神马作文网帮忙翻译一下,拜托,急
来源：学生作业帮 编辑：神马作文网作业帮 分类：英语作业 时间：2024/11/12 00:55:00
帮忙翻译一下,拜托,急
METHOD
Design The experiment designed to test H1 and H2 took the form of a 2 (perceptual fit) x 3 (type of ad) between-subjects design. The two levels of perceptual fit (high and low) were determined in advance through a pretest and also measured in the main study as a manipulation check. Three types of ads were constructed: noncomparative ads, comparative ads with prototypical targets, and comparative ads with nonprototypical targets. All ads depicted the product visually and included a product claim. In terms of brand names, noncomparative ads featured the name of the advertised brand only; comparative ads explicitly featured the names of both the advertised brand (the brand extension) and the comparison brand. Following Carpenter and Nakamoto (1989) and Walker, Swasy, and Rethans (1989), the prototypicality/nonprototypicality of the comparison brand was operationalized by selecting brands that are market leaders or prominent prototypical brands in a category versus brands that are premium brands in the category. Selections were validated via a manipulation check in the study.
Subjects Subject were 120 undergraduate and graduate students who were recruited via fliers posted around the campus of a large U.S. university. Subjects were randomly assigned to experimental conditions and paid five dollars each for participating in the study.
Stimuli and Pretests
As in prior branding research (e.g., Aaker and Keller 1990; Maheswaran, Mackie, and Chaiken 1992; Park, Milberg, and Lawson 1991; Romeo 1991), actual brands available in the marketplace were selected as stimuli to increase the ecological validity of the study. Moreover, to make sure that each subject would associate each brand with a distinct product category, brands of narrow brand breadth (Boush and Loken 1991) were selected as stimuli. Furthermore, the selection of narrow brands eliminates the added complexity typically accompanying broad brands (i.e., broad brands with strong association to one product vs. multiple products have been shown to exert differential impact on fit-perceptions with respect to their extensions; Dawar 1996).
METHOD
Design The experiment designed to test H1 and H2 took the form of a 2 (perceptual fit) x 3 (type of ad) between-subjects design. The two levels of perceptual fit (high and low) were determined in advance through a pretest and also measured in the main study as a manipulation check. Three types of ads were constructed: noncomparative ads, comparative ads with prototypical targets, and comparative ads with nonprototypical targets. All ads depicted the product visually and included a product claim. In terms of brand names, noncomparative ads featured the name of the advertised brand only; comparative ads explicitly featured the names of both the advertised brand (the brand extension) and the comparison brand. Following Carpenter and Nakamoto (1989) and Walker, Swasy, and Rethans (1989), the prototypicality/nonprototypicality of the comparison brand was operationalized by selecting brands that are market leaders or prominent prototypical brands in a category versus brands that are premium brands in the category. Selections were validated via a manipulation check in the study.
Subjects Subject were 120 undergraduate and graduate students who were recruited via fliers posted around the campus of a large U.S. university. Subjects were randomly assigned to experimental conditions and paid five dollars each for participating in the study.
Stimuli and Pretests
As in prior branding research (e.g., Aaker and Keller 1990; Maheswaran, Mackie, and Chaiken 1992; Park, Milberg, and Lawson 1991; Romeo 1991), actual brands available in the marketplace were selected as stimuli to increase the ecological validity of the study. Moreover, to make sure that each subject would associate each brand with a distinct product category, brands of narrow brand breadth (Boush and Loken 1991) were selected as stimuli. Furthermore, the selection of narrow brands eliminates the added complexity typically accompanying broad brands (i.e., broad brands with strong association to one product vs. multiple products have been shown to exert differential impact on fit-perceptions with respect to their extensions; Dawar 1996).
