政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/29906
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113451/144438 (79%)
Visitors : 51311693      Online Users : 774
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
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/29906


    Title: 實體性在家族品牌應用之研究
    Authors: 張伊婷
    Contributors: 樓永堅
    張伊婷
    Keywords: 實體性
    家族品牌
    entitativity
    family brand
    Date: 2007
    Issue Date: 2009-09-11 16:50:22 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 認知實體性在社會學中已經是一個廣泛討論的概念，意謂著個人對群體成員一致性、協調性程度的認知，然而尚未有學者將此概念運用在家族品牌的分群中。因此，本研究檢視了實體性八個指標（互動、重要性、結果、目標、相似性、存續期間、大小、可透性）運用在家族品牌分類上的適切性。
    本研究選取十五個世界前百大品牌作為研究標的，並收集學生與工作樣本共六十一份。研究結果顯示，不論在學生或工作樣本中，集群分析的結果皆顯示三群為最適合的集群個數，集群間差異較大且較能解釋。
    其中，學生樣本的集群分析結果是顯著的，依照互動、目標、相似性、大小四項指標可以畫分為三群，且這三個集群的實體性有顯著的差異，以緊密型家族品牌的實體性為最高、其次為一般型家族品牌、鬆散型家族品牌。
    The concept about perceived entitativity is an established area in social cognition which means the degree of a collection of persons are perceived as being bonded together in a coherent unit. However, this concept has not yet been implemented to family brand evaluations. This research is to examine the applicability of using the eight entitativity measures (interaction, importance, outcomes, goals, similarity, duration, size and permeability) to analysis the differences of family brands.
    Fifteen family brands are selected from Businessweek’s 100 top global brands 2006 and sixty-one valid samples are collected. The research shows three-cluster solution is the most stable solution and also the most interpretable in both student and job sample.
    According to the differences of interaction, goals, similarity and size, family brands can be divided to three clusters in student sample and the entitativity ratings of the clusters is significant. The intimacy family brands is the highest in entitativity, followed by general family brands and loose family brands.
    Reference: Aaker, David A. (1990). Brand extension: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Sloan Management Review, 31 (4), 47-56.
    Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: The Free Press.
    Aaker, D.A., & Keller, K.L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 27-41.
    Abelson, R.P., Dasgupta, N., Park, J., & Banaji, M.R. (1998). Perceptions of the collective other. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 243-250.
    Boush, M. David, & Babara Loken (1991). A process-tracing study of brand extension evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 16-28.
    Brewer, M. B. & A. S. Harasty (1996). Seeing groups as entities: The role of perceiver motivation. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition (Vol.3, pp. 347-370). New York: Guilford Press.
    Campbell, D.T.(1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14-25.
    Chernatony, L.D., & McWilliam, G. (1989). Branding terminology the real debate. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 7 (7/8), 29-32.
    Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129-152.
    Farquhar, P.H. (1990). Managing brand equity. Journal of Advertising Research, 30(4), 7-12.
    Freeman, L.C., & Webster, C.M. (1994). Interpersonal proximity in social and cognitive space. Social Cognition, 12, 223-247.
    Gaertner, L., & Schopler, J. (1998). Perceived ingroup entitativity and intergroup bias: An interconnection of self and others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 963-980.
    Gürhan-Canli, Zeynep (2003). The effect of expected variability of product quality and attribute uniqueness on family brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 105-114.
    Hamilton, D.L., & Sherman, S.J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336-355.
    Hamilton, D.L., Sherman, S.J., & Lickel, B.(1998). Perceiving social groups: The importance of the entitativity continuum. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler, & C.A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 47-74). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Haslam, N., L. Rothschild, & D. Ernst (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113-127.
    Hastie R., & Park B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychology Review, 93, 258-268.
    Keller, Kevin Lane (1998). Strategic brand management. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
    Keller, Kevin Lane (2000). The brand report card. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 147-157.
    Keller, L. K. (2003). Strategic brand management, building, measuring, and managing brand equity. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
    Klink RR, & Smith DC (2001). Threats to the external validity of brand extension research. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(3), 326–335
    Kotler, P. (1994). Marketing management: Analysis, planning, implementation, and control. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
    Kolter, P. (2000). Marketing Management. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
    Lassar, Walfried, Banwari Mittal, & Arun Sharma (1995). Measuring customer-based brand equity. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12 (4), 11-19.
    Lickel, B., Hamilton, D.L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S.J., & Uhles, A.N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223-246.
    Mahajan, Vijay, Vithala R. Rao, & Rajendra K. Srivastava (1994). An approach to assess the importance of brand equity in acquisition decisions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 221-235.
    Mattila, Anna (2003). The impact of cognitive inertia on postconsumption evaluation processes. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 31, 287-299.
    McConnell, A.R., Sherman, S.J., & Hamilton, D.L. (1994). On-line and memory-based aspects of individual and group target judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 173-185.
    McGarty, C., Haslam, S.A., Hutchinson, K.J., & Grace, D.M. (1995). Determinants of perceived consistency: The relationship between group entitativity and the meaningfulness of categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 237-256.
    Meyvis T, & Janiszewski C (2004) When are broader brands stronger brands? An accessibility perspective on the success of brand extensions. Journal of Consumer Reaserch, 31(2), 346–357.
    Mullen, B. (1991). Group composition, salience, and cognitive representations: The phenomenology of being in a group. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 297-323.
    Park, C. Whan, Sandra Milberg, & Robert Lawson (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: The role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (September), 185-193.
    Pitta, Dennis A. & Lea Prevel Katsanis (1995). Understanding brand equity for successful brand extension. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12 (4), 51-64.
    Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
    Tajfel, H., Billig, M.G., Bundy, R.P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-178.
    Tauber, Edward M. (1981). Brand franchise extensions: New products benefit from extension brand name. Business Horizons, 24 (1), 36-41.
    Weldon, E., & Weingart, L.R. (1993). Group goals and group performance. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 307-334.
    Wernerfelt, Birger (1988). Umbrella branding as a signal for new product quality: An example of signaling by posting a bond. Rand Journal of Economics, 19 (3), 458–466.
    Wyer, R.S. & Srull, T.K. (1989). Memory and cognition in its social context. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Yzerbyt, V. Y., S. Rocher, & G. Schadron (1997). Stereotypes as explanations: A subjective essentialistic view of group perception. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A.Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 20-50). Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.
    Yzerbyt, V.Y., Rogier, A., & Fiske, S.T. (1998). Group entitativity and social attribution: On translating situational constraints into stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1089-1103.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    企業管理研究所
    95355018
    96
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095355018
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[Department of Business Administation] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML2365View/Open


    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 Copyright Announcement
    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。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    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。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback