تاثیر شرایط اطمینان و عدم‌اطمینان در انتخاب برند تقلیدی (مطالعه موردی مشتریان داروخانه های شبانه روزی)

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکتری مدیریت بازاریابی، استادیار دانشگاه لرستان

2 کارشناسی ارشد مددیریت بازاریابی

چکیده

 
مصرف‏کنندگان در تصمیم‏گیری‏های خرید با درجات مختلفی از عدم‌اطمینان در مورد محصول پیشنهاد شده روبه رو هستند. از قبیل عدم‌اطمینان در مورد کیفیت محصول، مانند هنگامی که مصرف کننده هیچ دانشی در مورد برندی که در بازار هست، و اینکه چگونه عمل می‏کند، ندارد. هدف این پژوهش بررسی نقش عدم‌اطمینان و اطمینان در انتخاب برند تقلیدی یا برند متفاوت می‏باشد. جامعه آماری پژوهش مشتریان داروخانه‏های شبانه شهرستان خرم‏آباد می‏باشد که با توجه به فرمول کوکران 276 نفر برآورد گردید و برای آزمودن فرضیه‏ها از آزمون نسبت استفاده شده است. نتایج نشان‏دهنده این است که افراد در شرایط عدم‌اطمینان برند تقلیدی را به سایر برندها ترجیح می‏دهند و در شرایط اطمینان برند متفاوت را به برند تقلیدی ترجیح می‏دهند 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Effects of Certainty and Uncertainty on the Choice between a Copycat or Different Brand (Case Study:24-7 Pharmacies’ Customers in Khorram Abad City)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Seyed Najmedin Mousavi 1
  • Zahra Gholipour 2
1 Ph.D. Marketing Management, Assistant Professor, Lorestan University
2 Master of Marketing Management
چکیده [English]

With purchasing decisions, consumers face varying degrees of uncertainty about the proposed product, such as uncertainty about the quality of the product, when the consumer has no knowledge of existing brand and how it works. The purpose of this study is to investigate the role of uncertainty (and certainty) in choosing the copycat or different brand. The population of the study is customers of 24-7 Pharmacies in Khorram abad city of and the sample size estimation is 276, according to Cochran's formula. Ratio test issued to test study hypotheses. The findings indicate that under conditions of certainty, consumers choose the different brand. Under conditions of uncertainty, however, they prefer copycat rather than different brand. 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Conditions of certainty and uncertainty
  • Copycat
  • Different brand
  • Relational Individuals
  • Feature individuals
 

Barsalou, L. W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded.

Bruce, V. (1981). Visual and semantic effects in a serial word classification task. Current Psychology, 1(3), 153-161.

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(3): 439-449.

Dawar, N., & Parker, P. (1994). Marketing universal: Consumers' use of brand name, price, physical appearance, and retailer reputation as signals of product quality. Journal of Marketing, 58(2): 81-95.

Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307-319.

Dowling, G. R., & Staelin, R. (1994). A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 119-134.

Erdem, T. & Swait, J. (1998). Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2): 131-157.

Foxman, E. R., Muehling, D. D., & Berger, P. W. (1990). An investigation of factors contributing to consumer brand confusion. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 24(1), 170-189.

Gregan-Paxton J, John DR.(1997). Consumer learning by analogy: a model of internal knowledge transfer. J Consum Res;24(3):266–84.

Howard, D. J., Kerin, R. A., & Gengler, C. (2000). The effects of brand name similarity on brand source confusion: Implications for trademark infringement. Journal of Public policy & Marketing, 19(2): 250-264.

Janis, I. L. & Mann, J. (1977). Decision making, a psychological analysesof conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: The Free Press.

Job, R, Rumiati, R., & Lotto, L. (1992). The picture suoeriority effect in categorization: Visual or semantic? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(5), 1019-1028.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2): 263-292.

Kapferer, J. N. (1995). Brand confusion: Empirical study of a legal concept. Psychology & Marketing, 12(6): 551-569.

Kirmani, A., & Rao, A. R. (2000). No pain, no again: A critical review of the literature on signaling unobservable product quality. Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(4): 389-405.

Klein, G. A. (1989). Strategies of decision making. Military Review, 56–64 (May).

Lipshitz, R., & Strauss, O. (1997). Coping with uncertainty: A naturalistic decision-making analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process,69(2), 149–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2679.

Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1): 75-98.

Loken, B., Ross, I., & Hinkle, R, L. (1986). Consumer “Confusion” of origin and brand similarity perceptions. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 5, 195-211.

Lynch, E. B., Coley, J. D., & Medin, D. L. (2000). Tall is typical: Central tendency, ideal dimensions, , 56–64 (May).

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.

Medin, D. L. (1983). Structural principles in categorization. In T. J. Tighe & B. E. Shepp (Eds.), Perceptcognition, and development: Interactional analyses (pp. 203–230). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Meyers-Levy J, Malaviya P(1999). Consumers' processing of persuasive advertisements: an integrative framework of persuasion theories. J Mark;63:45–60 Special Issue.

Miceli , G . , Pieters , R .(2010) . looking more or less  alike :Determinants of perceived visual similarity between copycat and leading brands , journal of Business Research ,1121-1128.

Mitchell, V. W., & Kearney, I. (2002). A critique of legal measures of brand confusion. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 11(6): 357-379.

Muthukrishnan, A. V., Wathieu, L., & Xu, A. J. (2009). Ambiguity aversion and the preference for established brands. Management Science, 55(12): 1933-1941.

of factors contributing to consumer brand confusion. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 24(1), 170-189.

Olson, J. C. & Jacoby, J. (1972). Cue utilization in the quality perception process. Advances in Consumer Research, 3, 167-179.

Rehder, B. (2003a). Categorization as causal reasoning. Cognitive Science, 27, 709–748.

Roehm, M. L. & Sternthal, B. (2001). The moderating effect of knowledge and resources on the persuasive impact of analogies. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(2): 257-72.

Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.

Van Horen (2010). Copying themesor features: How imitation type determines copycat success.Manuscript submitted for publication.

Van Horen , F.  , Piters , R . (2013) . Preference reversal for copy cat brand :uncertainty makes imitation feel good , journal of economic psychology (37) , 54-64.

Waldmann, M. R., Holyoak, K. J., & Fratianne, A. (1995). Causal models and the acquisition of category structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 181–206.

Warlop, L., & Alba, J. W. (2004). Sincere Flattery: Trade-dress imitation and consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1,2): 21-27.

Whittlesea, B. W. A. (1993). Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(6), 1235–1253. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0278-7393.19.6.1235.

Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T. A., & Reber, R. (2003). The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. In J.

Wisniewski, E. J., Bassok, M. (1999). What makes a man similar to a tie? Stimulus compatibility with comparison and integration. Cogn Psychol, 39(3/4): 208-38.

Yamauchi, T., & Markman, A. B. (2000). Inference using categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 776–795.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (2006). The psychology behind trademark infringement and counterfeiting. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3): 2-22.