服务承诺
资金托管
原创保证
实力保障
24小时客服
使命必达
51Due提供Essay，Paper，Report，Assignment等学科作业的代写与辅导，同时涵盖Personal Statement，转学申请等留学文书代写。
51Due将让你达成学业目标51Due将让你达成学业目标51Due将让你达成学业目标51Due将让你达成学业目标私人订制你的未来职场 世界名企，高端行业岗位等 在新的起点上实现更高水平的发展
积累工作经验
多元化文化交流
专业实操技能
建立人际资源圈How to develop new products
2015-06-19 来源: 51due教员组 类别: Essay范文
Synopsis
The article is mainly about how to develop new products. The author introduces the impact of the independent and interdependent mindset on consumer adoption of new products through five studies. While independents refer to people who view the self as autonomous and separate from others, it’s similar to what we learned from Chapter 12 as innovators. Innovators are those buyers who want to be the first on the block to have the new product or service. Another similar concept relating the article to the chapter we’ve learned is the really new products (RNPs). RNPs refer to brand new products that establish a completely new market which can also be seen as “pioneers” or “breakthroughs”.
I. Nine Major Hypotheses
The article proposes nine hypotheses and conducts five investigations on them. The first hypothesis is that the effect of self-construalon consumer innovation adoption is contingent on newness. The second hypothesis goes that whereas independents perceive more distinctiveness utility in RNPs, interdependents perceive more distinctiveness utility in INPs comparing with independents. Moreover, the author proposes the third hypothesis that the perceived distinctiveness utility intercede the joint effect of self-construal and newness on innovation adoption.
If we are to adjust independents and interdependents preferences for RNPs and INPs, a suggested way is to shift the products’ perceived distinctiveness utility. At this point, two important contextual cues including popularity cues and scarcity cues come into play. The author proposes six hypotheses concerning the matter: First of all, providing popularity cues decreases independents’ adoption propensity toward RNPs. And it also makes interdependents more willing to adopt RNPs. However, popularity cues do not affect independents’ or interdependents’ adoption propensity toward INPs due to the relatively high assimilating power of INPs.
For scarcity cues, the author claims that scarcity cues increase the adoption propensity of independents toward INPs. Similarly, Scarcity cues do not affect the adoption propensity of independents or interdependents toward RNPs since RNPs have inherently high differentiating power.
II. Study Methods and Outcomes
Study 1 examines the differences in actual adoption of INPs and RNPs in different cultural environment. The researcher conducts an online survey asking American and Japanese customers questions about whether they’ve bought specific products. Those products are carefully selected and the time of the purchase also matters. Then the researcher collects data and run rigorous calculation. Findings from Study 1 support the hypothesis that the effect of chronic self-construal on consumer adoption of new products diverges for INPs and RNPs. The U.S. consumers exhibit consistently higher adoption rates for RNPs than their Japanese counterparts across all categories examined. Conversely, the Japanese consumers show a higher adoption rate than their U.S. counterparts for the majority of the INPs.
Study 2 exams the effect of situationally activated self-construal on consumer new product adoption. 86 undergraduate students participate in the survey where they are asked to imagine competing in a tennis tournament either as an individual player or as a team player which would prime different self-perspectives. Then, participants assume that they are in the market for a new vehicle and come across a news report about a new car, described as either an INP or an RNP. Study 2 shows that the effect of situationally activated self-construal on innovation adoption is contingent on the newness of the product. Whereas independentsare more willing to adopt RNPs, interdependent are more willing to adopt INPs.
Study 3 aims to uncover the mechanism underlying self-related preferences for newness. 144 undergraduate students are randomly assigned to experimental conditions where they are asked to completed measures of perceived newness, attitude toward the ad, distinctiveness utility, etc. The outcome confirms that higher newness of the product does not necessarily translate into higher distinctiveness utility.
Study 4 exams how popularity cues and scarcity cues alter independents’ and interdependents’ adoption intention for RNPs and INPs. Participants are given a small amount of cash and complete purchase intention measures where the popularity or scarcity information of the products can be controlled by the researchers. The outcomes depict that the popularity and scarcity cues can alter or even reverse the default self-related product preferences just as assumed.
51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
The article is mainly about how to develop new products. The author introduces the impact of the independent and interdependent mindset on consumer adoption of new products through five studies. While independents refer to people who view the self as autonomous and separate from others, it’s similar to what we learned from Chapter 12 as innovators. Innovators are those buyers who want to be the first on the block to have the new product or service. Another similar concept relating the article to the chapter we’ve learned is the really new products (RNPs). RNPs refer to brand new products that establish a completely new market which can also be seen as “pioneers” or “breakthroughs”.
I. Nine Major Hypotheses
The article proposes nine hypotheses and conducts five investigations on them. The first hypothesis is that the effect of self-construalon consumer innovation adoption is contingent on newness. The second hypothesis goes that whereas independents perceive more distinctiveness utility in RNPs, interdependents perceive more distinctiveness utility in INPs comparing with independents. Moreover, the author proposes the third hypothesis that the perceived distinctiveness utility intercede the joint effect of self-construal and newness on innovation adoption.
If we are to adjust independents and interdependents preferences for RNPs and INPs, a suggested way is to shift the products’ perceived distinctiveness utility. At this point, two important contextual cues including popularity cues and scarcity cues come into play. The author proposes six hypotheses concerning the matter: First of all, providing popularity cues decreases independents’ adoption propensity toward RNPs. And it also makes interdependents more willing to adopt RNPs. However, popularity cues do not affect independents’ or interdependents’ adoption propensity toward INPs due to the relatively high assimilating power of INPs.
For scarcity cues, the author claims that scarcity cues increase the adoption propensity of independents toward INPs. Similarly, Scarcity cues do not affect the adoption propensity of independents or interdependents toward RNPs since RNPs have inherently high differentiating power.
II. Study Methods and Outcomes
Study 1 examines the differences in actual adoption of INPs and RNPs in different cultural environment. The researcher conducts an online survey asking American and Japanese customers questions about whether they’ve bought specific products. Those products are carefully selected and the time of the purchase also matters. Then the researcher collects data and run rigorous calculation. Findings from Study 1 support the hypothesis that the effect of chronic self-construal on consumer adoption of new products diverges for INPs and RNPs. The U.S. consumers exhibit consistently higher adoption rates for RNPs than their Japanese counterparts across all categories examined. Conversely, the Japanese consumers show a higher adoption rate than their U.S. counterparts for the majority of the INPs.
Study 2 exams the effect of situationally activated self-construal on consumer new product adoption. 86 undergraduate students participate in the survey where they are asked to imagine competing in a tennis tournament either as an individual player or as a team player which would prime different self-perspectives. Then, participants assume that they are in the market for a new vehicle and come across a news report about a new car, described as either an INP or an RNP. Study 2 shows that the effect of situationally activated self-construal on innovation adoption is contingent on the newness of the product. Whereas independentsare more willing to adopt RNPs, interdependent are more willing to adopt INPs.
Study 3 aims to uncover the mechanism underlying self-related preferences for newness. 144 undergraduate students are randomly assigned to experimental conditions where they are asked to completed measures of perceived newness, attitude toward the ad, distinctiveness utility, etc. The outcome confirms that higher newness of the product does not necessarily translate into higher distinctiveness utility.
Study 4 exams how popularity cues and scarcity cues alter independents’ and interdependents’ adoption intention for RNPs and INPs. Participants are given a small amount of cash and complete purchase intention measures where the popularity or scarcity information of the products can be controlled by the researchers. The outcomes depict that the popularity and scarcity cues can alter or even reverse the default self-related product preferences just as assumed.
51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