方法
纲要
该实验目的是检验H1和H2所采用的一种在科目设计之间的2（一致性）×3（广告类型）的形式.一致性的两个层次(高和低)通过一个预备调查而被事先确定了,在大体上作为一个操控检查的标准来研究.广告的三个类型的构造：具有典型性目标的非比较广告,典型性目标的比较广告,以及非典型性目标的比较广告.所有的广告都描述了产品真实的视觉效果,还包括一分产品说明.根据品牌名称,非比较广告仅对做过广告的品牌的名称起重要作用；比较广告对做过广告的品牌（延伸品牌）和它的对比品牌的名称都起着重要作用.随着Carpenter 和 Nakamoto (1989) 和 Walker,Swasy,和 Rethans 之后,比较品牌的典型性和非典型性得到了实施,主要是通过选择那些具有市场领导地位和那些具有突出典型性的品牌来实现的,这些具有突出典型性的品牌在品牌类别是属于优质品牌的.所进行的选择通过在研究中的操控检验来验证.
主题
课题由120名被招聘的大学生和研究生通过传单的形式张贴在美国大范围的大学校园内的,课题被随便的指派给了实验条件,每个参加研究的成员被派发给5美元.
刺激和预备调查
由于在之前的品牌研究中（Aakera和Keller 1990年； Maheswaran,Mackie,和Chaiken 1992年; Park,Milberg,和Lawson 1991年;Romeo 1991年）,实际上品牌的可用性在于在市场上被挑选作为刺激生态效度的研究.此外,要确保每一个主题都要结合一个具有明确的产品类别的品牌,通过选择具有狭窄品牌宽度的品牌来当作刺激.而且,选择狭窄品牌,消除了广泛的品牌所伴随的额外的复杂性（即,有着强大联系的广泛品牌,会对一种产品和多样的产品,关于它们在适合性上的延伸,显示出施加不同的影响；Dawar 1996）.在实验中包括以下一些品牌：哈根达斯冰淇淋,海尼根啤酒,和佳洁士牙膏.随后,这些品牌的延伸为每一个上述的原有品牌直观的选定了在感知上高和低的适合度.哈根达斯酸奶和哈根达斯圆珠笔;海尼根淡爽型啤酒和海尼根冰茶;佳洁士漱口水和佳洁士除臭剂；一项有着41个题目的预备调查证实,直观的选择种类是真正的适当的：在哈根达斯冰激淋和酸奶之间的适合性非常明显的要高于在圆珠笔上的适合性.在海尼根啤酒和淡爽型啤酒之间的适合性要明显的高于在冰茶上的适合性；在佳洁士牙膏和漱口水之间的适合性要明显高于在除臭剂上的适合性.
接下来,一份自由问答的调查问卷被用来测定典型性竞争者和非典型性竞争者的延伸类别.具体来说,在是种类的典型性方面特征突出的目的下,这些题目是第一次列下一份清单,已记录某一特定产品类别的特征.再接下来,他们被要求为一种特定的品牌命名,这是最具有此种产品的代表性的；然后他们再推出一个最低限度代表此种类别产品的命名.这些最经常被讨论的品牌名称,它们的最大/最小限度代表性的问题被挑选出作为配对.这些运作的成功在操控检查的研究中被决定.在延伸种类中产生的典型性和非典型性品牌分别是：达能和优沛蕾；比克和派克；百位清爽和贝克清爽；立顿和斯纳普；Scope 和 Listerine；Sure 和 Bãn .
最后,在广告中有关于功能的产品品质,被选择为适合度高和低的延伸,同时还用来测定公平在消费者心中的重要性.作为一项有着23个题目的预备调查显示,
在分别的好和坏的延伸契合之间,在品质重要性上,对于研究而选择的产品品质是明显不同的.哈根达斯酸奶中的“乳脂”和哈根达斯圆珠笔中的“速干”；海尼根淡爽型啤酒中的“低热量”种类和海尼根冰茶中的“自然酿制口味”；佳洁士漱口水中的“口气淡化”和“牙龈疾病防治”和佳洁士除臭剂中的“除味” 和“防湿”.
纲要
该实验目的是检验H1和H2所采用的一种在科目设计之间的2（一致性）×3（广告类型）的形式.一致性的两个层次(高和低)通过一个预备调查而被事先确定了,在大体上作为一个操控检查的标准来研究.广告的三个类型的构造：具有典型性目标的非比较广告,典型性目标的比较广告,以及非典型性目标的比较广告.所有的广告都描述了产品真实的视觉效果,还包括一分产品说明.根据品牌名称,非比较广告仅对做过广告的品牌的名称起重要作用；比较广告对做过广告的品牌（延伸品牌）和它的对比品牌的名称都起着重要作用.随着Carpenter 和 Nakamoto (1989) 和 Walker,Swasy,和 Rethans 之后,比较品牌的典型性和非典型性得到了实施,主要是通过选择那些具有市场领导地位和那些具有突出典型性的品牌来实现的,这些具有突出典型性的品牌在品牌类别是属于优质品牌的.所进行的选择通过在研究中的操控检验来验证.
主题
课题由120名被招聘的大学生和研究生通过传单的形式张贴在美国大范围的大学校园内的,课题被随便的指派给了实验条件,每个参加研究的成员被派发给5美元.
刺激和预备调查
由于在之前的品牌研究中（Aakera和Keller 1990年； Maheswaran,Mackie,和Chaiken 1992年; Park,Milberg,和Lawson 1991年;Romeo 1991年）,实际上品牌的可用性在于在市场上被挑选作为刺激生态效度的研究.此外,要确保每一个主题都要结合一个具有明确的产品类别的品牌,通过选择具有狭窄品牌宽度的品牌来当作刺激.而且,选择狭窄品牌,消除了广泛的品牌所伴随的额外的复杂性（即,有着强大联系的广泛品牌,会对一种产品和多样的产品,关于它们在适合性上的延伸,显示出施加不同的影响；Dawar 1996）.在实验中包括以下一些品牌：哈根达斯冰淇淋,海尼根啤酒,和佳洁士牙膏.随后,这些品牌的延伸为每一个上述的原有品牌直观的选定了在感知上高和低的适合度.哈根达斯酸奶和哈根达斯圆珠笔;海尼根淡爽型啤酒和海尼根冰茶;佳洁士漱口水和佳洁士除臭剂；一项有着41个题目的预备调查证实,直观的选择种类是真正的适当的：在哈根达斯冰激淋和酸奶之间的适合性非常明显的要高于在圆珠笔上的适合性.在海尼根啤酒和淡爽型啤酒之间的适合性要明显的高于在冰茶上的适合性；在佳洁士牙膏和漱口水之间的适合性要明显高于在除臭剂上的适合性.
接下来,一份自由问答的调查问卷被用来测定典型性竞争者和非典型性竞争者的延伸类别.具体来说,在是种类的典型性方面特征突出的目的下,这些题目是第一次列下一份清单,已记录某一特定产品类别的特征.再接下来,他们被要求为一种特定的品牌命名,这是最具有此种产品的代表性的；然后他们再推出一个最低限度代表此种类别产品的命名.这些最经常被讨论的品牌名称,它们的最大/最小限度代表性的问题被挑选出作为配对.这些运作的成功在操控检查的研究中被决定.在延伸种类中产生的典型性和非典型性品牌分别是：达能和优沛蕾；比克和派克；百位清爽和贝克清爽；立顿和斯纳普；Scope 和 Listerine；Sure 和 Bãn .
最后,在广告中有关于功能的产品品质,被选择为适合度高和低的延伸,同时还用来测定公平在消费者心中的重要性.作为一项有着23个题目的预备调查显示,
在分别的好和坏的延伸契合之间,在品质重要性上,对于研究而选择的产品品质是明显不同的.哈根达斯酸奶中的“乳脂”和哈根达斯圆珠笔中的“速干”；海尼根淡爽型啤酒中的“低热量”种类和海尼根冰茶中的“自然酿制口味”；佳洁士漱口水中的“口气淡化”和“牙龈疾病防治”和佳洁士除臭剂中的“除味” 和“防湿”.