知需求的高低在品牌記憶的稀釋過程中是一個重要的干擾變數。

摘要(英)

This research manipulated the main control variable as the high likeness of brand name in the form, sound of a character and meaning, and the independent bvariable as the high or low likeness degree of product appearance. Besides, this research also manipulated the cognition need degree for the moderate variable. Finally, this research taken two ways of sample’s memory retrieval as measuring the brand dilution. The purpose of this research were to investigate that when two brand name were high likeness, and their product appearance were high or low likeness, how the influence of the brand dilution is.
This research used the network questionnaire method. The main questionnaire issue subject was the university and institute students in the Central University, and collecting 611 valid questionnaires totally. This reaserch based on three ways of brand names high likeness (form, sound of a character, meaning of a word), with the high or low degree of product appearance (categorize, attribute, packing). Each experiment included three sets of combinations of experiment set (one low likeness degree of product appearance) and matched control set (one high likeness degree of product appearance), all experiment set and matched control set were based on the situation with one brand names high likeness (form, sound of a character, meaning of a word). All nine sets data (a experiment set and a matched control set) respectively analyse with the one way ANOVA method and the two way ANOVA method, and all the results as follows:
First, the low likeness of the packing with this product appearance whether based on which likeness of the brand name between two brands, almost could not make the early brand cause brand dilution to the latebrand. But the low likeness of the attribute and the category with the product appearance between two brands almost made the early brand cause brand dilution to the latebrand, and the low likeness of the attribute influence memory retrieval better than the low likeness of the category.
Second, from the three ways of the brand names’s high likeness (form, sound of a character, meaning of a word), meaning of a word likeness match the low likeness of product appearance has the most obvious brand dilution better than the high likeness of from and sound of a character, and the likeness of sound of a character is the most weak. Such of the result also matches form and meaning of a word are a greater factor that influence Chinese brand’s memory in the literal exploration process, and also match the literal exploration process result that ideograms(Chinese) system pays attention to vision judgment more.
Third, our research result didn’t have enough obvious to support a person of low need of cognition compared with a person of tall need of cognition, can recall early brand memory correctly from the memory measurement of this research. So this research can’’t say the difference degree of need of cognition is an important moderate variable in the brand dilution effect.

關鍵字(中)

★ 相似度
★ 品牌稀釋
★ 品牌記憶
★ 產品外觀
★ 品牌名稱
★ 較早品牌
★ 較晚品牌
★ 記憶抽取

關鍵字(英)

★ junior brand
★ brand dilution
★ brand memory
★ product appearance
★ memory retrieval
★ likeness
★ senior brand
★ brand name

論文目次

摘要------------------------------------------------------I
Abstract -----------------------------------------------III
誌謝-----------------------------------------------------V
目錄----------------------------------------------------VI
圖目錄--------------------------------------------------IX
表目錄---------------------------------------------------X
第一章緒論---------------------------------------------1
第一節研究背景與動機---------------------------------1
第二節研究目的---------------------------------------3
第三節研究流程---------------------------------------4
第二章文獻探討-----------------------------------------6
第一節記憶-------------------------------------------6
第二節品牌記憶--------------------------------------10
第三節品牌稀釋--------------------------------------11
第四節品牌名稱的形音義------------------------------14
第五節產品外觀的分類、屬性和包裝--------------------16
第六節認知需求對於品牌記憶的影響--------------------21
第三章研究方法----------------------------------------24
第一節研究架構--------------------------------------24
第二節變數之操作性定義與衡量------------------------27
第三節研究假設--------------------------------------28
第四節前測(品牌名稱及產品外觀相似度高低之衡量)------37
第五節正式問卷設計----------------------------------41
第六節研究分析工具----------------------------------46
第四章研究結果----------------------------------------48
第一節樣本基本資料分析------------------------------48
第二節資料處理--------------------------------------50
第三節信度分析--------------------------------------51
第四節假設驗證--------------------------------------52
第五節研究結果總整理--------------------------------77
第五章結論與建議-------------------------------------83
第一節研究結論與發現--------------------------------83
第二節管理意涵與實務貢獻----------------------------87
第三節研究限制與後續研究建議------------------------89
參考文獻------------------------------------------------92
中文部分---------------------------------------------92
英文部分---------------------------------------------94
附錄---------------------------------------------------102
附錄一：前測一問卷(品牌名稱高相似度 & 產品外觀低相似度) ----------------------------------------------------102
附錄二：前測二問卷（產品外觀高相似度）---------------105
附錄三：正式實驗問卷(實驗組)------------- -----------107
附錄四：正式實驗問卷(對照組)-------------------------120
附錄五：全體目標廣告圖片-----------------------------133

參考文獻

中文部分
1. 王素卿(2001)，「中文閱讀習得歷程中音素覺識角色之探究」，國立臺東師範學院教育研究所碩士論文。
2. 王蘭亭(1994)，「台灣清涼飲料包裝視覺設計之研究」，國立台灣工業技術學院工程技術研究所設計技術學程碩士論文。
3. 林建煌(2005)，「行銷管理」，華泰書局，三版。
4. 林建煌(2002)，「消費者行為」，智勝文化，初版。
5. 何昭賢(1999)，「產品屬性、訊息來源對廣告溝通效果的影響」，東吳大學企業管理研究所碩士論文
6. 呂錦棠(2003)，「品牌形象與來源國形象關係之研究---產品屬性效果之探討」，元智大學管理研究所碩士論文。
7. 吳瑞屯&陳欣進(2000)，「中文辨識與唸名作業中字音字義促發效果的比較分析」，中華心理學刊，42，65-86。
8. 倪俊強(2005)，「卡通代言人特徵對品牌記憶的影響」，國立中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
9. 連韻文(1985)。「中文唸字歷程的探討：聲旁的語音觸發作用」。國立台灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文。
10. 黃金泰(1989)，「產品包裝對產品偏好的影響-以飲料業為例」，國立政治大學企管研究所碩士論文。
11. 孫立群(2005)，「攀附肯德基商譽ＫＬＣ炸雞違法遭罰三十五萬」，中廣新聞。
12. 曾志朗、洪蘭(1978)，「閱讀中文字：一些基本的實驗研究」，中華心理學刊，20，45-49。
13. 張靜維(2005)，「從眼動資料探討字形與聲旁在篇章閱讀的效果」，國立中央大學學習與教學研究所碩士論文。
14. 藍宇眉(2004)，「記憶方法、重複、教育程度與辨識能力對品牌記憶之影響」，國立中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
15. 鄒永誠(1991)，「消費者對飲料包裝設計之偏好研究－以台北市青少年為例」，中國文化大學造紙印刷研究所碩士論文。
16. Philip Kotler，方世榮譯(1998)，「行銷管理學」，東華書局。
英文部分
1. Aaker, D. A. (1990), “Brand Extensions: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly,” Sloan Management Review, Summer, 47-56.
2. Anderson, John R. (1983), “A Spreading Activation Theory of Memory,” Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 22 (3), 261–95.
3. Anderson, Michael C. Collin, Green & Kathleen C. McCulloch (2000), “Similarity & Inhibition in Long-Term Memory: Evidence for a Two-Factor Theory,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26 (5), 1141–59.
4. Barlow, T. & Wogalter, S. M. (1993), “Alcoholic Beverage Warning inMagazine & Television Advertisements,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20(June), 147-156.
5. Burke, Raymond R. & Thomas K. Srull (1988), “Competitive Interfrence & Consumer Memory for Advertising,” Journal of consumer research, 15, June, pp. 55-68.
6. Bruner II, G.C. & Kumar, A. (2000), “Web commercials & advertising hierarchy-ofeffects.” Journal of Advertising Research, 40, 1/2, pp. 35–42.
7. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E. & Kao, C.F. (1984), “An efficient assessment of need for cognition.” Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 3, pp. 306–307.
8. Droge, C. (1989), “ Shaping the route to attitude change: central versus peripheral processing through comparative versus non-comparative advertising.” Journal of Marketing Research, 26, May, pp. 193–204.
9. Einhorn, Hillel. J. (1980), “Overconfidence in Judgment. ” Fallible Judgment in Behavior Research, Richard A Shweder, ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp1-16.
10. Einhorn, Hillel. J. & R. M. Hogarth (1986), “Judging Probable Cause.” Psychological Bulltin, Vol. 99, pp3-19.
11. Federal Trademark Dilution Act (1995), 15 U.S.C. 1125 (c) (1), §43 (c) (1).
12. Fishbein, Martin (1967), “Attitudes & Prediction of Behavior.” Attitude Theory & Measurement, ed. Martin Fishbein. New York: John Wiley.
13. Fisk, Susan T. & Shelley E. Taylor, (1984), “Social Cognition.” New York R&om House.
14. Forbus, Kenneth D., Dedre Gentner, & Keith Law (1994), “MAC/FAC: A Model of Similarity-Based Retrieval,” Cognitive Science, 19 (2), 141–205.
15. Guielford, J.P. (1965), “Fundamental Statistics in Psychology & Education,” 4th Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.
16. Gillund, G. & Shiffrin, R. M. (1984), “A Retrieval Model for both Recognition & Recall,” Psychological Review, 91 (1), 1-67.
17. Goodstein, R.C. (1993), “Category-Based Applications & Extensions in Adverting: Motivating More Extensive Ad Processing,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.20,pp.87-99.
18. Haugtvedt, C.P., Petty, R.E. & Cacioppo, J. (1992), “Need for cognition & advertising: underst&ing the role of personality variables in advertising,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 3, pp. 239–260.
19. Humphreys, Michael S., Gerald Tehan, Annissa O’Shea, & Scott W. Boll& (2000), “Target Similarity Effects: Support for the Parallel Distributed Processing Assumptions,” Memory & Cognition, 28 (July), 798–821.
20. Jacoby, Jacob (2001), “The Psychological Foundations of Trademark
Law: Secondary Meaning, Genericism, Fame, Confusion,
& Dilution,” The Trademark Reporter, 91 (5), 1013–1071.
21. John .W. Payne, 1976, “Task Complexity & Contingent Processing in Decision Making,” Organizational Behavior & Human Performance. Pp366-87.
22. Keller, K. L. (1987), “Memory Factors in Advertising: The Effect of Advertising Retrieval Cues on Brand Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14,316–333.
