English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 88295/117812 (75%)
Visitors : 23398215      Online Users : 320
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 商學院 > 企業管理學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/119110
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/119110


    Title: 以結構比對理論與注意力驅動機制探討消費者品牌識別標誌美感決策評價歷程
    Exploring the Evaluation Process of Aesthetic Judgment on Logo by Structure Comparison Theory and Attention Driving Mechanism
    Authors: 楊偉顥
    Yang, Wei-Hao
    Contributors: 別蓮蒂
    沈永正

    Bei, Lien-Ti
    Shen, Yung-Cheng

    楊偉顥
    Yang, Wei-Hao
    Keywords: 相似性
    結構比對理論
    Logo美感比較
    Similariy
    Structure alignment theoy
    Logo aesthetic comparison
    Date: 2018
    Issue Date: 2018-07-31 14:06:55 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本研究旨在瞭解消費者如何評比一個產業內的多個品牌Logo,或當品牌進行品牌改造,或想使用新Logo經營品牌延伸時,消費者如何比較原始Logo和新設計Logo的差異與美感,並產生評價。本研究透過一個質性訪談與三個實驗,以結構比對理論與注意力驅動觀點來探討消費者在Logo美感比較與Logo美感相似性判斷的歷程。

    研究一透過質性深度訪談法,萃取出兩大類共九項消費者在進行Logo比較時的美感準則,具象美感準則:彩度、明度、顏色協調感、結構對稱、重心均衡;詮釋美感準則:意義、設計感、圖案設計概念簡單、現代。進一步,從美感準則被提取的數量分析發現,在比較的情境中,美感準則類型上,詮釋美準則數量皆多於具象美準則。在共通與差異屬性上,則多以對位差異屬性數量為主。若以兩項美感判斷任務來看,相似性判斷中不論美感準則類型,皆以對位差異屬性居多;但在美感評價任務中,詮釋美感準則屬非對位差異屬性較多,具象美感準則以對位差異屬性較多。 研究一訪談結果,發現消費者在隨機呈現不同品牌的Logo間比較Logo美感與相似性判斷,美感準則類型與差異屬性會對消費者在做Logo間美感比較與相似性判斷時有影響。

    研究二則透過實驗法,探討三組不同產品的Logo加入具有特定美感特徵與差異屬性特徵交乘的設計元素後新板Logo評價,來驗證各種差異屬性與不同心智驅動(Top-down)與視覺驅動(Bottom-up)模型對消費者做美感比較評價與美感相似性判斷時的影響。研究結果發現,消費者在做美感比較判斷時非對位差異屬性特徵顯著大於對位差異屬性,而在相似性判斷時,對位差異屬性大於非對位差異屬性。此外,本研究進一步想了解單一視覺訊息,以不同差異屬性呈現時對受試者的影響效果,發現在相似性判斷中,具象美感準則在不同差異方式呈現對相似性的判斷結果差距大於詮釋美感準則在不同差異方式呈現時對相似性判斷結果的差距。在美感判斷時,則是詮釋美感準則以不同差異方式呈現在美感判斷的差距會大於具象美感準則下不同差異屬性呈現對在美感判斷上差距。

    研究三與四則是延伸研究二的Logo改變對美感與相似性判斷的影響,透過企業品牌延伸情境將實驗二結果納入實際商業應用,驗證消費者在面對與原品牌類別不同距離的品牌延伸Logo改變時,新Logo具有的美感準則特徵與呈現的差異屬性方式間關係,對消費者知覺新舊Logo間美感差異與相似性判斷的影響。研究發現在作美感判斷時非對位方式呈現美感準則會比對位方式呈現美感準則容易引發消費者抱持正向的美感反應。在做相似性判斷時,對位差異方式呈現美感準則,比非對位差異方式呈現美感準則對視覺訊息相似性評價高。

