IT productivity paradox2010

2010英语二text 4The 2010 English text 4 presents a thought-provoking issue that has become increasingly relevant in today's society. The text discusses the impact of technology on human interaction and communication. It raises concerns about the potential negative consequences of excessive reliance on technology and the potential loss of genuine human connection. This issue is of great significance as technology continues to advance and become more integrated into our daily lives. It is crucial to consider the implications of these changes and how they may affect our relationships and overall well-being.From a social perspective, the text highlights the potential consequences of technology on human relationships. With the rise of social media and digital communication, there is a growing concern that face-to-face interactionand genuine connections are being compromised. People are spending more time engaging in virtual interactions rather than meaningful in-person conversations. This shift incommunication patterns has the potential to erode the quality of relationships and lead to feelings of isolation and disconnection. It is essential to recognize the importance of genuine human connection and to find a balance between technology and face-to-face interaction.From a psychological standpoint, the text raises important questions about the impact of technology on mental health. The constant use of digital devices and social media can lead to feelings of anxiety, depression, and loneliness. The pressure to constantly be connected and the fear of missing out on social interactions can take a toll on one's mental well-being. Additionally, the curated and often unrealistic portrayals of life on social media can lead to feelings of inadequacy and low self-esteem. It is crucial to be mindful of the potential negative effects of technology on mental health and to prioritize self-care and genuine human connection.From an educational perspective, the text brings attention to the impact of technology on learning and development. While technology has the potential to enhanceeducation and provide access to valuable resources, thereis also a concern that excessive screen time can hinder cognitive development and social skills. Children and adolescents are spending more time on digital devices, which can impact their ability to focus, communicate, and engage in meaningful interactions. It is essential to find a balance between technology use and traditional forms of learning to ensure that children are developing essential skills and fostering genuine connections with their peers and educators.From a cultural standpoint, the text raises important questions about the impact of technology on traditional forms of communication and expression. With the rise of digital communication, there is a risk of losing the art of meaningful conversation and the richness of face-to-face interaction. Additionally, the use of emojis and abbreviated language in digital communication can impact the depth and authenticity of our interactions. It is crucial to preserve traditional forms of communication and to find ways to integrate technology in a way that enhances rather than diminishes our cultural expressions andconnections.From a personal standpoint, the text prompts us toreflect on our own relationship with technology and human interaction. It is important to consider the role that technology plays in our lives and how it may be impacting our relationships and well-being. Finding a balance between technology use and genuine human connection is essentialfor maintaining healthy relationships and overall happiness. It is important to be mindful of our digital habits and to prioritize meaningful in-person interactions. By being intentional about our use of technology, we can cultivate genuine connections and enrich our lives.。

Consumer Innovativeness and the Use of New versus Extended Brand Names for New Products ÃRichard R.Klink and Gerard A.AthaideDespite the importance of branding to new product success,little research has been conducted on how individual adoption orientation might affect brand name preferences.This paper draws on the diffusion literature to investigate how consumer innovativeness affects consumer response to alternative branding strategies (i.e.,new vs.extended brands,for new products).The results of an empirical study found that consumer innovativeness has a greater effect on new product evaluations for new brand names relative to extended brand names.Also,results indicate that highly innovative consumers evaluate new products with new brand names more favorably than brand extensions.Fur-thermore,consumer confidence in the new product was found to mediate the effects of consumer innovativeness and its interaction with brand name type on new product evaluation.Implications include not only giving greater man-agerial consideration to using new brands but also supporting the chosen branding strategy with appropriate pro-motional efforts for respective adopter groups.IntroductionAnew product’s brand name is an important determinant of its success in the marketplace (Cooper,1994).An effective brand name canenhance awareness and create a favorable image for the innovation (Aaker,1991).Not surprisingly,se-lecting a brand name is often central to the new prod-uct’s marketing campaign (Keller,Heckler,and Houston,1998).Companies frequently choose either to create a new brand name for the product or to borrow an existing brand name from another