Search results

This research paper aims to illustrate that the new product communication effects of mental simulation (process-vs. outcome-focused) might depend on product attributes (typicality and benefits). Communication effects include ad attitudes and product attitudes in this study.

One 2 (mental simulation: process-focused vs. outcome-focused) x 2 (attribute typicality: high vs. low) x 2 (attribute benefits: hedonic vs. utilitarian) between-subjects experiment design was conducted. SPSS was used to do data analysis.

This article reveals that high (low) typicality of new attributes causes a process-focused (outcome-focused) simulation to lead to better consumer attitudes (i.e. ad attitude and product attitude). In addition, for a new hedonic attribute, a low typical attribute induces better consumer attitudes. Furthermore, there are interaction among mental simulation, product attribute typicality and benefits. These findings have important implications for academic developments and marketing management.

Compared with previous studies, this study is unique in several ways. First, enterprises often develop new products by introducing new product attributes (i.e. new features). Product attribute typicality is an interesting issue for new product design and communication. This research illustrates that the marketing communication effects of attribute typicality depends on attribute benefits and mental simulation. Second, the current research finds the new product attribute benefit (i.e. hedonic/utilitarian) play an important role and moderates the effects of mental simulation on consumer attitudes.

This study aims to identify causes of (un)ethical behaviour in research and how they influence adherence to research ethics.

The authors developed and tested a conceptual model that includes mediation and helps to understand the mechanism of adherence to ethical standards of research based on the “social judgment theory” (SJT). In Study 1, the authors conducted an exploratory study using the exploratory factor analysis technique to identify factors responsible for adherence to research ethics. In Study 2, the authors used SJT to provide support for establishing a relationship between key variables.

Two factors, “Proclivity to Egoism” and “Proclivity to Emotivism”, were identified based on the personal beliefs of researchers. These factors were found to play an important role in determining the tendency towards adherence to standards of research ethics (Belmont Report and COPE). SJT successfully explains the mechanism of adoption of ethical standards. Adherence to Belmont principles was seen to mediate relationship between factors identified and tendency to adhere to COPE.

Majorly, this study is unique as it establishes and guides to incorporate researchers’ point of view in formulating ethical standards and guidelines, apart, from various other important theoretical and societal implications.