    本研究結果發現,消費者在做美感評價時,採非對位差異屬性相對重要,而在相似性判斷上,不論美感準則類型,都是對位差異屬性相對重要。學術貢獻在於,釐清消費者在處理象視覺圖像這類整合性訊息時,屬性間比較的關係以及視覺訊息在類別化與評價作業上的關係。非對位差異屬性的重要性僅在屬性內容也是屬於高層次需耗費較多認知資源的情境下會成立,若屬性內容屬於具象化,會驅動消費者關注在單一具象特徵表現,進行對位方式的相似性比較;學術貢獻二是說明在抽象概念上的歸類作業,不論比較物具備的屬性特性,仍以對位差異屬性較為重要。本研究期許的商業應用,是可提供新進廠商Logo設計參考,若希望創造美感特徵,建議加入獨特的詮釋美感元素;若希望能強化消費者與現有品牌間的連結,則可加入現有品牌Logo存有的設計元素,以產生對位差異效果,提升與現有競爭品牌間的可比較性。
    This thesis aimed to ascertain how consumers would evaluate the similarity and make aesthetic judgement between the original logo and the new logo of a brand in the process of a brand’s reform or a brand extension. Through a qualitative interview and three experiments, the study explored the process of consumers' aesthetic comparison and judgment on the aesthetic similarity between logos using the structural alignment theory and attention-driven perspective.

    In the qualitative in-depth interview, a total of nine aesthetics principles that consumers used in the logo comparison process was elicited and then classified into two categories. The first category is concrete aesthetic principles which include: color, lightness, color harmony, structural symmetry, and balance of structure. The second category is interpretational aesthetic principles which entail: meaning, sense of design, simplicity in the design concept, and modernity. A further analysis of the aesthetic principles and their alignable and non-aligable attributes showed that non-alignabilities outnumbered alignabilities in interpretational aesthetic principles when consumers were given the task to make aesthetic choices. On the other hand, more alignabilities than non-alignabilities were identified in concrete aesthetic principles in consumers’ aesthetic judgment. In addition, the number of alignabilities exceeded that of non-alignabilities in both concrete and interpretational aesthetic principles in the similarity task.

    Study two was a 2 (concrete aesthetic principle vs. interpretational aesthetic principle) x2 (alignable difference vs. non-alignable difference) factorial experiment designed to test the influence of different design combinations on aesthetic comparison and similarity judgment. The result showed that consumers significantly relied more on alignable difference attributes than on non-alignable difference attributes when asked to evaluate the similarity between the original logo and the new logo, while non-alignable differences had a greater influence on their aesthetics judgment. The study assumed that aesthetic principles would be influenced by the presentation and the evaluation task. Differences between alignable and non-alignable presentations observed in the two tasks under any of the same aesthetic principle were examined. The hypothesis was supported by the result. In the similarity task, differences between alignable and non-alignable presentations under concrete aesthetic principles were bigger than those found under interpretational aesthetics principles. Moreover, in the aesthetic judgment task, differences between alignable and non-alignalbe presentations found under interpretational aesthetics principles were bigger than those under concrete principles.

    Study Three and Four extended the result of Study Two in the context of brand extension. The assumption of the two experiments was held that the influence of aesthetic principles and alignablities would be moderated by the distance between the categories of the original product and extension product. Generally, consumers relied on alignable difference attributes to compare the similarity of the two logos and non-alignable difference attributes to make aesthetic judgment. Nonetheless, the moderator effect of the distance of the categories of the original and extension products were not significance.

    The study found that non-alignable difference attributes were more important than alignable ones when making aesthetic judgement. Also, alignable difference attributes played a greater role in similarity judgment. The theoretical contribution of this study is to test the alignabilitiy effect on integrated graphic messages. This study clarified the influence of the relationships between alignable and non-alignable attributes and aesthetics principles. The importance of non-alignable difference attributes will be established only when the attribute content requires high cognitive resources like interpretational aesthetic principles.