cate-gory (i.e.,develop a brand extension).Selecting the appropriate branding strategy begins by considering the trade-offs associated with using a brand extension or creating a new brand name.Brand extensions require lower marketing and brand devel-opment costs (Smith and Park,1992).They may also help strengthen the original brand image (Aaker,1990;Park,Jaworski,and MacInnis,1986)and increase parent brand choice (Balachander and Ghose,2003;Swaminathan,Fox,and Reddy,2001).Furthermore,extending existing brand names,as opposed to creat-ing new ones,may offer a higher (intangible)financial value to the firm (Rao,Agarwal,and Dahlhoff,2004).On the other hand,extending an existing brand name is not without risk.While it is true that brandextensions do experience greater cost savings and market share,these benefits are relatively marginal and reflect primarily short-run gains (Smith and Park,1992).Also,brand extensions can diminish consum-ers’feelings about the innovation and,perhaps worse yet,the brand if consumers perceive inconsistency be-tween the original and new product categories (Aaker and Keller,1990;Loken and Roedder John,1993).Further,extensions may adversely impact other prod-ucts affiliated with the brand (Roedder John,Loken,and Joiner,1998;Sullivan,1990)and may even prompt competing firms to launch a counterextension into the brand’s original category (Kumar,2005).Despite these potential risks,a vast number of new product managers are using brand extensions in an attempt to improve the likelihood of new product suc-cess (Smith and Park,1992)—for example,as many as 95%of all new consumer product introductions are some form of brand extension (Ogiba,1988;Somji,2000).Perhaps at the core of this predominance is the belief that consumers respond more favorably to brand extensions.Yet,although McCarthy,Heath,and Milberg (2001)found that individuals rate brand extensions higher than products with new brand names,the success of brand extensions is far from cer-tain (Voelckner and Sattler,2006).For example,the failure rate of extensions in many consumer good cat-egories is approximately 80%(Anonymous,2003;Ernst &Young and ACNielsen,1999).McCarthy et al.(2001)offer that the effect of the alternate branding strategies on consumer attitudes is contingent upon the level of information supportingÃBoth authors contributed equally to this work.Address correspondence to:Richard R.Klink,Sellinger School of Business and Management,Loyola College Maryland,4501North Charles Street,Baltimore,MD 21210-2699.Tel.:(410)617-5546.Fax:(410)617-2117.E-mail:rklink@.J PROD INNOV MANAG 2010;27:23–32r 2009Product Development &Management Associationthe brand and consumers’product knowledge.How-ever,their study did not find that product knowledge moderated the branding effect.We propose that con-sumer innovativeness—that is,one’s propensity to adopt earlier versus later (Rogers,2003)—is particu-larly relevant to investigating the use of new versus extended brand names for new products.We make this assertion for two main reasons.First,unlike other consumer variables including product knowledge,consumer innovativeness has been empirically linked with actual adoption (Goldsmith and Hofacker,1991).This established relationship is critical to the practitioner who is faced with selecting a brand name that maximizes sales potential of a new product.Second,failing to account for consumer innovative-ness could lead to overaggregation of data and,hence,misinterpretation of results.To illustrate,consider how research on brand extensions often uses simple random samples from the general population.Such sampling techniques could unintentionally mask the response of earlier adopters,as they are a relatively smaller subset of the population to adopt (approximately 2.5%for innovators and 13.5%for early adopters according to Rogers,2003).Despite their relative size,earlier adopt-ers are critical to accurately gauge,because they often represent the main target market for a new product introduction (Mahajan and Muller,1998).Even when they are not the primary target,understanding their branding preference is important because they influ-ence the behavior of later adopters (Rogers).The purpose of this paper is to build on extant re-search by investigating how consumer innovativeness affects consumer response to alternate branding strate-gies.The study begins by reviewing theory for using newversus extended brand names for new products.The diffusion literature is then integrated to develop hypoth-eses concerning product adoption orientation and new product evaluation for new and extended brand names.Next a description is given of the research method em-ployed,followed by a presentation of results.Finally,these results are discussed,implications are suggested,and limitations of the study are acknowledged.Consumer Response to New versus Extended Brand NamesSmith and Park (1992)offer four potential reasons why consumers may favor brand extensions to new brands.First,established brand names help consum-ers cope with purchase uncertainty.That is,consum-ers prefer products carrying well-recognized brands because these brands alleviate perceived risk (Cox,1967;Roselius,1971).Concerning brand extensions,use of an existing brand name in other product areas likely enhances brand recognition,thereby reducing risk and uncertainty and promoting trial.Second,an established brand can also serve as a quality cue (Bellizzi and Martin,1982;Jacoby,Olson,and Haddock,1973).Wernerfelt (1988)argues that if an