ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B
主办:中国心理学会
   中国科学院心理研究所
出版:科学出版社

心理学报, 2018, 50(7): 782-792 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00782

研究报告

触摸, 还是不触摸?先前触摸促进新产品接受

柳武妹,1, 雷亮1, 李志远1, 苏云1, 黄晓治2

1 兰州大学管理学院, 兰州 730000

2 广西大学商学院, 南宁 530000

Touch or not touch? Prior touch facilitates consumers’ adoption of new products

LIU Wumei,1, LEI Liang1, LI Zhiyuan1, SU Yun1, HUANG Xiaozhi2

1 School of Management, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China

2 Business School, Guangxi University, Nanning 530000, China

通讯作者: 柳武妹, E-mail:wumeijiayou@163.com

收稿日期: 2017-05-3   网络出版日期: 2018-07-15

基金资助: * 国家自然科学基金青年项目.  71502075
国家自然科学基金地区项目.  71362011
国家社科基金项目.  15BGL152
甘肃省社会科学规划项目资助.  YB033

Received: 2017-05-3   Online: 2018-07-15

Fund supported: .  71502075
.  71362011
.  15BGL152
.  YB033

摘要

已有触觉研究和已有新产品研究都不能回答是否先前触摸一个新产品会影响消费者随后对另一新产品的理解和评估。本文发现:事先让消费者触摸(vs.不触摸)一个外观极度不一致的新产品会促进消费者对另一外观极度不一致的目标新产品的评估和选择(实验1-实验2)。实验3进一步发现, 当先前触摸的产品和随后评估的产品在外观极度不一致这一点上不具相似性时(如, 当所摸新产品在外观上与常见同类产品一致), 先前触摸将不再促进目标新产品的不一致解决, 进而不再影响目标新产品评估。最后, 实验4剥离了触觉和视觉的影响, 发现实验1~实验3的发现受触觉(先前摸)而非视觉(先前看)主导。

关键词: 视觉新产品 ; 先前触摸 ; 学习迁移 ; 不一致解决

Abstract

Previous touch literature cannot answer whether prior touching of a new product (i.e. a new watch) can facilitate consumers’ evaluation of another extremely incongruent product (i.e. a new camera). The present research posits that asking consumers to previously touch (versus not touch) an extremely new product (i.e. a new computer mouse) can offer them an opportunity to transfer their learning of the touched new product to understanding another target product’s extremely incongruity, which consequently leads to incongruity resolution and increased evaluation of the target product (H1-H2). This research further posits that the prior-touch strategy will be ineffective when the prior-touched product is conceptually different from the target product (i.e., it is common) (H3), as conceptual disparity inhibits the occurrence of near transfer of learning. We conduct four lab experiments to test these hypotheses.

Experiment 1 examined H1-H2 and further tested other alternative explanations including arousal and moods which might affect consumers’ new product evaluation. College students completed a randomly-assigned 3 (form incongruity: congruent vs. moderate vs. extreme) × 2 (prior-touch: touch vs. no touch) two-way between-subjects design, with product evaluation as the DV. This experiment found that prior-touch (versus no such touch) only increased evaluations of the extremely incongruent camera, supporting H1. A bootstrap analysis showed that incongruity resolution rather than arousal or positive mood mediated the effect demonstrated in H1, supporting H2. Experiment 2 examined consumers’ real choices, finding that compared to no prior touching, prior touching an extremely incongruent mug can increase consumers’ subsequent choices of an extremely incongruent computer mouse. Experiment 3 adopted a 2 (prior-evaluated product’s form incongruity: extremely common vs. extremely new) × 2 (prior-touch) × 2 (target product’s form incongruity: congruent vs. extremely incongruent) three-way between-subjects design, using similar procedures of previous experiments. As expected, prior touching an extremely common computer mouse did not change participants’ ability in resolving the extreme incongruity of and did not increase evaluations of the subsequent target watch, supporting H3. In Experiment 4, participants were randomly assigned to one of four type of senses (both touch and see vs. just touch with eyes closed vs. just see without touch vs. no-see, no-touch) conditions to evaluate the target soft drink. This experiment found that it was prior-touching the mouse rather than prior-seeing the mouse that drove the effect observed across Experiments 1-3.

Theoretically, this research observes for the first time the carry-over effect of product touch, thus extending existing research on product touch. This research further enriches existing new product research, showing that prior touching an extremely incongruent product can enhance consumers’ evaluations of the subsequent extremely incongruent target product. Managerially, this research has rich implications to new product’s launch and promotion.

Keywords: visually new products ; prior touch ; transfer of learning ; incongruity resolution

PDF (402KB) 元数据 多维度评价 相关文章 导出 EndNote| Ris| Bibtex  收藏本文

本文引用格式

柳武妹, 雷亮, 李志远, 苏云, 黄晓治. 触摸, 还是不触摸?先前触摸促进新产品接受. 心理学报[J], 2018, 50(7): 782-792 doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00782

LIU Wumei, LEI Liang, LI Zhiyuan, SU Yun, HUANG Xiaozhi. Touch or not touch? Prior touch facilitates consumers’ adoption of new products. Acta Psychologica Sinica[J], 2018, 50(7): 782-792 doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00782

1 问题提出

新产品的市场推广关乎企业生存与发展。但不幸的是, 绝大多数新产品在推入市场时都以失败告终(Gourville, 2006)。如何增加消费者对新产品的接纳因而是学术界近20年来感兴趣的热点话题。但已有新产品研究都从消费者自身(Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989; Noseworthy, Di Muro, & Murray, 2014)、新产品自身(Noseworthy & Trudel, 2011; Campbell & Goodstein, 2011)、以及新产品所处的背景色彩(柳武妹, 梁剑平, 2015)、周围是否放置竞争产品(Noseworthy, Cotte, & Lee, 2011)、评论一致性程度(黄敏学, 李萍, 王艺婷, 2016)等情境因素, 探讨如何促进消费者对新产品的接纳。据我们所知, 目前国内外还尚未见有学者探讨消费者对新产品的接纳是否受他们先前触摸另一新产品这一动作的影响, 本文将探讨先前触摸另一新产品这一动作是否会影响、为何影响以及何时不会影响消费者对随后遇到的目标新产品的接纳。

1.1 产品不一致和产品评估

产品不一致(product incongruity)指某产品与它所属品类中其它产品间的不匹配程度(Jhang, Grant, & Campbell, 2012)。新产品常常和人们对它的期待不一致。这种不一致可以是视觉外观上的不一致(如椭圆形的相机), 也可以是功能属性上的不一致(如会拍照的打印机) (Noseworthy & Trudel, 2011)。由于变换视觉外观要比增加新功能简单, 且在满足消费者美观诉求的同时不会引发消费者对产品使用风险的担忧(Bloch, 1995), 因此市面上的新产品常以外观不一致的新产品为主。Mandler (1982)的倒U型曲线说开创性地阐述了人们对不一致程度不同的事物会如何反应。在消费者行为领域, Meyers-Levy和Tybout (1989)Mandler (1982)的观点放在新产品情境下进行了实证检验和进一步丰富。具体而言, Mandler (1982)Meyers-Levy和Tybout (1989)认为, 物体评估的效价和程度是不一致解决的函数。对于一致的物体, 由于它们与消费者的预期相符, 因此人们不需理解就会出于熟悉而给予此类物体稍微正面的评估(Mandler, 1982; Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989)。但中度不一致的物品(如椭圆形的相机)会引发人们的生理唤醒(arousing) (如, 警觉、兴奋等), 进而促使人们投入较多认知努力来猜测该产品所属的品类; 往往通过认知努力人们会很轻易地解决中度不一致;此时, 人们会体验到情感愉悦, 进而对该中度不一致的新物体给予高于一致物体的好评(Mandler, 1982; Meyers-Levy &Tybout, 1989)。然而, Mandler (1982)Meyers-Levy和Tybout (1989)认为, 对于与人们预期极度不一致的物体, 人们尽管试图去解决这种不一致, 但往往发现自己不能理解该极度不一致的物体的类别和用途, 进而体验到挫败感和无助感; 这种挫败感和无助感最终会促使人们对该类物体的评估低于中度不一致物体。通过上述倒U型曲线的介绍可以看出, 对于极度不一致的新产品, 消费者由于不能解决这种不一致而普遍对其评估很低。

1.2 “先前触摸”促进极度不一致目标产品评估的内在机制

触摸产品(product touch)指的是, 直接去体验一个产品(Peck & Childers, 2003a)。通过触摸, 消费者可以体验到该产品的质地、光滑度、重量以及坚硬度, 进而获取对该产品较为全面的信息(Peck & Childers, 2003a, 2003b)。大量研究已经表明, 触摸某产品可以提升消费者对该产品的评估信心(Peck & Childers, 2003a)、增加产品购买意愿(McCabe & Nowlis, 2003)和冲动购买( & Childers, 2006)、提升产品估价和价格支付意愿(Peck & Shu, 2009; Peck, Barger, & Webb, 2013)。然而, 上述触觉研究都仅聚焦于触摸动作对所触摸产品在评估和购买决策上的正面影响。是否这一正面影响能够传递到随后的情境中, 并影响消费者对随后情境中的另一产品的评估?目前尚未见有相关研究。

本文认为, 在新产品情境下, 这种触摸的传递效应是存在的。具体而言, 让消费者触摸一个极度不一致的视觉新产品(如漏斗形的相机)会帮助他们熟悉并理解该新产品的极度不一致之处(该相机仅是外观上新但在功能属性和常见相机一样)。一旦消费者理解了所摸产品的这种极度不一致, 接下来他们会将关于该新产品的知识迁移到另一极度不一致的目标新产品(如剃须刀似的鼠标)上。此时, 消费者会发现这个目标新产品其实也是可以理解的——它只是外观上看起来新, 功能属性上其实和常见鼠标差不多。值得提出的是, 对于视觉新产品, 消费者单独远观/看其实不能理解它, 只有近距离触摸才能够明确所摸产品的品类和用途。因此, 结合研究目的, 本文选用视觉新产品。

事实上, 心理学有关学习迁移的研究为本文提出的触摸传递效应这一预测提供了理论支持。学习迁移(transfer of learning)指的是使用过去的经验来理解新事物(Haskell, 2001)。Gick和Holyoak (1987)认为, 只要学习者能够感知到旧经验和新情境间的相似性, 学习迁移就能发生。基于旧经验和新情境间的相似性程度, 学者们进一步提出两类学习迁移:近学习迁移(near transfer) (简称近迁移)和远学习迁移(far transfer of learning) (简称远迁移) (Haskell, 2001; Perkins & Salomon, 1992)。近迁移时, 旧经验和新情境间相似性很高(如, 人们将滑旱冰的经验用于学习滑雪); 而远迁移时, 旧经验和新情境间的相似性很低(如看到闪电就联想到照明)。由于远迁移需要人们思维足够抽象和创新, 因此并不是所有人都能进行远迁移(Perkins & Salomon, 1992)。本文关注近学习迁移。研究指出, 触摸物体尤其是触摸陌生新奇的物体可以帮助人们熟悉它, 并把这一产品经验学习到脑海中(Klatzky, Lederman, & Metzger, 1985; Homa, Kahol, Tripathis, Bratton, & Panchanathan, 2009; Huber et al., 2016)。由此本文推测, 让消费者事先触摸一个极度不一致视觉新产品便能促使他们将所触摸新产品的知识迁移到随后遇到的另一极度不一致的目标视觉新产品上。当这一近迁移过程发生时, 消费者会感到目标视觉新产品并不是想象中得那么新奇、独特和不可理解, 因为他们事先已经在大脑中存储了相关经验或图式(外观新但功能不新)。

新近新产品研究进一步表明, 一旦消费者可以解决新产品的极度不一致, 他们对该新产品的正面评估会相应增加(Noseworthy et al., 2011; Jhang et al., 2012)。比如, Noseworthy等(2011)报告, 把极度不一致的新产品和同类竞争产品放在一起能够促进女性对产品的极度不一致的解决, 进而增加产品评估。又比如, Jhang等(2012)发现, 让消费者的认知变灵活后他们便能解决极度不一致进而增加对极度不一致产品的评估。结合上文推理, 本文得出下述假设:

假设1:与不触摸相比, 先前触摸会增加消费者对随后情境中另一极度不一致目标新产品的正面评估。

假设2:先前触摸促进极度不一致目标新产品评估的现象受不一致解决的中介。

1.3 “先前触摸”促进极度不一致目标新产品评估的边界条件

何时“先前触摸”不会影响消费者对随后遇到的目标新产品的评估呢?本文认为, 当先前触摸不能引发近学习迁移时, 消费者便不能解决目标产品的极度不一致。相应的, 此时他们对极度不一致的目标产品的评估也不会提升。具体而言, 近学习迁移发生的条件是旧经验与新情境间具有很高的相似性(Haskell, 2001)。结合本文研究的新产品情境, 我们认为, 这种相似性是有条件的, 并不是指任何一种相似性。具体而言, 本文认为, 只有当先前触摸的新产品和随后评估的目标新产品在视觉外观上都属于极度不一致的新产品时, 先前触摸才会促使近学习迁移的发生, 进而才能促使消费者解决随后遇到的目标新产品的极度不一致。本文进一步认为, 对于极度不一致的目标新产品, 在下述两类情境下近学习迁移不会发生。(1)当先前触摸的新产品与极度不一致的目标新产品在概念上完全不具相似性时。当所触摸的产品是视觉外观上的一致产品而随后评估的产品却是视觉外观上极度不一致的产品时, 消费者通过先前触摸获得的产品知识并不能顺利迁移到随后评估的极度不一致的目标新产品上, 进而不能促进目标新产品极度不一致的理解和产品评估。(2)当所触摸的新产品与目标新产品完全相同(如, 二者所属的品类完全相同, 都属于相机或手表)时。此时发生的将不是近学习迁移而是其它心理机制, 如同化(assimilation)、亚型化(subtyping)等(这些机制在Meyers-Levy和Tybout (1989)中有具体阐述, 本文不再累赘)。为了让本文聚焦且理论贡献突出, 本文只关注第一种近迁移不会发生的情形。值得指出的是, 原理上, 如同先前触摸一致产品的情形, 当先前触摸中度不一致的产品时, 由于先后情境间不具相似性, 因此先前触摸也不会促使近学习迁移的发生, 进而不能提升随后极度不一致新产品的理解和评估。但为了使本文故事清晰简洁, 我们只关注先前触摸一致产品这一边界条件。综上, 得出下述假设:

假设3:先前触摸对随后情境中极度不一致的目标新产品评估的影响受所触摸产品的类型的调节。当所触摸的产品在外观上属于极度不一致的产品(vs.属于一致产品)时, 先前触摸才会增加随后极度不一致目标新产品的评估。

1.4 当前研究

本文将开展4个实验验证上述假设。其中, 实验1、实验2将检验假设1和假设2。不同的是, 实验1检验是否先前触摸极度新奇的鼠标会影响消费者对随后遇到的外观一致程度不同的相机的评估。而实验2将倒换实验1的刺激材料并采用行为指标(新产品选择)测因变量。在实验1和实验2的基础上, 实验3和实验4将从不同角度推进前面2个实验, 以提升本文理论深度。其中, 实验3将考察所触摸产品的类型(外观一致的新产品vs.外观极度不一致的新产品)的调节作用, 以检验假设3; 而实验4将对触觉和视觉进行剥离, 以检验究竟是先前看还是先摸促进了消费者对随后目标新产品的评估与接纳。

2 实验1:先前触摸增加随后目标新产品的评估

实验1旨在初步检验假设1和假设2是否成立。在实验1中, 除检验本文假设的中介变量(不一致解决)外, 还将检验其它可能影响本文理论的备择中介变量, 如唤醒水平(arousal levels)和情绪。已有研究指出, 与不触摸产品相比, 触摸产品可以降低消费者的受挫感(Peck & Childers, 2003b), 并增加消费者对产品的积极情感(Peck & Shu, 2009)。而近期研究发现, 积极情感的增加(Jhang et al., 2012)和唤醒水平的降低(Noseworthy et al., 2014)都能促进消费者对极度不一致新产品的评估。因此, 很有可能先前触摸(vs.不触摸)极度新奇的产品降低了消费者的唤醒水平并增加了他们的积极情感, 进而促使消费者对随后遇到的另一极度不一致的目标新产品给予更好的评价。在实验1中, 我们将首先让消费者触摸(vs.不触摸)一个在视觉外观上与他们预期极其不一致的剃须刀式的Logitech鼠标, 之后让他们评估另一款新目标相机。选择相机作为目标刺激物是为了与国内外的一些新产品研究(柳武妹, 梁剑平, 2015; Noseworthy et al., 2011)保持一致。

