论文部分内容阅读
1. Introduction
It is generally known that brand extension involves the introduction of new products by using a well-established brand name associated with an existing category of products. One important finding from brand extension research has been that brand extension fit plays a crucial role in consumers' evaluation of brand extension （e.g.， Volckner and Sattler 2007）. A general consensus among branding researchers is that brand extensions that fit well with the parent brand are always favorably evaluated by consumers （Buil et al. 2009； de Ruyter and Wetzels 2000）. Perceived fit is therefore considered to be the most important variable in the examination of consumers' attitude towards brand extensions.
Recent years have witnessed the emergence of a new line of research into brand extensions with the purpose of exploring the interplay between culture and cognition in understanding consumers' judgment of brand extension fit （Monga and John 2004， 2007）. This approach is based on the theory dealing with the interconnection between cross-cultural differences and the associated distinctive styles of thinking （Nisbett and Norenzayan 2002； Norenzayan et al. 2007 and Medin et al. 2007）. Monga and John （2004， 2007） argue that there is compelling empirical evidence to support the thesis that the difference between Western and Eastern consumers in judging brand extension fit lies in the former adopting analytic thinking whereas the latter holistic thinking. The present paper argues that this West-East-dichotomy-based thesis， in terms of modes of thinking， suffers from both empirical and theoretical problems.
2. Monga and John's （2004， 2007） Thesis
One recent detailed proposal is that the difference between Eastern and Western culture leads to two distinctive systems of thought （i.e. holistic vs. analytic thinking）， and the two systems characterize the cognitive differences between Easterners and Westerners correspondingly （Norenzayan et al. 2007； Medin et al. 2007）. Following this line of reasoning， Monga and John （2004， 2007） attempted to establish the thesis that cross-cultural differences in terms of holistic vs. analytic thinking explain the difference between Easterner and Westerners in judging brand extension fit （and hence the difference in their evaluation of brand extension）. In their study， Monga and John （2007： 530） made the following predictions①：
H1： Consumers from Eastern cultures will perceive a higher degree of brand extension fit than consumers from Western cultures. H2： Consumers from Eastern cultures will evaluate brand extensions more favorably than consumers from Western cultures.
Their results showed that the rating-differences between the Indian （Eastern） and American （Western） groups across all the three types of （Kodak） extension fit are statistically significant， and led Monga and John （2007） to claim that their predictions were confirmed， and further concluded that different styles of thinking （Western analytic vs. Eastern holistic thinking） appear to be determining the ways in which the two groups of consumers judge brand extension fit， thereby affecting their brand extension evaluations.
3. Monga and John's （2004， 2007） Thesis Lacking Firm Empirical Basis
Monga and John's thesis appears to be problematic because their studies suffer from both generalizability and theoretical problems. It will first be shown in this section that their thesis is hard to be maintained because of its weak empirical basis for a generalized conclusion.
The first generalizability problem comes from sampling. Monga and John （2004， 2007） only recruited university students as participants in their study. This casts doubt on the degree to which their results can be generalized to a larger group of consumers. One cannot simply assume that the students are so representative that they can 'speak for' consumers from other social classes. To ensure the generalizability， the inclusion of extra groups of participants from other social classes is therefore required. The second generalizability problem comes from the failure to examine individual results because group results may over-represent individual results. The third problem is that Monga and John （2004， 2007） focused exclusively on 'visible goods' （e.g. extensions of Kodak） without considering 'invisible goods' （e.g. extensions of Barkley Banking Service） were not considered. It is by no means implausible to suggest that converging behaviours of the two groups of participants can be incurred if extensions of invisible goods are involved.
More problematic about Monga and John's thesis is their theoretical underpinning. Their thesis per se relies on a principled cognitive dichotomy between Westerners and Easterners， and tends to overlook cognitive universality in consumers， and hence is conceptually too simplistic. A number of studies have shown that the dichotomy is highly questionable. Hedden et al. （2008）， using brain imaging methods， discovered that mono-cultural Asians and Americans can shift between Western-like and Eastern-like modes of thinking with cultural background being only a 'moderate' but not a determinate variable. Benet-Martínez et al. （2002） found their bi-cultural participants （i.e. Chinese-Americans） can also use both Eastern and Western-like ways to process the information. Finally， Kim and Markman （2005） offer substantial evidence to support the view that the so-called difference in styles of thinking between Westerners and Easterners may be superficial. The West-East-dichotomy-based approach also downplays variations within consumers who are considered to be in opposition to Easterners， hence lacking of sufficient explaining power. Buil et al. （2009） found significant differences between UK， Norwegian， and Spanish consumers in their evaluations of brand extensions， suggesting that the across-the-board approach is of limited use.
4. Concluding Remarks and Implications
Culture-driven branding research can be a useful line of investigation， as it may help to identify some moderate （but not determinate） variables for research into the divergence of consumers' behaviours. However， reading too much off these variables may run the risk of overlooking the determinate variables that give rise to divergent consumers' behaviours. The thesis that the difference between Western and Eastern consumers in judging brand extension fit can be explained by different modes of thinking essentially suffers from this kind of problem. The role of different modes of thinking in understanding Western and Eastern consumers' behaviors is therefore considerably limited.