established brand is extended to a lower-quality product,consumers will discover its inferiority upon trial and opt not to repurchase.This could devalue the brand and threaten other products affiliated with it (Sullivan,1990).Thus,it follows that established brands are not likely to be extended to products of low quality and,as such,provide for a reliable quality cue that should promote trial.Third,established brands promote trial by facilitat-ing consumers’use of brand name as a decision-making heuristic (Alba and Hutchinson,1987;Johnson and Russo,1984;Park,1976;Park and Lessig,1981).Spe-cifically,the use of a brand as a heuristic requires that it be easily retrieved from memory.Research on evoked sets suggests that accessibility is greater for brands with which consumers have frequent contact (McNeal,McDaniel,and Smart,1983).An extended brand pro-vides consumers opportunity to come into contact with the brand in multiple product contexts and thus should be more accessible than individual brands.Fourth,extensions carrying established names may capitalize on advertising spillover effects from other products affiliated with the brand.That is,advertise-ments for other products associated with the brand may strengthen brand image,thus stimulating de-mand for the new extension.BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHESDr.Richard R.Klink earned a Ph.D.from the University of Pittsburgh and is professor of marketing in the Joseph A.Sellinger,S.J.,School of Business and Management at Loyola University Maryland.His research interests include new product development and management with a focus on branding issues.His work has appeared in the Journal of Marketing Research,Marketing Letters,Journal of Product Innovation Management,Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,Journal of Marketing Education,and other outlets.Dr.Gerard A.Athaide earned his Ph.D.from Syracuse University and is professor of marketing in the Joseph A.Sellinger,S.J.,School of Business and Management at Loyola University Maryland.His research interests focus on new product development,innovation management,and international marketing.His work has appeared in Journal of Product Innovation Management,Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,Journal of Marketing Education,and other outlets.24J PROD INNOV MANAG 2010;27:23–32R.R.KLINK AND G.A.ATHAIDEWhile Smith and Park(1992)found that brand ex-tensions do experience greater levels of market share than products introduced with new brand names,this finding may be driven by factors other than customer response.For instance,the relatively higher market share associated with brand extensions may be attrib-utable to differences in distribution,as distributors are more likely to carry a brand name that has some historical presence in the marketplace(Morein,1975). Further,McCarthy et al.(2001)found that when in-formation was limited to brand name and price,indi-viduals preferred extensions to new brands.However, when information on product features was added,the preference for extensions disappeared.These results provide further support for the belief that extended brands can reduce uncertainty.Because risk and level of information are widely considered to be inversely related,as the level of information sur-rounding a brand increases,the risk involved in the purchase decreases,and hence the need for consumers to rely on a known brand decreases.This suggests that research on new product branding strategy could ben-efit from insights offered by the diffusion literature, which incorporates risk taking as an important deter-minant of new product adoption.Consumer InnovativenessA basic tenet of diffusion theory is that individuals re-spond differently to new products(Gatignon and Rob-ertson,1985).Rogers(2003)considers these differences to be driven by consumer innovativeness—that is,one’s propensity to adopt new ideas or products relatively earlier than other members of a social system.Further, an individual’s innovativeness is a function of the do-main or product category of interest(Gatignon and Robertson;Hirschman,1980).Indeed,prior research has found a relationship between domain-specific inno-vativeness and acceptance of new products(Goldsmith and Hofacker,1991).In the present research context, both new brands and extended brands represent par-ticular incidences of new products.Therefore,it is ex-pected that as consumer innovativeness increases, evaluations of products with new or extended brand names will increase.Stated formally:H1:Consumer innovativeness is positively related to newproduct evaluation for new and extended brand names. Additionally,it is expected that this positive relation-ship will be greater for new brand names compared with extended brand names.To understand why,con-sider one of the primary characteristics that determine whether someone adopts early:risk sensitivity.Rogers (2003)proposes that those individuals with the high-est levels of consumer innovativeness(i.e.,innovators) are characterized by their comfort with taking risk.As discussed,new brands carry more risk and uncertainty than established brands.Because individuals with greater consumer innovativeness are inherently more comfortable with risk taking than individuals with lesser consumer innovativeness,the positive relation-ship between consumer innovativeness and product evaluation will be greater for new brand names rela-tive to extended brand names.Stated formally: H2:The positive effect of consumer innovativeness onnew product