2.1 前测

在开展实验1前, 先开展三个前测。前测1旨在检验是否本文所选用的鼠标与消费者的预期极度不一致。241位兰州财经大学的大学生被随机分成两组。一组浏览一款外观极其常见的Logitech鼠标, 另一组浏览在外观上极其新奇的Logitech鼠标。这两款鼠标材料来自Logitech官网。之后, 两组回答上文使用的3条测量不一致程度的条目。结果发现, 被试认为外观上极其新奇的Logitech鼠标的典型性指数(M = 2.12, SD = 0.83)远低于外观上极其普通的Logitech鼠标, M = 5.63, SD = 0.98; t(239) = 14.48, p < 0.001, 表明所选鼠标在不一致程度上差异显著。前测2和前测3旨在检验所选用的目标相机图片在外观上极度不一致程度不同(前测2)、且在产品评估上符合中度不一致效应的要求(前测3)。这三个前测的结果表明, 本实验所选的刺激材料是在外观不一致程度上是有显著差异的。

2.2 主实验

2.2.1 被试和设计

实验1采取3(目标相机的外观不一致程度:一致vs.中度不一致vs.极度不一致) × 2(先前触摸外观极度不一致的鼠标:触摸vs.不触摸)双因素被试间设计, 因变量是对目标相机的评估。目标相机的不一致程度通过相机外观来操纵。有164位与前测来自同一被试库的大学生参与实验1, 其中男性75人(45.7%), 被试平均年龄21.4岁。由于实验1有6个组, 每组招募30人才能满足独立样本t检验的要求。实验1因此招募了180名被试, 参考Romero和Craig (2017), 有17人的数据未参与统计分析(5人只完成了先前触摸的操纵, 6人未填写完目标相机的评估条目, 5人错误地理解了情绪和唤醒水平的测量, 1人猜到了研究目的)。

2.2.2 程序

实验1的程序如下:进入实验室时, 被试被告知本研究包含两个不相关的小研究。在“研究1”中, 被试先接受了先前触摸的操纵。参考Peck和Childers (2003a, 2003b), 将前测1筛选出的极度不一致的鼠标放在一个长宽高分别为30 cm × 20 cm × 10 cm的无色透明塑料箱中。触摸组被试被告知你可以浏览并触摸这款鼠标1 min, 就跟你平常购物时所做的一样, 而不能触摸组被试被告知你可以看这款鼠标1 min, 但是不能触摸它。之后, 被试完成了2 min的无关任务。这一任务的目的是给被试一定时间让他们把所浏览的鼠标的知识和经验储存在大脑中, 以便于近学习迁移的发生。

之后, 被试进入“研究2”。在研究2中, 参考Herzenstein, Posavac和Brakus (2007)以及Meyers- Levy和Tybout (1989), 发给被试一份小册子。在这个小册子中, 被试读到“在相机领域非常活跃的佳能(Cannon)公司最近研发出了一款新相机。这款新相机很快将在你所居住的城市投放。在投放市场之前, 佳能公司想收集一下消费者对这款相机的看法和评价。佳能公司非常重视您的看法。”之后, 被试被分配到三组不一致程度不同的佳能相机图片的任一组。值得提出的是, 三组浏览的相机图片的唯一差异是外观不一致程度不同。为了减少干扰, 三组看到的产品描述完全相同。同时, 为了排除价格对实验的影响, 相机的价格信息没有给出。当被试浏览完相应的相机图片和描述后, 完成了产品评估、不一致解决和产品典型性的测量。具体而言, 产品评估的测量使用Noseworthy和Trudel (2011)实验中的三个条目(你在多大程度上认为这款相机很吸引你/给你留下了很好的印象, 以及你对这款相机的喜欢程度是, 1 = 一点也不, 7 = 非常多; α = 0.88)。不一致解决的测量使用Jhang等(2012)使用的两个条目“你在多大程度上认为你可以理解这款相机的设计, 1 = 一点也不能理解, 7 = 完全能够理解”以及“我可以理解这款相机采取这种设计的内在原理, 1 = 一点也不同意, 7 = 非常同意; Pearson r = 0.57)。不一致程度/典型性程度的测量参考Noseworthy和Trudel (2011)使用的三个条目(你在多大程度上认为这款相机在外观上常见的/与你的预期相一致的/独特的(反向编码), 1 = 一点也不, 7 = 非常多, α = 0.87)。将上述多测项的条目都加总平均, 形成相应指数。

最后, 实验结束时被试在一个双向5点量表上报告了自己当前的唤醒水平和情绪。唤醒水平的测量条目选自Russell, Weiss和Mendelsohn (1989)的Affect Grid (情感网图), 包含5条(刺激的/放松的、兴奋的/平静的、紧张的/放松的、有睡意的/唤醒的、疲倦的/担心的, α = 0.74, 前三条反向编码)。情绪的测量参考Jhang等(2012)使用的5个条目(伤心的/愉悦的、易激怒的/高兴的、愉悦的/抑郁的、开心的/不开心的、心情好的/心情差的; α = 0.83; 后三条反向编码)。将它们加总平均分别形成唤醒指数和正性情绪指数, 分值越高表明唤醒程度和正性情绪越高(多)。

2.2.3 数据分析和主要结果

(1)产品评估

首先, 分析各组在产品评估指数上是否存在差异。外观不一致程度×先前触摸双因素被试间方差分析发现, 外观不一致程度和先前触摸的交互效应边缘显著, F(2,158) = 2.82, p = 0.062。进一步简单效应检验发现, 对于一致的目标相机, 先前触摸极度不一致的鼠标和不触摸该鼠标时, 消费者对这款相机的评估指数相似, F < 1, n.s.。同样, 对于中度不一致的目标相机, 先前触摸极度不一致的鼠标和不触摸该鼠标时, 消费者对这款相机的评估指数也相似, F(1,158) = 1.23, p = 0.268。但是, 对于极度不一致的目标相机, 与先前不触摸极度不一致的鼠标相比, 先前触摸后, 消费者对目标相机的评估指数显著更高, F(1,158) = 4.98, p < 0.05。这一结果支持假设1。具体均值和标准差详见表1

表1   实验1和实验3中各水平下的人数分布和目标产品评估的均值和标准差

变量目标新产品外观不一致程度
一致中度不一致极度不一致
nMSDnMSDnMSD
实验1触摸274.570.74274.670.88284.790.92
不触摸264.380.75284.930.97274.260.94
实验3一致新产品触摸324.401.24293.761.15
不触摸304.200.55294.100.86
极度不一
致新产品
触摸314.480.77314.391.23
不触摸304.100.71303.301.18

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


(2)中介检验

遵循Muller, Judd和Yzerbyt (2005)介绍的有调节的中介分析步骤, 我们发现, 先前触摸(是vs.否)对不一致程度(中度不一致vs.极度不一致)和目标产品评估间因果关系的调节受不一致解决的中介。具体分析步骤见表2。参考Hayes (2012), 进行Bootstrap分析(Model 8, 取5000个sample)。结果表明, 不一致解决的间接效应显著, 95%的置信区间(confidence interval, CI)不包含0。说明其中介作用存在。具体结果见表2

表2   实验1中目标产品不一致程度和先前触摸影响目标产品评估的中介分析结果

变量不一致解决唤醒水平正性情绪指数
betatpbetatpbetatp
步骤1: IV*Mo-DV-1.222-2.220.028-1.222-2.220.028-1.222-2.220.028
步骤2 IV*Mo-Me-1.046-1.940.055-0.271-0.4530.6520.0260.040.966
步骤3: IV*Mo-DV-0.846-1.610.111-1.083-1.810.074-1.394-2.440.017
步骤3: Me-DV0.3593.84<0.0001-0.014-0.1300.8970.3153.180.002
Bootstrap analysis
(5000 bootstraps)
effect95%CIeffect95%CIeffect95%CI
-0.24[-0.64, -0.02]0.002[-0.07, 0.14]0.01[-0.24, 0.29]

注:IV代表目标产品的不一致程度, DV代表目标产品的评估指数, Mo代表是否先前触摸另一极度不一致产品, Me代表对目标产品的不一致解决指数。CI代表置信区间(confidence interval)。

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


最后, 分析其它可能的备择中介。如表1所示, 无论用回归分析还是bootstrap分析都发现唤醒水平和正性情绪指数无法中介先前触摸对目标产品不一致程度和目标产品评估间关系的调节作用, 尽管正性情绪指数越高, 目标产品评估越好。因此, 它们不是备择解释。