    The commercial applications expected in this study, are to provide new references for logo designs. If a new brand is to incorporate aesthetic elements into its logo design, it is advised to add a unique interpretational aesthetic element. If a company is looking to strengthen the link between its consumers and its existing brands, it may consider employing design elements of its existing brand logo to create an alignable difference.
    Reference: 行政院主計總處 (民95)。中華民國行業分類表。台北市。
    張忠明 (民97年8月1日),美學導論網站。取自http://web.nkuht.edu.tw/ 97project-2/preview.html
    經濟部智慧財產局 (民97)。106年商標案件處理績效統計【原始數據】。未出版之統計數據。取自http://www.tipo.gov.tw.
    趙惠玲 (民84 )。美術鑑賞,臺北市:三民書局。
    劉昌元 (民85 )。西方美學導論,臺北市:聯經出版事業公司。
    劉述先、詹景雯 (民93 ),卡西勒論藝術,中國文哲研究通訊,14卷,4期,23-35。
    鄭昭明. (民96 )。認知心理學:理論與實踐。台北市: 桂冠。
    Aaker, D. A. & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 27-41.
    Bassok, M. (1990). Transfer of domain-specific problem-solving procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16(3), 522-533.
    Baxter, S. M., Ilicic, J., Kulczynski, A., & Lowrey , T. (2015). Communicating product size using sound and shape symbolism. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 24(5), 472-480.
    Bei, L.-T., Chu, C.-H., & Shen, Y.-C. (2011). Positioning brand extensions in comparative advertising: An assessment of the roles of comparative brand similarity, comparative claims, and consumer product knowledge. Journal of Marketing Communications, 17(4), 229-244.
    Bennett, P. D. (1995). Dictionary of Marketing Terms. Lincolnwood,IL: NTC Business Books.
    Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics, 8(5), 279-286.
    Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Berry, N. C. (1988). Revitalizing brands. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 5(3), 15-20.
    Bhat, S. & Reddy, S. K. (2001). The impact of parent brand attribute associations and affect on brand extension evaluation. Journal of Business Research, 53(3), 111-122.
    Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
    Boush, D. M. & Loken, B. (1991). A process-tracing study of brand extension evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(1), 16-28.
    Broniarczyk, S. M. & Alba, J. W. (1994). The importance of the brand in brand extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 214-228.
    Buttle, H. & Westoby, N. (2006). Brand logo and name association: It's all in the name (Vol. 20).
    Cian, L., Krishna, A., & Elder, R. S. (2013). This logo moves me: dynamic imagery from static images. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(2), 184-197.
    Cohen, D. (1991). Trademark strategy revisited. Journal of Marketing, 55(3), 46-59.
    Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods In Education (6th ed.). London,UK: Routledge Falmer.
    Creusen, M. E. H. & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005). The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(1), 63-81.
    Cupchik, G. C. & Gebotys, R. J. (1990). Interest and pleasure as dimensions of aesthetic response. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 8(1), 1-14.
    Dacin, P. A. & Smith, D. C. (1994). The effect of brand portfolio characteristics on consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 229-242.
    Deng, X., Hui, S. K., & Hutchinson, J. W. (2010). Consumer preferences for color combinations: an empirical analysis of similarity-based color relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 476-484.
    Dewey, J. (1980). Art as Experience. New York, NY: Minton, Balch & Company.
    Edell, J. A. & Staelin, R. (1983). The information processing of pictures in print advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(1), 45-61.
    Eisenman, M. (2013). Understanding aesthetic innovation in the context of technological evolution. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 332-351.
    Fajardo, T. M., Zhang, J., & Tsiros, M. (2016). The contingent nature of the symbolic associations of visual design elements: the case of brand logo frames. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(4), 549-566.
    Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human relations, 7, 117-140.
    Fisher, R. A. (1935). The Design of Experiments. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.
    Garner , W. R. (1974). The Processing of Information and Structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155-170.
    Gentner, D. & Markman, A. B. (1993). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 431-467.
    Gentner, D. & Markman, A. B. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: no difference without similarity. Psychological Science, 5(3), 152-158.
    Gentner, D. & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45-56.