evaluation is greater for new brand namesthan extended brand names.Examining the role of risk or uncertainty is important not only to understand the process by which con-sumer innovativeness affects response to new and ex-tended brands but also for more practical reasons. For instance,marketers can reduce uncertainty or el-evate consumer confidence in the new product pur-chase for later adopters by employing other marketing mix elements(e.g.,warranties,guarantees,seals of approval).Accordingly,this paper is interested in ex-amining whether consumer confidence represents the mediational pathway for the effects predicted in H1 and H2;that is,consumer innovativeness and its in-teraction with brand name type(new vs.extended) affects consumer confidence,which in turn affects new product evaluation.Stated formally:H3:Consumer confidence mediates the positive effectof consumer innovativeness on new product evaluation.H4:Consumer confidence mediates the positive effectof the interaction between consumer innovativeness andbrand type on new product evaluation.MethodologyBrand name was a between-subjects factor with two treatment groups:(1)a new brand name condition; and(2)an extended brand name condition.Consumer innovativeness was a self-reported independent vari-able of interest.The dependent variable of interest was new product evaluation.CONSUMER INNOVATIVENESS AND BRAND NAMES J PROD INNOV MANAG2010;27:23–3225ProcedureSubjects were305undergraduate business students from an Eastern university and averaged20years of age.Each subject was randomly assigned to one of the two conditions by receiving one of two booklets.A greeter told subjects that a researchfirm was inter-ested in gathering their reactions to several new prod-ucts,some of which carried well-known brand names. Thefirst page of the survey booklet oriented subjects to the task.On the following page appeared a brief product description of approximately25words that included the product’s brand name.In the extended brand name condition,the name given in the descrip-tion was an extended brand(e.g.,in the case of mouthwash,Crest).For the new brand name condi-tion,the name wasfictitious(e.g.,in the case of mouthwash,Icewash).After viewing the stimulus,subjects answered ques-tions about the product.It should be noted that each subject received only one product description to evalu-ate.The procedure took approximately5–10minutes. Subjects received extra credit for their participation. StimuliThe brand extensions selected for this study were sim-ilar to those used in prior ing similar ex-tensions not only helps assure a reasonable range of perceivedfit between the brand and proposed product but also provides insight into thefindings of prior work.Given this,extensions were selected from arguably the most widely cited experimental piece on brand extensions:Aaker and Keller(1990).From this study,one high and one moderate or moderately-lowfitting extension were chosen for each of the following three brands:Crest,Ha agen-Dazs,and McDonald’s.Other brand names from the Aaker and Keller study were not included because they were either dated(Vaurnet),gender related(Vidal Sassoon),or targeted toward individuals older than the subjects(Heineken).Specifically,the extensions used in the present study were Crest chewing gum, Crest mouthwash,Ha agen-Dazs popcorn,Ha agen-Dazs candy bars,McDonald’s theme parks,and McDonald’s frozen French fries.At the time of the study,none of these extensions were available in the marketplace.With respect to the new brand names,an attempt was made to create ones that would be favorably re-ceived by individuals—similar to what companies do when creating new brands.As such,a focus group was asked to generate a list of desirablefictitious names for each of the six products(i.e.,chewing gum, mouthwash,popcorn,candy bar,theme park,and frozen French fries).From this list,five names were chosen for each product and were pretested on an-other group of individuals.Specifically,31subjects provided favorability scores for the30potential brand names.These individuals were also asked to generate other brand names that came to mind after viewing each of the30focal brands.It should be noted that none of the30brand names consistently reminded subjects of other brands in the marketplace.The fol-lowing brand names were rated most favorably for each respective product and were thus chosen for the present study:Alpine chewing gum,Icewash mouth-wash,KettlePop popcorn,Nutso!candy bar,Odyssey Parks theme parks,and GoldenFries frozen French fries.Regarding the product descriptions,one was needed for each of the six products.The descriptions were written to position the product on a relevant benefit.Also,where appropriate,the descriptions at-tempted to dispel potentially damaging inferences that could be drawn from the brand extensions.For in-stance,Aaker and Keller(1990)reported that subjects in their study inferred an unappealing taste for Crest chewing gum and Heineken popcorn.In the chewing gum description,for example,the gum was stated to‘‘keep breath fresh all day long with a cool,mint flavor.’’MeasuresNew Product Evaluation.New product evaluation was measured with three seven-point adjective scales (Ajzen and Fishbein,1980):‘‘In general,how favorable do you feel about Crest mouthwash’’(15not at all favorable to75very favorable).‘‘Overall,how much do you like Crest mouthwash’’(15not at all likeable to75very likeable).‘‘In general,how desirable do youfind Crest mouthwash to be’’(15not at all desirable to 75very desirable).Consistent with prior work(e.g.,Aaker and Keller, 1990),these items were averaged into one score to26J PROD INNOV MANAG2010;27:23–32R.R.KLINK AND G.A.ATHAIDEprovide a more reliable measure of the attitude con-struct(alpha5.95).Consumer Innovativeness.As mentioned,consumer innovativeness has been conceptualized as the pro-pensity to adopt new products or ideas relatively early.The extent to which this translates into prod-uct adoption behavior for a particular person,how-ever,tends to be product category specific.In accordance with this view,this study used the same innovativeness measure used in prior brand extension research(Klink and Smith,2001),which borrows closely from the domain-specific measure developed and validated by Goldsmith and Hofacker(1991). To be more specific,subjects in the present study were asked to refer to their experiences with the gen-eral product category of interest.For instance,for mouthwash the category was dental care products.To assist subjects with their understanding of the product category,sample products of the category were noted. For example,in the case of the dental care product category,reference products included mouthwash, toothpaste,and manual and electric toothbrushes. Then,using four seven-point scales(15strongly dis-agree to75strongly agree),subjects were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements related to the‘‘timing’’of their purchases of new products in the category.Spe-cific items were as follows:‘‘Overall,I like buying the latest dental care prod-ucts.’’‘‘If I needed to purchase a dental care product,I would buy the latest one available.’’‘‘When I see a new brand of dental care product in the store,I often buy it because it is new.’’‘‘I like to purchase the latest dental care products before others do.’’The four items were averaged into one measure of consumer innovativeness(alpha5.86).The present study also examined the extent to which the measure of innovativeness was distinct from the construct of‘‘product category knowledge.’’Specifically,innovators tend to come from the pool of highly knowledgeable consumers(Rogers,2003); hence,it is important to assess the extent to which a measure of innovativeness overlaps with one of prod-uct expertise.Product knowledge was assessed by ask-ing subjects to indicate their agreement with the following statement:‘‘Overall,I consider myself knowledgeable about mouthwash’’(15strongly dis-agree to75strongly agree).The correlation between this study’s measure of innovativeness and the mea-sure of product category knowledge was.18(p o.01). This relatively low correlation suggests that this study’s measure of innovativeness is capturing a con-struct that is distinct from expertise.The modest cor-relation is not surprising—while innovators may come from the general set of highly knowledgeable consum-ers,not all highly knowledgeable consumers are in-novators.Consumer Confidence.Consumer confidence in the product offering was measured with two seven-point scales:‘‘How confident are you that(brand)can provide satisfactory(product)?’’(15not at all confident to 75very confident)‘‘How sure are you that(brand)could meet your standards for(product)?’’(15not at all sure to 75very sure).The two items had a correlation of.87(p o.001)and were averaged into one measure of consumer confi-dence.ResultsA summary of the data is provided in Table1.Table1 shows little difference in average product evaluation scores between new and extended brands( x new¼3:88 vs. x extended¼3:84).It should be noted that the aver-age level of perceivedfit for all extensions used in this study( x¼4:08)compares favorably to prior work (e.g.,overall x¼3:89)in Aaker and Keller,1990).H1and H2were tested using hierarchical regres-sion with new product evaluation as the dependent variable.To reduce multicollinearity between the interaction and its constituent terms,the continuous variable of consumer innovativeness were mean-centered,as Cronbach(1987)suggests.As can be seen in Regression1of Table2,consumer innova-tiveness was positively related to new product evalu-ations(b5.161,p o.01).Thus,H1is supported.To test H2,new product evaluation was regressed on consumer innovativeness,brand type(new vs.ex-tended),and the consumer innovativenessÂbrand type interaction.Brand type employed effects coding such that extended brand5À1and new brand5þ1.Unlike dummy coding(i.e.,0/1coding), effects coding(À1/þ1)produce b’s that representCONSUMER INNOVATIVENESS AND BRAND NAMES J PROD INNOV MANAG2010;27:23–3227the deviation for the outcome for each separate group from the mean of the groups rather than from a se-lected group.Regression 2(Table 2)indicates that the interaction of brand type and consumer innovative-ness has a significant effect on new product evalua-tions (b 5.146,p o .01).Given the coding scheme for brand type and the positive coefficient of the inter-action term,consumer innovativeness has a signifi-cantly greater effect for new brands than brand extensions.This interaction effect is depicted in Figure 1.H2is thus supported.To further explore H2,the response of an ‘‘inno-vators’’group was investigated.This group was formed by selecting subjects who had the highest con-sumer innovativeness scores up to approximately 6.25%of the total sample.While Rogers (2003)indi-cates that innovators comprise 2.5%of the popula-tion to adopt,others have indicated that innovators comprise a different percentage.For instance,Maha-jan and Muller (1998)examine an innovator group that ranges in size from 12%to 20%.Robertson and Kennedy (1968)purport that innovators may com-Table 1.Summary Statistics for New Product EvaluationProducts New Brand Extended Brand T -Value for Equality of Means and Associated p -value (Two-Tailed)Chewing Gum Alpine Crest .251 x¼4:07 x¼4:17(803)(sd 51.58,n 526)(sd 51.37,n 527)Mouthwash Icewash Crest .204 x¼4:36 x¼4:43(.839)(sd 51.35,n 527)(sd 51.20,n 528)Popcorn KettlePop Ha agen-Dazs À2.738 x¼3:92 x¼2:98(.008)(sd 51.47,n 526)(sd 51.02,n 527)Candy Bar Nutso!Ha agen-Dazs 1.620 x¼3:56 x¼4:23(.112)(sd 51.43,n 525)(sd 51.48,n 525)Theme Park Odyssey Parks McDonald’s À1.030 x¼3:70 x¼3:32(.309)(sd 51.19,n 523)(sd 51.38,n 525)Frozen French Fries GoldenFries McDonald’s .597 x¼3:61 x¼3:86(.554)(sd 51.23,n 524)(sd 51.80,n 522)Totalx¼3:88 x¼3:84À.284(sd 51.39,n 5151)(sd 51.45,n 5154)(.777)Table 2.Multiple Regression AnalysesEffectsRegression 1dv 5New Product EvaluationRegression 2dv 5New Product EvaluationRegression 3dv 5Consumer ConfidenceRegression 4dv 5New Product EvaluationConsumer Innovativeness .161ÃÃ.165ÃÃ.094Ã.097ÃÃBrand Type.012À.177ÃÃ.142ÃÃÃConsumer Innov.ÂBrand Type .146ÃÃ.134ÃÃ.061Consumer Confidence.709ÃÃÃConsumer Conf ÂBrand Type À.032Adjusted R 2.023.038.047.519F8.001ÃÃ4.972ÃÃ5.932ÃÃ66.092ÃÃÃp o .05.ÃÃp o .01.ÃÃÃp o .001.28J PROD INNOV MANAG 2010;27:23–32R.R.KLINK AND G.A.ATHAIDEprise up to 10%of the population to adopt.Further-more,Mahajan,Muller,and Srivastava (1990)find evidence that the adopter category sizes vary by prod-uct category.Given these differing percentages,the 2.5%and the 10%figures were averaged to arrive at 6.25%.The size of this group was 20subjects,of which 9were in the new brand condition and 11were in the extended brand condition.This study found that this innovator group evaluated new brands sig-nificantly higher than brand extensions ( xnew ¼4:81vs. xextended ¼3:51),t 52.204,p o .05,two-tailed).It should be noted that other noninnovator groups (i.e.,an ‘‘earlier majority’’group comprising the next high-est 43%based on consumer innovativeness,a ‘‘later majority’’group comprising the next 34%,and a ‘‘lag-gard’’group comprising the last 16%)were tested,and none of these groups evaluated new brand names sig-nificantly higher than extended brand names.To test H3and H4,the procedures suggested by Muller,Judd,and Yzerbyt (2005)were followed,which build on Baron and Kenny’s (1986)recommen-dations for testing mediation effects.The mediating variable,consumer confidence,was mean-centered.Step 1involved regressing new product evaluation (dependent variable)on consumer innovativeness (predictor),brand type (moderator variable),and the innovativeness Âbrand type interaction.As re-ported in Regression 2(Table 2),consumer innova-tiveness (b 5.165,p o .01)and the innovativeness Âbrand type interaction (b 5.146,p o .01)are signifi-cantly related to new product evaluation,thereby in-dicating that the predictor and the interaction affects the dependent variable in a regression that does not contain the mediator.In step 2,consumer confidence (mediator variable)was regressed on consumer innovativeness,brand type,and the innovativeness Âbrand type interac-tion.As can be seen with Regression 3(Table 2),innovativeness (b 5.094,p o .05),brand type (b 5À.177,p o .01),and the innovativeness Âbrand type interaction (b 5.134,p o .01)have significant effects on consumer confidence;hence,the predictor and the interaction affect the mediator.Not surpris-ingly,the regression coefficient for brand type is neg-ative,which indicates that extensions are associated with more consumer confidence.In step 3,new product evaluation was regressed on consumer innovativeness,brand type,the innovative-ness Âbrand type interaction,consumer confidence,and the confidence Âbrand type interaction.As can be seen with Regression 4(Table 2),consumer inno-vativeness (b 5.097,p o .01)and consumer confidence (b 5.709,p o .001)are significantly related to new product evaluation;thus,the mediator and the pre-dictor affect the dependent variable,while the effect of the predictor diminishes from Regression 2.This in-dicates that the positive effect of consumer innova-tiveness on new product evaluation is partially mediated by consumer confidence.H3is supported.The insignificant effect of the consumer innovative-ness Âbrand type interaction (b 5.061,p 4.10)in Regression 4indicates that consumer confidence fully mediates the consumer innovativeness Âbrand type interaction.Hence,H4is supported.Also,in contrast with Regression 3,the regression coefficient for brand type is positive (and significant),which indicates that when consumer confidence is controlled for,new brand names lead to higher product evaluation.To better understand these results,Muller et al.(2005)recommend investigating mediation effects at different levels of the moderator.Accordingly,sepa-rate mediation tests were run for new brand names and for brand extensions.This study found that con-sumer confidence mediates the consumer innovative-ness–new product evaluation relationship for new brands only.One explanation for these results is that there may not be enough risk present with brand extensions for new product response to be effected by consumer innovativeness.On the other hand,the el-evated risk involved with a new brand name may cre-ate a condition in which new product acceptance is a function of one’s adoption orientation.Discussion and Managerial ImplicationsAcademic research on branding continues to devote considerable attention to brand extensions.An im-345–1.310 1.31Consumer Innovativeness.(mean centered)N e w P r o d u c t E v a l u a t i o nNew Brand(b=.341, p<.001)Extended Brand (b=.021, p>.10)Figure 1.Slope Analysis for New Product Evaluation by Brand TypeCONSUMER INNOVATIVENESS AND BRAND NAMESJ PROD INNOV MANAG 2010;27:23–3229。

2010英语二text4Title: The Pros and Cons of TelecommutingIntroduction:With the rise of technology, telecommuting has become an increasingly popular option for many workers. This practice allows individuals to work from home or flexible locations, eliminating the need for a central office. While it offers numerous benefits, telecommuting also has its drawbacks. This article will examine both the advantages and disadvantages of telecommuting.Pros of Telecommuting:1. Increased productivity: Many studies have shown that telecommuters are more productive compared to their office-based counterparts. The absence of office distractions, such as excessive noise or interruptions from colleagues, allows telecommuters to focus on their tasks and complete them efficiently.2. Improved work-life balance: Telecommuting affords individuals the flexibility to balance their personal and professional lives. By working remotely, they can save time commuting, spend more time with their families, and engage in personal activities during their breaks. This helps reduce stress and enhances overall job satisfaction.3. Cost savings: Telecommuting can lead to significant cost savings for both employers and employees. Companies can downsize their physical office spaces, saving on rent and utilities. Meanwhile, employees save money on commuting expenses, workclothes, and lunch expenses. These savings can make a difference in the long run.Cons of Telecommuting:1. Lack of supervision and collaboration: Working remotely removes the ability for supervisors to directly oversee employees' work and provide immediate feedback. Additionally, it may limit face-to-face collaboration with colleagues, which can hinder idea generation, problem-solving, and team bonding.2. Potential for isolation: Telecommuting can create a sense of isolation for some individuals, especially if they live alone or in remote areas. The absence of social interactions and office camaraderie might lead to feelings of loneliness and decreased motivation, impacting mental well-being and job satisfaction.3. Limited access to resources: While technology has advanced, it cannot completely replicate the resources available in an office environment. Telecommuters may face challenges accessing certain equipment or tools, hindering their ability to perform certain tasks effectively.Conclusion:While telecommuting offers numerous benefits, it is not without its disadvantages. As companies continue to embrace remote work, it is crucial to find a balance between the advantages and drawbacks. Providing clear guidelines, offering training opportunities, and fostering regular communication are essential to maximize the benefits of telecommuting and minimize its drawbacks.。

2010英语二part b2010年考研英语二Part B的题目是“Direction”，要求考生按照所给的中文和英文段落，完成一篇英文摘要。

中文段落：原文：在《从0到1》一书中，彼得·蒂尔提出，创新不是从1到N，而是从0到1。

他解释说，创新就是从无到有，创造新的事物。

他主张，在竞争激烈的市场中，企业应该通过创新来获得竞争优势。

他认为，成功的创新需要满足三个条件：第一，创新必须是有益的；第二，创新必须是独特的；第三，创新必须是可实施的。

英文段落：In his book "Zero to One", Peter Thiel argues that innovation is not about going from 1 to N, but about going from 0 to 1. He explains that innovation is about creating something new from nothing. He believes that in a fiercely competitive market, companies should seek to gain a competitive edge through innovation. He maintains thatsuccessful innovation must meet three conditions: first, it must be beneficial; second, it must be unique; and third, it must be feasible.英文摘要：In his book "Zero to One", Peter Thiel emphasizes that innovation is not just about improving what already exists, but rather creating something completely new. He believes that successful innovation must be both beneficial and unique, and also practical and feasible. Therefore, companies seeking a competitive edge should focus on creating something truly original that offers genuine value.。

2010年英语二作文范文In the modern era, technology has become an integral part of our daily lives, and education is no exception. The advent of the internet, smartphones, and various educational software has revolutionized the way we learn and teach. This essaywill explore the positive and negative impacts of technology on the educational landscape.Positive Impacts1. Access to Information: Technology has made it possible for students to access a wealth of information at their fingertips. Online databases, digital libraries, and educational websites provide a plethora of resources that were previously unavailable.2. Interactive Learning: With the help of technology, learning has become more interactive and engaging. Educational apps and software often incorporate games, quizzes, and simulations that make learning a more enjoyable experience.3. Distance Learning: Technology has made it feasible for students to learn from anywhere in the world. Online courses and degree programs have opened up opportunities for those who cannot attend traditional classes due to geographical or personal constraints.4. Collaboration: The internet has enabled students to collaborate on projects with their peers from around the globe. This not only fosters a sense of global community but also enhances the learning experience through diverse perspectives.Negative Impacts1. Distraction: While technology offers many benefits, it can also