2.2.4 讨论

实验1检验了先前触摸是否调节目标产品不一致程度对产品评估的影响, 同时还检验了该调节作用发生的内在机制。结果支持假设1和假设2, 说明与不触摸相比, 先前触摸一个极度不一致的新产品能够促进消费者对随后遇到的另一极度不一致目标新产品的解决, 进而促进目标产品评估。重要的是, 实验1还排除了其它可能的备择中介(如唤醒水平、情绪), 说明不一致解决的中介解释是强健的。尽管如此, 实验1仍有不足。其一, 检验的是先前触摸极度新奇的鼠标是否会促进消费者对随后遇到的外观极度不一致的相机的评价。而本文开篇引例中提到先前触摸极度新奇的相机也可能会影响消费者对随后遇到的鼠标的评价。因此, 需要倒换实验1的刺激材料来检验实验所观察到的现象的稳定性。其二, 因变量是产品评估, 属于消费者主观报告。由于主观报告并不能真实反映消费者的实际行为, 因此需要更换实验1的因变量测量方式(选用行为指标, 如真实的产品选择), 来检验在行为层面上实验1的结果是否稳定。

3 实验2:先前触摸增加随后目标新产品的选择

实验2旨在解决实验1的不足并推进实验1。由于相机价格比较昂贵, 消费者常会出于价格和功能风险的考虑不愿购买外观极度新奇的相机, 所以我们很难找到市面上出售的外观极度新奇的相机。鉴于市面上有大量外观极度新奇的喝水的马克杯出售, 实验2因此让消费者事先触摸(vs.不触摸)一款经过前测筛选的外观极度新奇的马克杯, 之后观察他们对三款外观不一致程度的不同的联想(Lenovo)鼠标的选择行为。我们进行前测(N = 120), 以评定被试对3款鼠标的典型性感知。发现, 被试认为中度新颖的鼠标(M = 3.93, SD = 1.08)比不新颖鼠标的典型性高(M = 2.07, SD = 1.31; t(119) = 13.92, p < 0.001), 但比极度新颖鼠标的典型性低(M = 5.85, SD = 1.10; t(119) = 32.76, p < 0.001)。证明, 前测所选的三款鼠标可用作实验材料。我们期待, 与先前不触摸外观极度新奇的马克杯相比, 触摸该马克杯后, 选择外观极度不一致的鼠标的人数会显著增加, 但选择外观一致的鼠标的人数和选择外观中度不一致的鼠标人数均不会发生显著变化。

3.1 被试和设计

实验2采取3(目标鼠标外观不一致程度:一致vs.中度不一致vs.极度不一致) × 2(先前触摸另一极度不一致的马克杯:触摸vs.不触摸)双因素混合设计, 其中前一个自变量为被试内变量, 后一个自变量为被试间变量。因变量是对每款鼠标的选择人数。实验2的被试是兰州大学的在校学生。有2个组, 共招募210人, 其中男性83人(39.5%); 年龄跨度为18~35岁, 平均年龄23.1岁; 马克杯触摸组104人, 马克杯不触摸组106人。

3.2 程序

实验2的程序与实验1类似。被试来到实验室后, 接受了先前触摸的操纵。具体而言, 触摸组可以看并且摸外观极度新奇的马克杯1 min, 而不触摸组只能看(但不能摸)外观极度新奇的马克杯1分钟。之后, 经过2 min左右的无关分心任务后, 被试看到了3款联想鼠标实物和产品文字介绍(三组完全相同)。这三款鼠标实物放在三个相同大小的透明盒子中。我们在Leveno官网上将每款鼠标图片截图制成卡片, 邀请被试在填写人口学信息后, 从三组卡片中选一张作为礼物带回去。此时, 研究助手记录下了每位被试的真实选择。如果被试选了一致鼠标的卡片, 则记录为1; 如果选了中度不一致鼠标的卡片, 则记录为2; 如果选了极度不一致鼠标的卡片, 则记录为3。考虑到本实验旨在观察被试的真实行为, 而询问不一致解决等主观测项会在一定程度上破坏被试行为的自然性, 所以本实验没有测量不一致解决。

3.3 数据分析和主要结果

为了便于进行皮尔斯卡方检验, 对因变量被试的选择进行重新编码。如果被试选择了一致鼠标的卡片, 则进一步编码为1, 未选择该卡片则编码为0。对中度不一致鼠标卡片的选择和极度不一致鼠标卡片的选择, 也进行了类似编码。

之后, 进行皮尔斯卡方检验。发现, 先前是否触摸外观极度新奇的马克杯(简称马克杯)只会影响被试对随后遇到的外观极度不一致的鼠标的选择。具体而言, 对于外观极度不一致的鼠标卡片, 总共有61人选择, 其中先前不触摸组有23人, 而先前触摸组有38人。因此, 与先前不触摸极度新奇的马克杯相比, 先前触摸该马克杯后, 选择外观极度不一致鼠标卡片的人数比例从37.7% (23/61)增长至62.3% (38/61), Pearson c2 = 4.43, p = 0.035。对于外观中度不一致的鼠标卡片, 总共有100人选择, 其中先前不触摸组和先前触摸组的人数比例相同(各有50人, 50%)。因此, 先前是否触摸极度新奇的马克杯不影响外观中度不一致鼠标卡片的选择; Pearson c2 = 0.07, p = 0.792。对于外观一致的鼠标卡片, 总共有49人选择, 先前触摸组占40.8% (20/49), 先前不触摸组占59.2% (29/49)。因此, 先前是否触摸极度新奇的马克杯也不影响外观一致鼠标的选择, Pearson c2 = 2.63, p = 0.105。上述结果与实验1的结果一致, 再次对假设1提供了支持。

3.4 讨论

实验2观察了被试的真实新产品选择行为, 发现与先前不触摸另一款外观极度新奇的马克杯相比, 先前触摸该马克杯会增加消费者对随后遇到的外观极度新奇的鼠标的接纳和选择。这一发现对实验1进行了推进, 证明了假设1的稳健性。但这两个实验都无法回答:是否先前触摸所有产品都会促进消费者对随后遇到的目标极度不一致新产品的评估。实验3将解答这一问题。

4 实验3:先前触摸增加随后目标新产品评估的边界条件

实验3旨在检验假设3并解决实验1和实验2的不足。借鉴国内外的新产品研究(Noseworthy & Trudel, 2011; 柳武妹, 梁剑平, 2015), 实验3将选用手表作为目标刺激物。在开展实验3前, 对所选手表图片的不一致程度和产品评估进行前测。前测结果表明, 所选手表在不一致程度上差异显著。

4.1 被试和设计

242名中山大学在校学生(106名男生, 年龄17~34岁, 平均年龄22.7岁)参与实验3。实验3采用2(先前触摸:触摸vs.不触摸) × 2(所触摸的产品的外观不一致程度:外观一致的鼠标vs.外观极度不一致的鼠标) × 2(所评估的手表的外观不一致程度:一致vs.极度不一致)三因素被试间设计。因变量是对目标MIDO手表的评估指数。实验3中每组招募被试30人左右, 具体人数分布详见表1

4.2 程序

实验3的程序与前面两个实验类似。被试首先接受了先前触摸和所摸产品外观不一致程度的操纵。触摸组被试被邀请看并且摸一款外观与常见鼠标外观一致或外观极度不一致的Levono鼠标实物1 min, 而不触摸组被试被邀请看但不能摸相应的鼠标实物1 min (这两款鼠标实物是在实验2中用到的目标刺激材料)。之后, 经过无关分心任务后, 被试接受了所评估的手表外观不一致程度的操纵。其中, 一半被试看到经前测筛选出的一致手表的图片及产品介绍, 而另一半被试看到的是外观极度不一致手表的图片和产品介绍。接下来, 所有被试都填写了所浏览手表的评估测项(内部一致性系数α = 0.74)和不一致解决的测项(α = 0.74)。测项与实验1完全相同。