    Goldstone, R. L. (1994). The role of similarity in categorization: Providing a groundwork. Cognition, 52(2), 125-157.
    Gremler, D. D. (2004). The critical incident technique in service research. Journal of Service Research, 7(1), 65-90.
    Guttman, H. A., Spector, R. M., Sigal, J. J., Rakoff, V., & Epstein, N. B. (1971). Reliability of coding affective communication in family therapy sessions: Problems of measurement and interpretation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 37(3), 397-402.
    Hardy, T. (2014). Ten rebranding failures and how much they cost. Retrieved from http://www.canny-creative.com/2013/10/10-rebranding-failures-how-much-theycost/.
    Henderson, P. W. & Cote, J. A. (1998). Guidelines for selecting or modifying logos. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 14-30.
    Higgins, T. E., William, R., & Carl, J. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(2), 141-154.
    Holbrook, M. B. & Addis, M. (2007). Taste versus the market: an extension of research on the consumption of popular culture. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(3), 415-424.
    Holbrook, M. B. & Huber, J. (1979). Separating perceptual dimensions from affective overtones: an application to consumer aesthetics. Journal of Consumer Research, 5(4), 272-283.
    Holbrook, M. B. & Moore, W. L. (1981). Feature interactions in consumer judgments of verbal versus pictorial presentations. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(1), 103-113.
    Huber, J. & McCann, J. (1982). The impact of inferential beliefs on product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(3), 324-333.
    Hungerland, H. (1957). The aesthetic response re-considered. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 16(1), 32-43.
    Huttenlocher, J., Higgins, E. T., & Clark, H. H. (1971). Adjectives, comparatives, and syllogisms. Psychological Review, 78(6), 487-504.
    Janiszewski, C. & Meyvis, T. (2001). Effects of brand logo complexity, repetition, and spacing on processing fluency and judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 18-32.
    Jia, J. S., Shiv, B., & Rao, S. (2014). The Product-Agnosia Effect: How More Visual Impressions Affect Product Distinctiveness in Comparative Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 342-360.
    Jin, J., Wang, C., Yu, L., & Ma, Q. (2015). Extending or creating a new brand: evidence from a study on event-related potentials. NeuroReport, 26(10), 572-577.
    Joana, C. M., Leonor, V. d. C., Patrício, C., & Paulo, L. (2012). Brand mergers: examining consumers' responses to name and logo design. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 21(6), 418-427.
    Johnson, M. D. (1984). Consumer choice strategies for comparing noncomparable alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(3), 741-753.
    Johnson, M. D. (1988). Comparability and hierarchical processing in multialternative choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 303-314.
    Johnson, M. D. (1989). The differential processing of product category and noncomparable choice alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 300-309.
    Kahneman, D. & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93(2), 136-153.
    Kardes, F. R. & Herr, P. M. (1990). Order effects in consumer judgment, choice, and memory: The role of initial processing goals. Advances in Consumer Research, 17(1), 541-546.
    Kelly, G. (1955). Personal Construct Psychology. In: New York: Norton.
    Kemler Nelson, D. G. (1989). The nature and occurrence of holistic processing. In B. E. Shepp & S. Ballesteros (Eds.), Object Perception: Structure and Process (pp. 357-386). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
    Kim, N. (2006). A history of design theory in art education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 40(2), 12-28.
    Kimchi, R., Hadad, B., Behrmann, M., & Palmer, S. E. (2005). Microgenesis and ontogenesis of perceptual organization. Psychological Science, 16(4), 282-290.
    Klink, R. R. (2003). Creating meaningful brands: The relationship between brand name and brand mark. Marketing Letters, 14(3), 143-157.
    Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace.
    Lagier, J. & Godey, B. (2007). A scale for measuring aesthetic style in the field of luxury and art products. International Journal of Arts Management, 9(2), 39-50,80.
    Lehu, J. M. (2004). Back to life! Why brands grow old and sometimes die and what managers then do: an exploratory qualitative research put into the French context. Journal of Marketing Communications, 10(2), 133-152.
    Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492-527.
    Loken, B. & John, D. R. (1993). Diluting brand beliefs: when do brand extensions have a negative impact? Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 71-84.
    Luck, S. & Hollingworth, A. (2008). Visual Memory. In. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195305487.001.0001/acprof-9780195305487.
    Lutz, K. A. & Lutz, R. J. (1978). Imagery-eliciting strategies: Review and implications of research. In H. K. Hunt (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 5). Ann Arbor MI: Association for Consumer Research.
    Müller, B., Kocher, B., & Crettaz, A. (2013). The effects of visual rejuvenation through brand logos. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 82-88.
    Ma, Q., Wang, X., Shu, L., & Dai, S. (2008). P300 and categorization in brand extension. Neuroscience Letters, 431(1), 57-61.
    Markman, A. B. & Gentner, D. (1993a). Splitting the differences: a structural alignment view of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(4), 517-535.
    Markman, A. B. & Gentner, D. (1993b). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 431-467.
    Markman, A. B. & Gentner, D. (1997). The effects of alignability on memory. Psychological Science, 8(5), 363-367.
    Markman, A. B. & Loewenstein, J. (2010). Structural comparison and consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(2), 126-137.
    Markman, A. B. & Medin, D. L. (1995). Similarity and alignment in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(2), 117-130.
    Martindale, C., Moore, K., & Borkum, J. (1990). Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings for Berlyne's psychobiological theory. The American Journal of Psychology, 103(1), 53-80.
    Medin, D., Goldstone, R., & Markman, A. (1995). Comparison and choice: relations between similarity processes and decision processes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2(1), 1-19.
    Medin, D. L. & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85(3), 207-238.
    Monga, A. B. & John, D. R. (2008). When does negative brand publicity hurt? The moderating influence of analytic versus holistic thinking. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(4), 320-332.
    Nam, M., Wang, J., & Lee, A. Y. (2012). The difference between differences: how expertise affects diagnosticity of attribute alignability. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 736-750.
    Novick, L. R. (1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 510-520.
    O'Connor, Z. (2011). Logo colour and differentiation: a new application of environmental colour mapping. Color Research & Application, 36(1), 55-60.
    Orquin, J. L., Bagger, M. P., & Loose, S. M. (2013). Learning affects top down and bottom up modulation of eye movements in decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(6), 700-716.
    Orquin, J. L. & Loose, S. M. (2013). Attention and choice: A review on eye movements in decision making. Acta Psychologica, 144(1), 190-206.
    Palmer, S. E. (1990). Modern theories of gestalt perception. Mind and Language, 5, 289-323.
    Park, C. W., Eisingerich, A. B., Pol, G., & Park, J. W. (2013). The role of brand logos in firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 66(2), 180-187.
    Park, C. W., Milberg, S., & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: the role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(2), 185-193.
    Pieters, R. & Wedel, M. (2004). Attention capture and transfer in advertising: Brand, pictorial, and text-size effects. Journal of Marketing, 68(2), 36-50.
    Pittard, N., Ewing, M., & Jevons, C. (2007). Aesthetic theory and logo design: examining consumer response to proportion across cultures. International Marketing Review, 24(4), 457-473.
    Rahinel, R. & Nelson, N. M. (2016). When brand logos describe the environment: design instability and the utility of safety-oriented products. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(3), 478-496.
    Ramachandran, V. S. & Hirstein, W. (1999). The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(6-7), 15-51.
    Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality & Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 8(4), 364-382.
    Rosbergen, E., Pieters, R., & Wedel, M. (1997). Visual attention to advertising: a segment‐level analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(3), 305-314.
    Ross, B. H., Perkins, S. J., & Tenpenny, P. L. (1990). Reminding-based category learning. ,. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 460-492.
    Roy, S. & Sarkar, S. (2015). To brand or to rebrand: Investigating the effects of rebranding on brand equity and consumer attitudes. Journal of Brand Management, 22(4), 340-360.