be a source of distraction. The constant presence of smartphones and social media can divert students' attention from their studies.2. Dependency: There is a risk that students may become overly reliant on technology, neglecting the development of essential skills such as critical thinking and problem-solving that cannot be outsourced to a device.3. Digital Divide: Not all students have equal access to technology. The digital divide can exacerbate educational inequalities, as those without access to the latest technology may be at a disadvantage.4. Lack of Human Interaction: The reliance on technology can sometimes lead to a decrease in face-to-face interaction between teachers and students, which is vital for effective learning and the development of social skills.ConclusionIn conclusion, technology has had a profound impact oneducation, offering numerous advantages such as increased access to information and the ability to engage in distance learning. However, it also presents challenges, such as the potential for distraction and the exacerbation of educational inequalities. It is crucial for educators and policymakers to find a balance, leveraging the benefits of technology while mitigating its drawbacks to ensure that all students can benefit from a high-quality education.。

visual studio 2010Visual Studio 2010: A Comprehensive Guide to the Revolutionary Integrated Development EnvironmentIntroductionVisual Studio 2010 is a widely used Integrated Development Environment (IDE) developed by Microsoft. It provides developers with a comprehensive set of tools and features to efficiently develop software applications for various platforms. This document serves as a comprehensive guide to understanding Visual Studio 2010, highlighting its key features, and exploring its benefits for developers.Key Features of Visual Studio 20101. IntelliSense: Visual Studio 2010 introduces IntelliSense, an intelligent code completion feature that enhances productivity by providing suggestions and auto-completion for coding syntax and objects as developers write code. This feature helps minimize coding errors and enhances code readability.2. Advanced Debugging Tools: The updated debugging tools in Visual Studio 2010 allows developers to easily identify and resolve bugs and issues within their code. The IDE includes features like breakpoints, step-by-step debugging, and watch windows, providing a seamless debugging experience.3. Integrated Version Control: Visual Studio 2010 integrates with popular version control systems like Git and Subversion, enabling developers to easily manage source code and collaborate with team members. This feature enhances code collaboration, simplifies project management, and ensures code integrity.4. Visual Designers: Visual Studio 2010 includes powerful visual designers for building user interfaces. These designers enable developers to visually design forms, web pages, and other application elements, simplifying the process of creating UI elements and enhancing productivity.5. Code Analysis: Visual Studio 2010 incorporates static code analysis tools that help identify potential issues and improve code quality. These tools provide valuable insights into code performance, security vulnerabilities, and adherence to coding standards, enabling developers to write cleaner and more maintainable code.6. Extensibility: Visual Studio 2010 supports extensions and add-ons, allowing developers to customize the IDE to suit their specific needs. Developers can create and install custom tools, templates, and extensions to enhance their development workflow and tailor the IDE to their preferences.Benefits of Visual Studio 2010 for Developers1. Increased Productivity: Visual Studio 2010's wide range of features, such as IntelliSense, debugging tools, and visual designers, significantly enhance developer productivity. These tools streamline repetitive tasks, automate code generation, and offer an intuitive interface that accelerates development workflows.2. Simplified Collaboration: The integrated version control system in Visual Studio 2010 facilitates seamless collaboration among team members. Developers can easily manage and merge code changes, track revisions, and resolve conflicts, enabling efficient teamwork and smoother project management.3. Enhanced Code Quality: Visual Studio 2010's code analysis tools aid in identifying potential issues and improving code quality. By highlighting performance bottlenecks, security vulnerabilities, and adherence to coding standards, developers can write cleaner and more maintainable code, resulting in robust software applications.4. Extensibility and Customization: Visual Studio 2010's extensibility feature allows developers to tailor the IDE to their specific needs. With a wide range of extensions and add-ons, developers can enhance their development experience, leverage custom tools, and improve overall efficiency.ConclusionVisual Studio 2010 is a powerful and feature-rich IDE that provides developers with the necessary tools to create efficient and high-quality software applications. It offers a wide range of features, including IntelliSense, advanced debugging tools, integrated version control, visual designers, and code analysis, which significantly enhance developer productivity, simplify collaboration, and improve code quality. By leveraging the capabilities of Visual Studio 2010, developers can streamline their development workflows,create robust applications, and achieve greater success in their projects.。