4.3 数据分析和主要结果

4.3.1 产品评估

以产品评估指数作为因变量, 进行2(先前触摸) × 2(所触摸的产品外观不一致程度) × 2(所评估的手表外观不一致程度)三因素被试间方差分析。发现, 先前触摸、所触摸的产品外观不一致程度和所评估的手表外观不一致程度间的三者交互作用显著, F(1,234) = 5.98, p < 0.05。进一步简单效应检验发现, 当所触摸的产品在外观上与被试的预期极度不一致时, 先前触摸和所评估的手表外观不一致程度的两因素交互项显著, F(1,234) = 3.64, p = 0.058。具体而言, 与先前不触摸外观极度不一致的鼠标相比, 触摸该鼠标能显著提升被试对随后遇到的外观极度不一致手表的评估(F(1,234) = 17.85, p < 0.001), 但不会影响被试对随后遇到的外观一致的手表的评估(F(1,234) = 2.34, p = 0.128)。这一结果与前面3个实验的结果一致, 再次证明假设1成立。然而, 当所触摸的产品在外观上与被试的预期完全一致时, 先前触摸和所评估的手表外观不一致程度的两因素交互项变得不显著, F(1,234) = 2.37, p = 0.125。具体而言, 先前是否触摸外观一致的鼠标既不影响被试对随后遇到的外观一致的目标手机的评估(F(1,234) = 0.75, p = 0.387), 也不影响对随后遇到的外观极度不一致目标手机的评估(F(1,234) = 1.73, p = 0.189)。后半部分的发现对假设3提供了支持。具体结果详见表1

4.3.2 中介分析

使用Hayes (2012)推荐的Model 8 (取5000个Bootstrap), 进行有调节的中介检验。当先前触摸产品是外观极度不一致的鼠标时, 不一致解决中介先前触摸和手表外观不一致程度对产品品评估项的影响, indirect effect = -0.14, 95%的置信区间[-0.47, -0.01]不包含0。而当所触摸的产品是外观一致的鼠标时, 不一致解决不再中介先前触摸和手表外观不一致程度对产品品评估项的影响, indirect effect = 0.10, 95%的置信区间[-0.33, 0.61]包含0。

4.4 讨论

通过更换目标刺激物, 实验3检验了何时实验1和实验2的结论将不再成立。结果证明假设3成立, 说明只有当先前触摸的产品和后续评价的产品均在外观上极度新奇时, 先前触摸才能促进随后目标新产品的评价。由此可见, 在外观极度不一致这一点的相似性是先前触摸促进随后另一新产品评价的前提。最后, 实验3发现, 如果先前触摸和随后评估的新产品都是外观一致的产品, 先前触摸也不会促使随后目标新产品的评估, 因为不一致解决未能发生。

实验1、实验2和实验3对论文的3个假设提供了支持, 但这3个实验的共同特点均是让研究组被试既看又摸, 而让对照组被试只看不摸。这种操作导致3个实验的共同缺陷——无法彻底剥离视觉和触觉对随后目标新产品评估的影响。这种操作只能在一定程度上说明先前触摸促进了随后目标产品的评估, 但无法说明先前看完全未发挥作用。因此开展实验4, 更全面地检验实验1~实验3的主效应究竟是由先前看还是先前摸引起。

5 实验4:先前摸还是先前看能促进随后目标新产品的评估?

5.1 被试和设计

119名兰州大学的本科生(65名男生, 平均年龄20.1岁)参与实验4。实验4采用视触组别(既看又摸vs.只摸不看vs.只看不摸vs.不看也不摸/对照)单因素被试间设计。因变量是对极度不一致的目标软饮料瓶的评估指数(测项与实验1、实验2和实验3相同)。极度不一致的饮料瓶选自Noseworthy和Trudel (2011)的实验材料。本实验共招募被试120人, 1人未遵循指导语, 因而该被试的数据未进行统计分析。4个组的被试人数分布情况分别为:既看又摸组30人、只摸不看组30人、只看不摸组30人、对照组29人。

5.2 程序

实验4的程序与前几个实验类似。考虑到实验1~实验3已经对假设1~假设3进行了验证, 因此实验4只让被试在先前评估实验1~实验3中使用过的极度不一致的目标鼠标后, 评估一款极度不一致的zija软饮料瓶。具体而言, 操纵视触组别时, 让只看不摸组被试盯着盒子中的鼠标看1 min, 但不能触摸该鼠标; 让只摸不看组被试在未看到鼠标前就闭上眼睛, 用手将盒子中的鼠标拿出来摸1 min, 期间不能睁开眼睛; 让既看又摸组被试盯着鼠标看并且触摸1 min; 让对照组被试完成1 min的阅读材料, 材料涉及2016年世界发现的6种新物种, 并回答关于材料的几个问题。笔者其它研究的前测已经证明, 这一阅读材料不会对被试的情绪产生影响。值得提出的是, 为了保证前3组得到的鼠标信息一致, 从而排除产品信息不确定和实验人员差异的干扰, 实验全程均由一位主试向前3组被试口头介绍鼠标的同样信息, 如生产公司、相比于传统无线鼠标的特殊功能、以及目标定价和受众等。接下来, 4组被试完成了对目标饮料瓶的评价(条目如同实验1~实验3)。最后, 填写了人口学信息, 并对实验目的进行了猜测。没有人猜测出研究目的。

5.3 数据分析和主要结果

以产品评估为因变量, 进行视触组别单因素方差分析。发现, 视触组别的主效应显著, F(3,115) = 2.82, p = 0.042。进一步组间比较发现, 既看又摸组(t(57)= 2.00, p = 0.050)和只摸不看组(t(58) = 2.36, p = 0.021)的产品评价均好于对照组/不看也不摸组。但是, 只看不摸组的产品评价却与对照组相似, t(58) = 0.53, p = 0.596。这说明, 让被试先前看一款新产品的效果与未看该款产品相同, 均不能促进随后另一目标新产品的评估。最后, 发现既看又摸组和只摸不看组在产品评价上差异不显著, t(58) = -0.35, p = 0.730。这说明, 仅通过先前看一款新产品并不能提升消费者对随后目标新产品的评估。具体结果详见图1

图1

图1   实验4中视触组别对目标饮料瓶产品评估(均值(标准差))的影响


综上, 实验4证明, 前几个实验的发现是由先前看而非先前摸另一款极度不一致的视觉新产品引发的。

6 总结论

本文检验了是否、为何、及何时先前触摸一个与目标产品不同的产品会(不会)影响消费者对随后遇到的极度不一致目标新产品的评估。4个消费者实验发现了一致的结果:先前触摸会影响消费者随后对另一极度不一致目标新产品的评估, 与不触摸相比, 触摸可以促进评估和选择(实验1和实验2), 但所触摸的对象必须是外观上极度新奇的新产品, 而不是外观极其普通的新产品(实验3)。通过更换先前触摸产品的品类、随后评估的目标产品的品类等途径, 本文发现上述研究结论稳定、不受品类差异的影响。最后, 本文实验4检验了实验1~实验3发掘的触摸传递效应究竟是由触觉主导还是视觉主导, 结果证明实验1~实验3的发现由先前摸而非先前看引发。

6.1 主要理论贡献

需要特别指出的是, 认知心理学领域的研究发现, 与手不接近一个不愉悦的刺激物相比, 手接近一个不愉悦的刺激物会改变个体对该刺激物的情绪和认知加工(Du, Wang, Abrams, & Zhang, 2017), 会让个体投入更多的认知资源在这个刺激物上(Abrams, Davoli, Du, Knapp, & Paull, 2008; Wang, Du, He, & Zhang, 2014)。而本文发现, 与手不接近(即不触摸)一个新颖的刺激物相比, 手接近(即触摸)一个新颖的刺激物改变了消费者的认知加工(具体说让消费者解决了所触摸的新颖刺激物的极度不一致), 进而对随后遇到的同类新颖刺激物更容易接受。同时, 本文实验4发现, 与看(手离刺激物远)一个刺激物相比, 手摸(手离刺激物近)一个刺激物才能产生上述现象。实验4的发现与这三篇文献的结果进一步异曲同工。因此, 可以说, 这三篇文章的观点对本文的发现提供了支持, 同时, 本文也对这三篇文章的发现进行了延伸和推进——本文发现, 手接近一个新颖的刺激物还会让个体对随后遇到的同类新颖刺激物的认知评价更灵活, 更积极。

6.2 管理启示

考虑到本文4个实验所选用的用来操纵先前触摸的材料均是鼠标(实验2除外), 而鼠标被前人研究认为属于触觉属性丰富、能引发消费者触摸冲动的产品(Nuszbaum, Voss, Christoph, & Betsch, 2010)。因此, 本文识别出的这一基于不一致性的触觉营销策略在实践应用中具有一定的适用范围。具体而言, 这一触觉营销策略非常适用于触觉属性丰富的高科技新产品, 如鼠标、相机、手表等。此处特别强调高科技新产品是因为高科技产品高科技产品更新换代快, 需要持续创新。但这一策略不适用于触觉属性不丰富、不能引发消费者触摸冲动的其它有形产品, 如包装盒、磨砂纸等; 同时也不适用于无形的服务情境(如餐饮、航空、美容等), 因为服务情境是不可触的。在适用的营销环境方面, 本文识别的触觉营销策略适用于新产品推入市场之前以及刚进入市场时, 因为这时消费者对新产品不熟悉, 需要通过辅助策略来学习并了解该新产品, 此时触觉营销策略有用。当新产品占据一定市场份额后, 本文的触觉营销策略将不适用。

6.3 不足与未来方向

尽管本文所得结论对已有触觉研究和已有新产品研究有明显推进, 但本文存在不足。最大不足是, 本文在理论上认为, 先前触摸一个极度新奇的产品之所以能够促进消费者随后对另一极度不一致目标新产品的评估和选择, 是因为先前触摸促进了近学习迁移(即帮助消费者将由先前触摸获取的产品知识迁移到随后遇到的目标新产品身上), 进而帮助消费者理解/解决了目标新产品与常见产品的极度不一致之处。我们也开展了一个实证研究检验了这一过程机制。但这一实证研究中, 我们对近学习迁移的测量是通过口头报告(如, 在评估完目标产品后询问被试在多大程度上依靠先前触摸所得的产品知识来评价该目标产品)实现的。这种口头报告在一定程度上具有不准确性。因此, 在本文中未汇报。我们呼吁感兴趣的研究者们通过脑电等仪器来更客观、准确地测量近学习迁移。

未来研究还可以从下述两个方向上推进本研究。其一, 不一致新产品包含两类:视觉不一致的新产品和功能属性上不一致的新产品(Noseworthy & Trudel, 2011)。未来研究可以检验是否让消费者触摸一个概念上与其预期不一致的新产品(如会拍照的打印机)会影响他们随后对另一款极度不一致的目标新产品(如可以播放音乐的手表)的评估。其二, 在本文所有实验中, 被试都是先触摸某产品, 之后花2 min左右的时间来做无关任务以学习和储存该产品的知识。未来研究可以进一步检验是否让消费者在触摸某极度不一致的产品后立即评估另一款极度不一致的目标产品, 会阻碍近学习迁移的发生, 进而降低目标产品的不一致解决。

7 总结论

本文在理论上首次系统检验了是否、为何及何时“先前触摸”会(不会)影响消费者对随后遇到的目标新产品的评估。所得研究结论将弥补已有新产品研究和已有触觉研究的研究空缺, 对两股研究都有明显的理论突破和创新。同时, 本文的发现还将为新产品促销、零售推广等提供实践指导, 并为增加新产品的市场占有率提供实践启示。我们期待, 本文对触摸传递效应的挖掘能为未来与消费者触觉和视觉新产品相关的研究起到抛砖引玉的作用。

参考文献

Abrams R. A., Davoli C. C., Du F., Knapp W. J., &Paull D . ( 2008).

Altered vision near the hands

Cognition, 107( 3), 1035-1047.

DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.09.006      URL     PMID:17977524     

The present study explored the manner in which hand position may affect visual processing. We studied three classic visual attention tasks (visual search, inhibition of return, and attentional blink) during which the participants held their hands either near the stimulus display, or far from the display. Remarkably, the hands altered visual processing: people shifted their attention between items more slowly when their hands were near the display. The same results were observed for both visible and invisible hands. This enhancement in vision for objects near the hands reveals a mechanism that could facilitate the detailed evaluation of objects for potential manipulation, or the assessment of potentially dangerous objects for a defensive response.

Ackerman J. M., Nocera C. C., & Bargh J. A . ( 2010).

Incidental haptic sensations influence social judgments and decisions

Science, 328 ( 5986), 1712-1715.

DOI:10.1126/science.1189993      URL     PMID:3005631     

Abstract Touch is both the first sense to develop and a critical means of information acquisition and environmental manipulation. Physical touch experiences may create an ontological scaffold for the development of intrapersonal and interpersonal conceptual and metaphorical knowledge, as well as a springboard for the application of this knowledge. In six experiments, holding heavy or light clipboards, solving rough or smooth puzzles, and touching hard or soft objects nonconsciously influenced impressions and decisions formed about unrelated people and situations. Among other effects, heavy objects made job candidates appear more important, rough objects made social interactions appear more difficult, and hard objects increased rigidity in negotiations. Basic tactile sensations are thus shown to influence higher social cognitive processing in dimension-specific and metaphor-specific ways.

Bloch, P.H . ( 1995).

Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response

Journal of Marketing, 59( 3), 16-29.

DOI:10.2307/1252116      URL     [本文引用: 1]

The physical form or design of a product is an unquestioned determinant of its marketplace success. A good design attracts consumers to a product, communicates to them, and adds value to the product by increasing the quality of the usage experiences associated with it. Nevertheless, the topic of product design is rarely, if ever, encountered in marketing journals. To bring needed attention to the subject of product design and enable researchers to better investigate design issues, the author introduces a conceptual mode; and several propositions that describe how the form of a product relates to consumers' psychological and behavioral responses. After presenting this model, the author describes numerous strategic implications and research directions.

Campbell, M.C., &Goodstein R.C . ( 2001).

The moderating effect of perceived risk on consumers’ evaluations of product incongruity: Preference for the norm

Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 439-449.

DOI:10.1086/323731      URL     [本文引用: 1]

ABSTRACT Research supports the existence of a "moderate incongruity effect" such that an option that is moderately inconsistent with an evoked product category schema is sometimes preferred to a congruent option. We propose that perceived risk is an important situational factor that moderates the impact of congruity on evaluations. Three studies show that the positive evaluation of moderately incongruent products, relative to congruent ones, does not appear when there is risk associated with product selection. When consumers perceive high risk associated with a purchase, the moderate incongruity effect is reversed such that the congruent is preferred to the moderately incongruent product. Only in conditions where subjects perceived no real risk did the positive effect of moderate incongruity appear. The limiting effect of perceived risk appears to be due to consumers' "preferences for the norm" under high-risk conditions. The set of findings are discussed as they relate to and extend current thinking about the effects of moderate incongruity on evaluations. Copyright 2001 by the University of Chicago.

Du F., Wang X. T., Abrams R. A., & Zhang K . ( 2017).

Emotional processing is enhanced in peri-hand space

Cognition, 165, 39-44.

DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2017.04.009      URL     [本文引用: 2]

The space near the hands, or peri-hand space is a critical multisensory-motor interface between people and the environment. Recent studies have shown that visual processing near the hands is altered compared with stimuli far from the hands. Some results suggest that the changes may be mediated by brain mechanisms involved in evaluating emotional stimuli. Here we show direct evidence for that proposal: we found that both the emotional Stroop effect and the Late Positive Potential (LPP) to unpleasant visual stimuli were enhanced near the hands compared to far from the hands. The results reveal enhanced processing of unpleasant stimuli in peri-hand space, which may facilitate the response to potentially dangerous stimuli.

Gick M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. ( 1987) .

The cognitive basis of knowledge transfer

In Transfer of learning:Contemporary research and applications (pp. 9-46). New York: Academic Press.

DOI:10.1016/B978-0-12-188950-0.50008-4      URL     [本文引用: 1]

This chapter discusses the interrelationships between task structure, encoding and retrieval processes, and the prior knowledge of the learner, as these factors relate to transfer. It presents a distinction between perceived similarity of the training and transfer situations, based on salient common features of their representations, and objective structural similarity, based on the actual nature of the task components determining appropriate responses. Transfer is affected by both types of similarity. Perceived similarity determines whether transfer is attempted, whereas objective structural similarity determines whether transfer is positive or negative. The encoding of the training task fosters subsequent transfer to the extent that the learner acquires rules that are applicable to a range of superficially different tasks with structural commonalities. If the transfer task evokes similar goals and processing mechanisms, or has salient surface resemblances to the training task, these common components then serve as the basis for retrieval of the acquired knowledge in the transfer context. Several factors that influence learning and retention merit more extensive investigation in relation to transfer. One such factor is the role of context and contrast in determining the learner's representation of the training task.

Gourville, J.T . ( 2006).

Eager sellers and stony buyers: Understanding the psychology of new-product adoption

Harvard Business Review, 84, 98-106.