    Shang, Q., Pei, G., Dai, S., & Wang, X. (2017). Logo effects on brand extension evaluations from the electrophysiological perspective. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 11(113).
    Shapiro, S. (1999). When an Ad'S influence is beyond our conscious control: perceptual and conceptual fluency eeffects caused by incidental Ad exposure. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(1), 16-36.
    Shepp, B. E. (1989). On perceiving objects: Holistic versus featural properties. In B. E. Shepp & S. Ballesteros (Eds.), Object perception: Structure and process (pp. 203-233). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
    Sjoberg, L. (1977). Choice frequency and similarity. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 18(1), 103-115.
    Slovic, P. & MacPhillamy, D. (1974). Dimensional commensurability and cue utilization in comparative judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11(2), 172-194.
    Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). The Basics of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). London: sage.
    Sun, J., Keh, H. T., & Lee, A. Y. (2012). The effect of attribute alignability on service evaluation: The moderating role of uncertainty. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 831-847.
    Sundar, A. & Noseworthy, T. J. (2014). Place the logo high or low? Using conceptual metaphors of power in packaging design. Journal of Marketing, 78(5), 138-151.
    Takahashi, S. (1995). Aesthetic properties of pictorial perception. Psychological Review, 102(4), 671-683.
    Tauber, E. M. (1988). Brand leverage: strategy for growth in a cost-control world. Journal of Advertising Research, 28(4), 26-30.
    Townsend, C. & Shu, S. B. (2010). When and how aesthetics influences financial decisions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 452-458.
    Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327-352.
    Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.
    Tversky, A. & Sattath, S. (1979). Preference trees. Psychological Review, 86(6), 542-573.
    Völckner, F. & Sattler, H. (2006). Drivers of brand extension success. Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 18-34.
    Vanfretti, L. & Farrokhabadi, M. (2013). Evaluating constructive alignment theory implementation in a power systems analysis course through repertory grids. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(4), 443-452.
    Veryzer, J. R. W. (1993). Aesthetic response and the influence of design principles on product preferences. Advances in Consumer Research, 20(1), 224-228.
    Veryzer, R. W. & Hutchinson, J. W. (1998). The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic responses to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 374-394.
    Walsh, M. F., Winterich, K. P., & Mittal, V. (2010). Do logo redesigns help or hurt your brand? The role of brand commitment. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19(2), 76-84.
    Wedel, M. & Pieters, R. (2008). A review of eye-tracking research in marketing. In N. K. Malhotra (Ed.), Review of marketing research (pp. 123-147).
    Whitfield, T. W. A. (1983). Predicting preference for familiar, everyday objects: An experimental confrontation between two theories of aesthetic behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(3), 221-237.
    Woodworth, R. S. & Thorndike, E. L. (1901). The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. (I). Psychological Review, 8(3), 247-261.
    Yamamoto, M. & Lambert, D. R. (1994). The impact of product aesthetics on the evaluation of industrial products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11(4), 309-324.
    Zajonc, R. B. & Markus, H. (1982). Affective and cognitive factors in preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 123-131.
    Zhang, S., Kardes, F. R., & Cronley, M. L. (2002). Comparative advertising: Effects of structural alignability on target brand evaluation. Journal of Consumer Psychology (Elsevier Science), 12(4), 303-311.
    Zhang, S. & Markman, A. B. (1998). Overcoming the early entrant advantage: The role of alignable and nonalignable differences. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(4), 413-426.
    Zhang, S. & Markman, A. B. (2001). Processing product unique features: alignability and involvement in preference construction. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(1), 13-27.
    Description: 博士
    國立政治大學
    企業管理學系 
    99355505
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0993555053
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/DIS.NCCU.BA.003.2018.F08
    Appears in Collections:[企業管理學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    There are no files associated with this item.



    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback