思考方式與品牌延伸方式對品牌延伸產品評價之影響

Abstract

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.