DOI:10.1111/j.1475-5890.2006.00034.x      URL     PMID:16770897      [本文引用: 1]

Companies that introduce new innovations are the most likely to flourish, so they spend billions of dollars making better products. But studies show that new innovations fail at a staggering rate. While many blame these misses on lackluster products, the reality 't so simple. The goods that consumers dismiss often do offer improvements over existing ones. So why don't people purchase them ? And why do companies keep peddling products that buyers are likely to reject ? The answer, says the author, can be found in the brain. New products force consumers to change their , and that has a psychological cost. Many products fail because people irrationally over-value the benefits of the goods they own over those they don't possess. Executives, meanwhile, overvalue their own innovations. This leads to a serious clash. Studies show, in fact, that there is a mismatch of nine to one, or 9x, between what innovators think consumers want and what consumers truly desire. Fortunately, companies can overcome this disconnect. To start, they can determine where their products fall in a matrix with four categories: easy sells, sure failures, long hauls, and smash hits. Each has a different ratio of product improvement to change required from the consumer. Once businesses know where their products fit into this grid, they can manage the resistance to change. For some innovations, major change is a given. In those cases, companies can either wait for consumers to warm to the product, make the improvement so great that buyers get past their apprehension, or try to eliminate the incumbent product. Firms can also try to minimize buyer resistance by making products that are compatible with incumbent goods, seeking out those who are not yet users of the existing product, or finding true believers.

Haskell R. E. ( 2001).

Transfer of learning:Cognition, instruction, and reasoning

San Diego: Academic Press.

URL     [本文引用: 3]

Transfer of learning : cognition, instruction, and reasoning Robert E. Haskell (Educational psychology series) Academic Press, c2001

Hayes, A.F ( 2012).

PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]

[本文引用: 2]

Herzenstein M., Posavac S. S., & Brakus J. J . ( 2007).

New and really new products: The effects of self-regulation systems and risk salience

Journal of Marketing Research, 44( 2), 251-260.

DOI:10.1509/jmkr.44.2.251      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Homa D., Kahol K., Tripathis P., Bratton L., & Panchanathan S . ( 2009).

Haptic concepts in the blind

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71( 4), 690-698.

DOI:10.3758/APP.71.4.690      URL     PMID:19429952      [本文引用: 1]

We investigated and compared the acquisition of haptic concepts by the blind with the acquisition of haptic concepts by sighted controls. Each subject—blind, sighted but blindfolded, sighted and touching, and sighted only-initially classified eight objects into two categories using a study/test format, followed by a recognition/classification test involving old, new, and prototype forms. Each object varied along the dimensions of shape, size, and texture, with each dimension having five values. The categories were linearly separable in three dimensions, but no single dimension permitted 100% accurate classification. The results revealed that blind subjects learned the categories quickly and comparably with sighted controls. On the classification test, all groups performed equivalently, with the category prototype classified more accurately than the old or new stimuli. The blind subjects differed from the other subjects on the recognition test in two ways: They were least likely to false alarm to novel patterns that belonged to the category but most likely to false alarm to the category prototype, which they falsely called “old” 100% of the time. We discuss these results in terms of current views of categorization.

Huang M. X., Li P., & Wang Y. T . ( 2016).

Is high variance of reviews necessarily a bad thing for a new product?-The role of perceived social value

Journal of Marketing Science, 12( 3), 36-50.

[本文引用: 1]

[ 黄敏学, 李萍, 王艺婷 . ( 2016).

新产品评论不一致一定是坏事吗?—基于社会价值视角

营销科学学报, 12( 3), 36-50.]

[本文引用: 1]

Huber B., Joanne T., Mariana N. A., Chelsee G., Steven J., Jordy K., & Swinburne Babylab Team . ( 2016).

Young children's transfer of learning from a touchscreen device

Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 56-64.

DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.010      URL     [本文引用: 1]

61Children (4- to 6-years-old) learned to solve a problem on a touchscreen device.61Children's learning from the touchscreen was readily applied to the physical world.61Touchscreen-based learning did not require prior experience with a similar 3D puzzle.

Jhang J. H., Grant S. J., & Campbell M. C . ( 2012).

Get it? Got it. Good! Enhancing new product acceptance by facilitating resolution of extreme incongruity

Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 247-259.

DOI:10.2139/ssrn.1693188      URL     [本文引用: 5]

Highly innovative products may offer consumers greater benefits than incrementally new products, yet they have a higher failure rate. The present research addre

Klatzky R. L., Lederman S. J., & Metzger V. A . ( 1985).

Identifying objects by touch: An “expert” system

Perception & Psychophysics, 37( 4), 299-302.

DOI:10.3758/BF03211351      URL     PMID:4034346      [本文引用: 1]

How good are we at recognizing objects by touch? Intuition may suggest that the haptic system is a poor recognition device, and previous research with nonsense shapes and tangible-graphics displays supports this opinion. We argue that the recognition capabilities of touch are best assessed with three-dimensional, familiar objects. The present study provides a baseline measure of recognition under those circumstances, and it indicates that haptic object recognition can be both rapid and accurate.

Liu, W.M., &Liang J.P . ( 2015).

To choose red or blue? Investigating whether, when and why background colors will (will Not) affect visually new product evaluations

Nankai Business Review, 18( 5), 97-109.

[本文引用: 3]

[ 柳武妹, 梁剑平 . ( 2015).

选择红色还是蓝色?背景色彩影响视觉新产品评估的现象、中介及边界体制研究

南开管理评论, 18( 5), 97-109.]

URL     [本文引用: 3]

为提高新产品的市场接受度,品牌经理和零售商常会精心选取呈现新产品时的背景色彩。尽管如此,迄今为止还没有研究探讨背景色彩是否及如何影响消费者对新产品的评估。本文检验了背景色彩和新产品评估间的动态关系,来自消费者和品牌经理的数据都显示:蓝色背景会促使人们更加偏爱中度不一致(vs.一致)的产品,而红色背景下人们对两类产品的评价相似(实验1-2)。这是因为,蓝色(vs.红色)背景激发了关系加工,促进了人们对中度不一致的解决(实验2)。当人们的个人控制感低(vs.高)时,他们开始有意识地关注背景色彩,此时他们的新产品评估将不再受背景色彩的影响(实验3)。

Mandler, G. ( 1982).

The structure of value: Accounting for taste” in affect and cognition. In The 17th annual carnegie symposium on cognition

Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[本文引用: 6]

McCabe, D.B., &Nowlis S.N . ( 2003).

The effect of examining actual products or product descriptions on consumer preference

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13( 4), 431-439.

DOI:10.1207/S15327663JCP1304_10      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Many consumers purchase products in stores, where they can physically examine and touch the items. In addition, consumers shop for products online or through direct mail, where they cannot physically examine and touch the merchandise. Building on an analysis of perceptual mechanisms involved in the sense of touch, we find that products with primarily material properties, such as clothing or carpeting, are more likely to be preferred in shopping environments that allow physical inspection than in those environments that do not. We also find that there is no difference in preference across the two environments for products with primarily geometric properties, such as packaged goods, for which vision is highly diagnostic. Furthermore, when the touch properties of a material product are verbally described, this reduces the difference in preference between the two environments.

Meyers-Levy, J., &Tybout ,A.M . ( 1989).

Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation

Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 39-54.

DOI:10.1086/jcr.1989.16.issue-1      URL     [本文引用: 8]

Muller D., Judd C. M., & Yzerbyt V. Y . ( 2005).

When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852-863.

DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852      URL     PMID:16393020      [本文引用: 1]

Procedures for examining whether treatment effects on an outcome are mediated and/or moderated have been well developed and are routinely applied. The mediation question focuses on the intervening mechanism that produces the treatment effect. The moderation question focuses on factors that affect the magnitude of the treatment effect. It is important to note that these two processes may be combined in informative ways, such that moderation is mediated or mediation is moderated. Although some prior literature has discussed these possibilities, their exact definitions and analytic procedures have not been completely articulated. The purpose of this article is to define precisely both mediated moderation and moderated mediation and provide analytic strategies for assessing each.

Noseworthy T. J., Di Muro F., & Murray K. B . ( 2014).

The role of arousal in congruity-based product evaluation

Journal of Consumer Research, 41( 4), 1108-1026.

DOI:10.1086/678301      URL     [本文引用: 2]

New products are often incongruent with consumer expectations. Researchers have shown that consumers prefer moderately incongruent products, while being adverse to extremely incongruent products. Evidence from three studies suggests that this phenomenon is highly influenced by a consumer state of arousal. Specifically, low arousal decreases preference for moderate incongruity while increasing preference for extreme incongruity, whereas high arousal decreases preference for any form of incongruity. Underlying these effects are discrete emotional states brought on by a physiological response to incongruity. Varying arousal subsequently varies the severity of the emotion, be it negative (anxiety) or positive (curiosity), which in turn varies evaluations for the product. This suggests that creating excitement around a product launch may be good for incremental innovation, but it may not be a good idea for something truly innovative.

