期刊文献+

信息加工两分法对性别差异的解释及其对广告的启示 被引量:1

The Interpretation of Information Processing Dichotomies to Gender Differences and the Guidance to Ads
下载PDF
导出
摘要 在解释信息加工的性别差异上,研究者们依据信息加工两分法提出选择性假设和项目特定性、相关性加工假设两种解释。前者认为男性更多受整体信息主题或图式的驱动,女性更易接受细节化的信息内容;后者认为男性更倾向于项目特定性加工而女性更倾向于相关性加工。这两种解释对广告的策划与制作具有新的启示。 Two interpretations, Selectivity Hypothesis and Item - specific processing vs. Relational processing, are brought to interpret the gender differences in information processing. The former one suggests that male is more prone to the whole topic or scheme of the information while female prefers the detailed content. The later one supposes that male prefers item -specific processing while female prefers relational processing to the information. The guidance to advertising could be deduced from both of them.
作者 林树 陈宁
出处 《上海管理科学》 2003年第3期36-37,共2页 Shanghai Management Science
  • 相关文献

参考文献4

  • 1[1]Holbrook, M. 1986. "Aims, Concepts, and Methods for the Representation of Individual Differences in Esthetics Responses to Design Features." Journal of Consumer Research 13 (December):337-347
  • 2[2]Hall, J.A. 1984. Nonverbal Sex Differences : Communication Accuracy and Expressive Style. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press
  • 3[3]Everhart, D. E., Shucard, J. L., Quatrin, T. and Shucsrd, D.W.2001. "Sex- related Differences in Event - related Potentials,Face Recognition, and Facial Affect Processing in Prepubertal Children." Neuropsychology 15(3): 329- 341
  • 4[4]Bleich, D. 1988. "Gender Interests in Reading and Language."In Gender and Reading: Essays on Readers, Texts, and Contexts.Editors: E.A. Flynn and P.P. Schweickart. Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University Press, 234 - 266

同被引文献32

  • 1Zvolensky, M. J.; Eifert, G H.; Lejuez, C. W.; Hopko, D. R.; Forsyth, J. P.: Assessing the perceived predictability of anxiety-related events: a report on the perceived predictability index, Journal of behavior therapy and experimentalpsychiatry, 31 (3): 201-218, 2000.
  • 2Cope, S.; Frewer, L. J.; Houghton, J.; Rowe, G; Fischer, A. R. H.; Jonge, J.: Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: Implications for risk analysis policy, Food Policy, 35(4): 349-357, 2010.
  • 3Frewer, L. J.; Howard, C.; Hedderley, D. and Shepherd, R.: What determines trust in information about food related risks? Underlying psychological comtructs, Risk analysis, 16(4): 473-486, 1996.
  • 4Tolman, E. C.: Purposive behavior in animals and men, New York." Century, 1932.
  • 5Hole, A.R. and Kolstad, J.R.: Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment, Empirical Economics, 42(2): 445-469, 2012.
  • 6Dickinson, D. L. and Bailey, D.: Meat traceability: Are US consumers willing to pay for it? Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 27(2): 348-364, 2002.
  • 7Rousu, M.C.; Huffman, W.E.; Shogren, J.F. and Tegene, A.: Estimating the Public Value of Conflicting Information: The Case of Genetically Modified Foods, Land Economics, 80(1): 125-135, 2004.
  • 8Lusk, J.L.; House, L.O.; Valli, C.; Jaeger, S. R.; Moore, M.; Morrow, J. L.; Traill, W. B.: Effects of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 31(2): 179-204, 2004.
  • 9Ward, R.; Bailey, D. V. and Jensen, R.: An American BSE crisis: has it affected the value of traceability and country-of-origin certifications for US and Canadian beef?. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 8(2): 92-114, 2005.
  • 10Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, No. 47, 263-291, 1979.

引证文献1

二级引证文献18

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部