23. Keller, K. L., Heckler, S. E., & Houston, M. J. (1998), “The Effects of Brand Name Suggestiveness on Advertising Recall,” Journal of Marketing, 62(January), 48-57.
24. Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, & Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity, ” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp.1-22.
25. Kolter, P.(1991), “Marketing Management.” 7th edition. Prentice-Hall
International, Inc. New Jersey.
26. Kumar, An& Krishnan, Shanker(2004),“Memory Interference in Advertising: A Replication & Extension,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30 Issue 4, p602-611
27. Langer. E.J. (1978), “Rethinking the Role of Thought in Social Interaction,” New Direction in Attribution Research, Vol.2.
28. Law, Sharmistha(2001), “Examining the Deleterious Effects of Advertising Repetition in a Competitive Environment,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 28 Issue 1, p390-390, 1/4p
29. Leong, S. M., Ang, S. H., & Tham, L. L. (1996), “Increasing Brand Name Recall in Print Advertising Among Asian Consumers,” Journal of Advertising, 25 (2), 65-81.
30. Loken, B., & R. J. Deborah, (1993), “Diluting Brand Beliefs: When Do Brand Extensions Have a Negative Impact?” Journal of Marketing, 57 (July), 71-84.
31. Lord, K.R., Lee, M.S. & Sauer, P.L. (1995) “The combined influence hypothesis:central & peripheral antecedents of attitude toward the ad.” Journal of Advertising, 24, 1, pp. 73–85.
32. Mackenzie, S.B., Lutz, R.J. & Belch, G.E. (1986) , “The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: a test of competing explanations.” Journal of Marketing Research, 23, May, pp. 130–143.
33. Mackenzie, S.B. & Spreng, R.A. (1992), “How does motivation moderate the impact of central & peripheral processing on brand attitudes & intentions?” Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 4, pp. 519–529.
34. Macias, W. (2003), “A preliminary structural equation model of comprehension & persuasion of interactive advertising brand web sites.” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 3, 2, at http://jiad.org.
35. Mantel, S.P. & Kardes, F. (1999), “The role of direction of comparison attribute-based processing & attitude-based processing in consumer preference.” Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 4, pp. 335–352.
36. Maria, S., Savaldor, R. & Nina, R.(2005), “Attitude formation online：How the consumer’s need for cognition affects the relationship between attitude towards the website & attitude towards the brand.” International Journal of Market Research , Vol. 48 Issue 2.
37. McNeal, J. U. & Zeren, L. M. (1981), “Brand Name Selection for Consumer Products,” MSU Business Topics (Spring), 35-39.
38. McCarthy, J. Thomas (2004), “Dilution of a Trademark: European & United States Law Compared,” The Trademark Reporter, 94 (6), 1163–81.
39. Medin, Douglas L., Robert L. Goldstone, & Dedre Gentner (1993), “Respects for Similarity,” Psychological Review, 100 (2), 254–78.
40. Meyers-Levy, J. & Malaviya, P. (1999), “Consumers’ processing of persuasive advertisements: an integrative framework of persuasion theories.” Journal of Marketing, 63, Special Issue, pp. 45–60.
41. Mittal, B. (1990), “The relative roles of brand beliefs and attitude toward the ad as mediators of brand attitude: a second look.” Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 2, pp. 209–219.
42. Mitchell, A.A. & Olson, J.C. (1981), “Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude?” Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 3, pp. 318–332.
43. Morrin, Maureen (1999), “The Impact of Brand Extensions on Parent Brand Memory Structures & Retrieval Processes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (November), 517–25.
——— & Jacob Jacoby (2000), “Trademark Dilution: Empirical Measures for an Elusive Concept,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19 (Fall), 265–76.
44. Najjar, L. J. (1996), “Multimedia Information & Learning,” Journal of Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia, 5 (2), 129-150.
45. Paivio, A. (1986), “Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach,” New York: Oxford University Press.
46. Perfetti, C. A. & Tan, L. H. (1998), “The time course of graphic, phonological, & semantic activation in Chinese character identification.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 101-118.
47. Perfetti, C. A. & Zhang, S. (1995), “Very early phonological activation in Chinese reading.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 24-33.
48. Peterson, R. A. & Ross, I. (1972), “How to Name New Brands,” Journal of Advertising, 12 (6), 29-34.
49. Petty, R.E. & Cacioppo, J.T. (1981), “Attitudes & Persuasion: Classic & Contemporary Approaches.” Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
50. Peterson, Robert A., Karen H. Smith, & Philip C. Zerrillo (1999), “Trademark Dilution & the Practice of Marketing,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (2), 255–68.
51. Pieters, R., Warlop, L., & Wedel, M. (2002), “Breaking Through the Clutter:Benefits of Advertisement Originality and Familiarity for Brand Attention and Memory,” Management Science, 48 (6), 765-781.
52. Pullig, C., & Simmons, C. J., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2006), “Brand Dilution: When Do New Brands Hurt Existing Brands? ” Journal of Marketing, 70, Issue 2, 52-66.
53. Putrevu, S. & Lord, K.R. (2003), “Processing internet communication: a motivation, opportunity & ability framework.” Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 25, 1, pp. 45–59.
54. Raman, N.V. & Leckenby, J.D. (1998), “Factors affecting consumers’ ‘Webad’ visits.” European Journal of Marketing, 32, 7/8, pp. 737–748.
55. Robertson, K. (1989), “Strategically Desirable Brand Name Characteristics,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6 (Fall), 61-71.
56. Schechter, Frank I. ([1927] 1970), “The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection,” The Trademark Reporter, 60 (3), 334–52. (Originally published in Harvard Law Review, 40 (6), 813–33.)
57. Schmitt, B. H., Pan, Y., & Tavassoli, N. T. (1994), “Language & Consumer Memory: The Impact of Linguistic Differences between Chinese & English,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (December), 419-31.
58. Schmitt, B. H., Tavassoli, N. T., & Millard, R. T. (1993), “Memory for Print Ads: Underst&ing Relations among Brand Name, Copy, & Picture,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2 (1), 55-81.
59. Shiffrin, Richard M. (2003), “Modeling Memory & Perception,” Cognitive Science, 27 (3), 341–78.
60. Simonson, Alexander (1993), “How and When Do Trademarks Dilute? A Behavioral Framework to Judge ‘Likelihood’ of Dilution,” The Trademark Reporter, 83 (2), 149–74.
61. Stevenson, J., Bruner II, G.C. & Kumar, A. (2000), “Web page background & viewer attitudes.” Journal of Advertising Research, 40, 1/2, pp. 29–34.
62. Sujan, Mita.(1985), “Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgments,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.12(June), pp.31-46.
63. Tavassoli, N. T. (1998), “Language in Multimedia: Interaction of Spoken and Written Information,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (June), 26-37.
64. Tavassoli, N. T. & Han, J. K. (2002), “Auditory and visual brand identifiers in Chinese and English,” Journal of International Marketing, 10 (2), 13-29.
65. The Economist, (1990), “Brand-Stretching can be Fun—and Dangerous,” The Economist, 315 (7653), 73-74.
66. Tuten, T.L. & Bosnjak, M. (2001), “Underst&ing differences in web usage: the role of need for cognition and the five factor model of personality.” Social Behavior & Personality, 29, 4, pp. 391–398.
67. Tsai, J. L., Lee, C. Y., Tzeng, J. L., Hung, L., & Yen, N. S. (2004), “Use of phonological codes for Chinese characters: Evidence from processing of parafoveal preview when reading sentences.” Brain & Language, 91, 235-244.
68. Tversky, Amos (1977), “Features of Similarity,” Psychological Review, 84 (4), 327–52.
69. Unnava, H. R. & Burnkrant, R. E. (1991), “An Imagery-Processing View of the Role of Pictures in Print Advertisements,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28(May), 226–231.
70. Unnava, H. R., & Sirdeshmukh, D. (1994), “Reducing Competitive Ad
Interference,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 403–411.
71. Yi, Y. (1990), “Cognitive & affective priming effects of the context of print advertisements,” Journal of Advertising, 19, 2, pp. 40–48.
72. Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1988), “Consumer Behavior of Price, Quality, & Value: A means-Ead Model Synthesis of Evidence.” Journal of Marketing, Vol.52, July, pp2-22.
73. Zhang, Y. & Buda, R. (1999), “Moderating effects of need for cognition on responses to positively versus negatively framed advertising messages.” Journal of Advertising, 28, 2, pp. 1–15.

指導教授

林建煌(Chien-Huang Lin)

審核日期

2007-7-7

推文