Notes
①Since the two studies share the identical underlying rationale， similar methodologies， and since the results from the two studies regarding participants' judgment of brand extension fit and evaluation of brand extension are largely consistent， the focus of the following review will be just on Monga and John （2007）.
References
[1]Benet-Martínez， V.， Leu， J.， and Lee， F. "Negotiating Biculturalism Cultural Frame Switching in Biculturals with Oppositional Versus Compatible Cultural Identities." Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 33.5 （2002）： 492-516.
[2]Buil， I.， de Chernatony， L.， and Hem， L.
"Brand extension strategies： perceived fit， brand type， and culture influences." European Journal of Marketing 43.11/12 （2009）： 1300-1324.
[3]de Ruyter， K.， and Wetzels， M. "The role of corporate image and extension similarity in service brand extensions." Journal of Economic Psychology 21.6 （2000）： 639-59.
[4]Hedden， T.， Ketay， S.， Aron， A.， Markus， H.， and Gabrieli， J. "Cultural Influences on Neural Substrates of Attentional Control." Psychological Science 19.1 （2008）： 12-17.
[5]Kim， K.， and Markman， A. "Differences
in Fear of Isolation as an explanation of Cultural Differences： Evidence from memory and reasoning." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42 （2006）： 350-364.
[6]Monga， A. B.， and John， D. R. "Cultural differences in brand extension evaluation： The influence of analytic versus holistic thinking." Journal of Consumer Research 33 （2007）： 529-536.
[7]Monga， A. B.， and John， D. R. "Con-
sumer Evaluation of Brand Extensions： Does Culture Matter？ " Advances in Consumer Research （31）. Eds. Kahn， B. E. and M. F. Luce， Valdosta， GA： Association for Consumer Research （2004）， 216-22.
[8]Nisbett， R. E.， and Norenzayan， A. "Culture and cognition." Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology， Third Edition， Volume Two： Memory and Cognitive Processes. Eds. Medin， D. and H. Pashler. New York： John Wiley & Sons， 2002： 561-597.
[9]Norenzayan， A.， Choi， I.， and Kaipeng， P. "Perception and Cognition." Handbook of Cultural Psychology. Eds. Kitayama， S. and D. Cohen. New York： The Guilford Press， 2007： 569 -594.
[10]Volckner， F.， and Sattler， H. "Empirical generalizability of consumer evaluations of brand extensions." International Journal of Research in Marketing 24 （2007）： 149-62.
（作者单位：浙江外国语学院）
It is generally known that brand extension involves the introduction of new products by using a well-established brand name associated with an existing category of products. One important finding from brand extension research has been that brand extension fit plays a crucial role in consumers' evaluation of brand extension （e.g.， Volckner and Sattler 2007）. A general consensus among branding researchers is that brand extensions that fit well with the parent brand are always favorably evaluated by consumers （Buil et al. 2009； de Ruyter and Wetzels 2000）. Perceived fit is therefore considered to be the most important variable in the examination of consumers' attitude towards brand extensions.
Recent years have witnessed the emergence of a new line of research into brand extensions with the purpose of exploring the interplay between culture and cognition in understanding consumers' judgment of brand extension fit （Monga and John 2004， 2007）. This approach is based on the theory dealing with the interconnection between cross-cultural differences and the associated distinctive styles of thinking （Nisbett and Norenzayan 2002； Norenzayan et al. 2007 and Medin et al. 2007）. Monga and John （2004， 2007） argue that there is compelling empirical evidence to support the thesis that the difference between Western and Eastern consumers in judging brand extension fit lies in the former adopting analytic thinking whereas the latter holistic thinking. The present paper argues that this West-East-dichotomy-based thesis， in terms of modes of thinking， suffers from both empirical and theoretical problems.
2. Monga and John's （2004， 2007） Thesis
One recent detailed proposal is that the difference between Eastern and Western culture leads to two distinctive systems of thought （i.e. holistic vs. analytic thinking）， and the two systems characterize the cognitive differences between Easterners and Westerners correspondingly （Norenzayan et al. 2007； Medin et al. 2007）. Following this line of reasoning， Monga and John （2004， 2007） attempted to establish the thesis that cross-cultural differences in terms of holistic vs. analytic thinking explain the difference between Easterner and Westerners in judging brand extension fit （and hence the difference in their evaluation of brand extension）. In their study， Monga and John （2007： 530） made the following predictions①：
H1： Consumers from Eastern cultures will perceive a higher degree of brand extension fit than consumers from Western cultures. H2： Consumers from Eastern cultures will evaluate brand extensions more favorably than consumers from Western cultures.
Their results showed that the rating-differences between the Indian （Eastern） and American （Western） groups across all the three types of （Kodak） extension fit are statistically significant， and led Monga and John （2007） to claim that their predictions were confirmed， and further concluded that different styles of thinking （Western analytic vs. Eastern holistic thinking） appear to be determining the ways in which the two groups of consumers judge brand extension fit， thereby affecting their brand extension evaluations.