Noseworthy,T.J., &Trudel R., ( 2011).

Looks interesting, but what does it do? Evaluation of incongruent product form depends on positioning

Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 1008-1019.

DOI:10.1509/jmr.10.0384      URL     [本文引用: 7]

Noseworthy T. J., Cotte J., & Lee S. H . ( 2011).

The effects of ad context and gender on the identification of visually incongruent products

Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 358-375.

DOI:10.1086/658472      URL     [本文引用: 3]

Nuszbaum M., Voss A., Christoph K. K., & Betsch T . ( 2010).

Assessing individual differences in the use of haptic information using a German translation of the need for touch scale

Social Psychology, 41( 4), 263-274.

DOI:10.1027/1864-9335/a000035      URL     [本文引用: 1]

ABSTRACT A German version of the Need for Touch scale (NFT) was developed and validated in two experiments. Study 1 examined moderator effects of NFT on the influence of product experience on confidence and frustration in product evaluations. As expected, only for high-NFT individuals, confidence increased and frustration decreased when haptic information was available. In Study 2, we explored the influence of NFT in a gambling task. Results showed that individuals with higher NFT more often chose gambling alternatives accompanied by a positive feeling of touch, while individuals with lower NFT did not integrate haptic information. Additionally, results confirmed the theoretically postulated two-dimensional structure of NFT, as well as its discriminant validity.

Peck, J., &Childers ,T.L . ( 2003

b). Individual differences in haptic information processing: The “need for touch” scale

Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 430-442.

DOI:10.1086/378619      URL     [本文引用: 3]

This research details the development of the “Need for Touch” (NFT) scale designed to measure individual differences in preference for haptic (touch) information. The 12‐item NFT scale consists of autotelic and instrumental dimensions. Results are reported that support the scale’s hypothesized internal structure as well as its reliability, convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity. Individual differences in chronic accessibility to haptic information across groups varying in NFT were also found in two experiments. Additionally, NFT moderated the relationship between direct experience and confidence in judgment.

Peck, J., &Childers ,T.L . ( 2003 a).

To have and to hold: The influence of haptic information on product judgments

Journal of Marketing, 67, 35-48.

DOI:10.1509/jmkg.67.2.35.18612      URL     PMID:12755688      [本文引用: 4]

Haptic information, or information attained through touch by the hands, is important for the evaluation of products that vary in terms of material properties related to texture, hardness, temperature, and weight. The authors develop and propose a conceptual framework to illustrate that salience of haptic information differs significantly across products, consumers, and situations. The authors use two experiments to assess how these factors interact to impair or enhance the acquisition and use of haptic information. Barriers to touch, such as a retail display case, can inhibit the use of haptic information and consequently decrease confidence in product evaluations and increase the frustration level of consumers who are more motivated to touch products. In addition, written descriptions and visual depictions of products can partially enhance acquisition of certain types of touch information. The authors synthesize the results of these studies and discuss implications for the effect of haptic information for Internet and other nonstore retailing as well as for traditional retailers.

Peck, J., &Childers T.L . ( 2006).

If I touch it I have to have it: Individual and environmental influences on impulse purchasing

Journal of Business Research, 59( 6), 765-769.

DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.014      URL     [本文引用: 1]

This research examines the influence of touch on impulse-purchasing behavior. We first replicate the Rook and Fisher [Rook DW, Fisher RJ. Normative influences on impulsive buying behavior. J Consum Res 1995;22:305 13.] studies about the moderating effect of the normative evaluation of impulse purchase on impulse-purchasing behavior. Extending the impulse-purchasing literature, we examine individual differences in touch and how they affect impulsive-buying behavior. Results from a field experiment suggest that both individual and environmental touch-related factors increase impulse purchasing.

Peck, J., &Shu ,S.B . ( 2009).

The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership

Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 434-447.

DOI:10.1086/598614      URL     [本文引用: 2]

This research finds that merely touching an object results in an increase in perceived ownership of that object. For non-owners, or buyers, perceived ownership

Peck J., Barger V. A., & Webb A . ( 2013).

In search of a surrogate for touch: The effect of haptic imagery on perceived ownership

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23( 2), 189-196.

DOI:10.1016/j.jcps.2012.09.001      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Previous research has shown that individuals value objects more highly if they own them, a finding commonly known as the endowment effect. In fact, simply touching an object can create a perception of ownership that produces the endowment effect. In this paper, we extend this line of research in several ways. First, we show that haptic imagery, or imagining touching an object, can have the same effect on perceived ownership as physical touch. We then demonstrate that haptic imagery can lead to perceptions of physical control, which in turn increase feelings of ownership. Moreover, the more vivid the haptic imagery, the greater the perception of control and the feeling of ownership. Implications for theory and practice are discussed. (C) 2012 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Perkins D. N., &Salomon, G. ( 1992) .

Transfer of learning

In International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.). Oxford, England:Pergamon Press.

[本文引用: 2]

Romero, M., &Craig A.W . ( 2017).

Costly curves: How human-like shapes can increase spending

Journal of Consumer Research, 44( 1), 88-98.

DOI:10.1093/jcr/ucw080      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Can exposure to body shapes affect spending preferences? Because Western society associates thinness with economic value, we argue that a shape resembling thin human body types activates concepts related to positive financial outcomes, such as responsibility and hard work. The results of five experiments show that exposure to thin, human-like shapes influences consumer self-efficacy judgments and spending outcomes, depending on the perceiver’s weight. In line with social comparison, we demonstrate that seeing a thin (vs. wide) human-like shape leads high-body-mass-index consumers to make more indulgent decisions. Financial self-efficacy is highlighted as the underlying mechanism, and high resemblance to the human-form is identified as a critical moderator. The findings of this research acknowledge visual similarity’s role in stereotype knowledge activation and weight stereotypes’ broad scope of influence.

Russell J. A., Weiss A., & Mendelsohn G. A . ( 1989).

Affect grid: A single-item scale of pleasure and arousal

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57( 3), 493-502.

DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.493      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Une 00grille affective03 (Affect Grid), échelle à item unique fondée sur la structure circulaire des émotions, est proposée comme un moyen rapide d'obtenir une mesure de l'affect (plaisir/déplaisir et entrain). Les fidélité, validité concourante et discriminante sont estimées à partir de quatre études collectant des états affectifs variés (humeur, signification affective de mots, sentiments évoqués par des expressions faciales)

Wang X. T., Du F., He X. S., & Zhang K . ( 2014).

Enhanced spatial stimulus-response mapping near the hands: The Simon effect is modulated by hand-stimulus proximity

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(6), 2252-2265.

DOI:10.1037/a0038140      URL     PMID:25314044      [本文引用: 1]

Emerging evidence has revealed that visual processing of objects near the hands is altered. The present study shows that the visuomotor Simon effect when the hands are proximal to stimuli is greater than that observed when the hands are far from stimuli, thereby indicating stronger spatial stimulus-response mapping near the hands. The visuomotor Simon effect is robustly enhanced near the hands even when hand visibility and stimulus-response axis-similarity are controlled. However, the semantic Simon effect with location words is not modulated by hand-stimulus proximity. Thus, consistent with the dimensional overlap model and the known features of the bimodal visuotactile neurons, hand-stimulus proximity enhances spatial stimulus-response mapping but has no effect on semantic processing of location words.

Zhang, M., &Li ,X.P . ( 2012).

From physical weight to psychological significance: The contribution of semantic activations

Journal of Consumer Research, 38( 6), 1063-1075.

DOI:10.1086/661768      URL    

Past research has shown that a physical experience can influence metaphorically linked psychological judgment. However, the underlying mechanisms have not been formally tested. This article examines the role of semantic activations underlying such influences, focusing on the effects of a ubiquitous physical experience—“carrying weight”—on consumers’ judgment of importance. Five experiments provide converging evidence that semantic activation is the primary underlying process for the effect. Specifically, physically carrying a load is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for processing the concept of importance. The effect is fully mediated by semantic activation of related weight concepts. Moreover, processing the concept of importance does not necessarily influence the physical experience of carrying weight. An affective state such as mental stress (psychological load), however, does have a reciprocal effect on the physical experience of carrying weight, indicating that there might be different pathways between weight experience and its metaphorically linked concepts.

/


版权所有 © 《心理学报》编辑部
地址:北京市朝阳区林萃路16号院 
邮编:100101 
电话:010-64850861 
E-mail:xuebao@psych.ac.cn
备案编号:京ICP备10049795号-1 京公网安备110402500018号

本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发