3. Monga and John's （2004， 2007） Thesis Lacking Firm Empirical Basis
Monga and John's thesis appears to be problematic because their studies suffer from both generalizability and theoretical problems. It will first be shown in this section that their thesis is hard to be maintained because of its weak empirical basis for a generalized conclusion.
The first generalizability problem comes from sampling. Monga and John （2004， 2007） only recruited university students as participants in their study. This casts doubt on the degree to which their results can be generalized to a larger group of consumers. One cannot simply assume that the students are so representative that they can 'speak for' consumers from other social classes. To ensure the generalizability， the inclusion of extra groups of participants from other social classes is therefore required. The second generalizability problem comes from the failure to examine individual results because group results may over-represent individual results. The third problem is that Monga and John （2004， 2007） focused exclusively on 'visible goods' （e.g. extensions of Kodak） without considering 'invisible goods' （e.g. extensions of Barkley Banking Service） were not considered. It is by no means implausible to suggest that converging behaviours of the two groups of participants can be incurred if extensions of invisible goods are involved.
More problematic about Monga and John's thesis is their theoretical underpinning. Their thesis per se relies on a principled cognitive dichotomy between Westerners and Easterners， and tends to overlook cognitive universality in consumers， and hence is conceptually too simplistic. A number of studies have shown that the dichotomy is highly questionable. Hedden et al. （2008）， using brain imaging methods， discovered that mono-cultural Asians and Americans can shift between Western-like and Eastern-like modes of thinking with cultural background being only a 'moderate' but not a determinate variable. Benet-Martínez et al. （2002） found their bi-cultural participants （i.e. Chinese-Americans） can also use both Eastern and Western-like ways to process the information. Finally， Kim and Markman （2005） offer substantial evidence to support the view that the so-called difference in styles of thinking between Westerners and Easterners may be superficial. The West-East-dichotomy-based approach also downplays variations within consumers who are considered to be in opposition to Easterners， hence lacking of sufficient explaining power. Buil et al. （2009） found significant differences between UK， Norwegian， and Spanish consumers in their evaluations of brand extensions， suggesting that the across-the-board approach is of limited use.
4. Concluding Remarks and Implications
Culture-driven branding research can be a useful line of investigation， as it may help to identify some moderate （but not determinate） variables for research into the divergence of consumers' behaviours. However， reading too much off these variables may run the risk of overlooking the determinate variables that give rise to divergent consumers' behaviours. The thesis that the difference between Western and Eastern consumers in judging brand extension fit can be explained by different modes of thinking essentially suffers from this kind of problem. The role of different modes of thinking in understanding Western and Eastern consumers' behaviors is therefore considerably limited.
Notes
①Since the two studies share the identical underlying rationale， similar methodologies， and since the results from the two studies regarding participants' judgment of brand extension fit and evaluation of brand extension are largely consistent， the focus of the following review will be just on Monga and John （2007）.
References
[1]Benet-Martínez， V.， Leu， J.， and Lee， F. "Negotiating Biculturalism Cultural Frame Switching in Biculturals with Oppositional Versus Compatible Cultural Identities." Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 33.5 （2002）： 492-516.
[2]Buil， I.， de Chernatony， L.， and Hem， L.
"Brand extension strategies： perceived fit， brand type， and culture influences." European Journal of Marketing 43.11/12 （2009）： 1300-1324.
[3]de Ruyter， K.， and Wetzels， M. "The role of corporate image and extension similarity in service brand extensions." Journal of Economic Psychology 21.6 （2000）： 639-59.
[4]Hedden， T.， Ketay， S.， Aron， A.， Markus， H.， and Gabrieli， J. "Cultural Influences on Neural Substrates of Attentional Control." Psychological Science 19.1 （2008）： 12-17.
[5]Kim， K.， and Markman， A. "Differences
in Fear of Isolation as an explanation of Cultural Differences： Evidence from memory and reasoning." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42 （2006）： 350-364.
[6]Monga， A. B.， and John， D. R. "Cultural differences in brand extension evaluation： The influence of analytic versus holistic thinking." Journal of Consumer Research 33 （2007）： 529-536.
[7]Monga， A. B.， and John， D. R. "Con-
sumer Evaluation of Brand Extensions： Does Culture Matter？ " Advances in Consumer Research （31）. Eds. Kahn， B. E. and M. F. Luce， Valdosta， GA： Association for Consumer Research （2004）， 216-22.
[8]Nisbett， R. E.， and Norenzayan， A. "Culture and cognition." Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology， Third Edition， Volume Two： Memory and Cognitive Processes. Eds. Medin， D. and H. Pashler. New York： John Wiley & Sons， 2002： 561-597.
[9]Norenzayan， A.， Choi， I.， and Kaipeng， P. "Perception and Cognition." Handbook of Cultural Psychology. Eds. Kitayama， S. and D. Cohen. New York： The Guilford Press， 2007： 569 -594.
[10]Volckner， F.， and Sattler， H. "Empirical generalizability of consumer evaluations of brand extensions." International Journal of Research in Marketing 24 （2007）： 149-62.
（作者单位：浙江外国语学院）