「可愛產品」能夠讓人少女心大噴發，但添加可愛元素在任何產品類型下都管用嗎？當可愛與高價產品結合，是否能夠帶來有利的效果？本研究以基模一致性理論與消費者資訊處理兩個核心理論基礎出發，推敲高價產品反差萌行銷之可能效果，除了區分可愛類型為嬰兒基模和非嬰兒基模的可愛外，並分別就產品面、情境觸發和消費者心理變數─調節焦點的角度切入，檢測高價產品的反差萌行銷的運用時機和邊界條件。
本研究採用實驗法，以4(可愛類型)x2(產品類型)x2(情境觸發)組間實驗設計，並衡量受測者的調節焦點，研究目的如下：(1)探討結合可愛元素的高價產品對於消費者的產品評價、產品態度、購買意願的影響；(2)透過產品類型的思考模式，檢視理性思考模式和感性思考模式的高價產品，宜如何運用可愛創造較佳的產品評價、產品態度和購買意願；(3)結合基模情境觸發之觀點，在激活不同基模的情況下，高價產品宜如何運用可愛，來創造較佳的宣傳效果；(4)考量調節焦點的作用，促進型焦點喜歡冒險可以接受風險，但預防焦點則不喜歡風險較為謹慎，在面臨基模聯想不一致的高價可愛商品時，所產生的反應為何。
研究結果發現：(1)高價產品添加嬰兒基模可愛圖像，或是不添加任何圖像，可有最佳的產品態度、產品評價、購買意願；(2) 消費者偏好添加嬰兒基模可愛的感性產品，但偏好不添加任何圖像的理性產品；(3) 情境基模的干擾效果不如預期，但激活人性 (vs. 物品) 基模可直接提升產品反應；(4) 促進焦點者 (vs.預防焦點者)，較能接受高價產品添加可愛圖像。
研究結果對於高價產品行銷、可愛研究、基模一致性理論等，提供理論方面的貢獻，並可供高價產品在思考是否運用可愛行銷時，得知如何妥適操作，以期創造較佳的消費者反應之建議。

Girls love cute products because these products can make them feel happy and healed. However, is cute design suitable for any product type in the market? What effects do high-priced products incorporated with cute elements generate in consumers? Based on the schema congruity and consumer message processing theories, this study explores the possible effects of high-priced products with cute elements. It classifies cuteness into cuteness with baby schema and cuteness without baby schema and examines the boundary conditions of cute high-priced product effects by examining the moderation of product types, schema prime, and consumer regulatory focus.
In this study, the experimental method was conducted with a 4(cute type) x2 (product type) x2 (schema prime) between-subjects design. The research objectives are as follows. (1) This study explores the impact of high-priced products incorporated with cute elements on consumer product evaluation, product attitude, and purchase intention, and compares the effect between cuteness with baby schema and cuteness without baby schema. (2) Based on the thinking-feeling classification of products in the FCB model, it examines how thinking and feeling high-priced products use cuteness to result in better product attitude, product evaluation, and purchase intention. (3) Combining the perspective of scheme prime, it explores how high-priced products use cuteness to create a better promotion effect when primed with a human schema or an object schema. (4) Referring to the regulatory focus theory, it examines the responses of promotion-focused and prevention-focused consumers towards cute high-priced products that are incongruent with existing product schema association.
The analytical results reveal the following findings. (1) High-priced products with baby-schema cuteness pictures or ones without any picture can generate better product attitude, product evaluation, and purchase intention. (2) Consumers prefer feeling products with baby schema cuteness but prefer thinking products without any picture incorporation. (3) The moderation effect of schema prime is not as anticipation. However, activating a human schema (vs. an object schema) has a direct positive impact on product responses. (4) Promotion-focused consumers (vs. prevention-focused consumers) respond more favorably to high-priced products with cute pictures.
The research results provide theoretical contributions to high-priced product marketing, cute research, and schema congruity theory. For practitioners, the findings provide suggestions on marketing high-priced products, thinking about whether to use cuteness in product design to result in better consumer responses.

論文審定書 i
謝誌 ii
摘要 iii
Abstract iv
目錄 vi
圖目錄 viii
表目錄 ix
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究問題 8
第三節 研究目的 9
第二章 文獻探討 10
第一節 高價產品與行銷 10
第二節 可愛及相關研究 14
第三節 基模理論與一致性理論 26
第四節 消費者資訊處理 30
第五節 調節焦點理論 32
第六節 FCB商品分類模式 34
第三章 研究架構與假說 36
第一節 研究架構 36
第二節 假設推論 37
第四章 正式實驗 43
第一節 樣本與實驗設計 43
第二節 實驗刺激與前測 45
第三節 前測一 46
第四節 前測二 51
第五節 正式實驗研究設計 57
第六節 分析結果 60
第七節 討論 100
第五章 結論與建議 105
第一節 研究發現與討論 105
第二節 理論貢獻 107
第三節 實務意涵 110
第四節 研究限制 112
第五節 未來研究方向 113
參考文獻 116
附錄一、產品評估問卷 132
附錄二、情境文字與圖像評估問卷 143
附錄三、情境文字與圖像評估問卷 152
附錄四、情境觸發文案 161
附錄五、正式問卷-素色 162
附錄六、風扇素色 167
附錄七、風扇添加可愛圖像 172
附錄八、衣服添加可愛圖像 178
附錄九、實驗刺激物 184

中文文獻
王思樺(2013)。擬人化元素對隱喻廣告溝通效果之影響(碩士論文)。私立銘傳大
學，台北市。
王璽瑋(2015)。可愛產品的刻板印象對產品功能評價、購買意願以及願付價格
之影響(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中山大學，高雄市。
四方田犬彥 (2007)。可愛力量大 (陳光棻，Trans.)。台北市:天下文化。
李維(1998）。記憶：一個實驗的與社會的心理學研究。台北：桂冠。
Bartlett, F. C.(1932).Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology.New York, NY :Cambridge University Press.
李佳憶(2015)。產品類型、產品價格、情緒以及希望感對抉擇之影響(碩士論文)。
國立中央大學，桃園市。
吳裕傑 (2009)。廣告中角色人物之可愛與否，故事有無、與推薦方式對消費者
態度之影響(碩士論文)。國立政治大學，台北市。
林子傑 (2011) 。 限量聯名產品對消費者品牌態度與購買意圖之影響(碩士論
文)。國立高雄第一科技大學，高雄市。
林伯男 (2012) 。 探討產品稀少陸對炫耀性消費與地位消費之影響(碩士論文)。
國立高雄第一科技大學，高雄市。
林承賢(2014)。近五年來台灣傳播學界博碩士論文使用網路問卷研究方法之後
設分析。資訊社會研究，6，25-58。
周世惠 （2011）。臺灣臉書效應：Facebook行銷實戰。臺北市：天下雜誌。
馬慶玲 (2011)。調節焦點影響廣告效果之研究(碩士論文)。國立政治大學，台
北市。
孫資輝 (2012)。產品稀少性對消費者購買遊戲限量版商品意圖之影響(碩士論
文)。私立義守大學，高雄市。
許敬安 (2014)。可愛的造形意象與造形特徵之相關性研究(碩士論文)。國立台
灣科技大學，台北市。
郭秀雅(2011)。虛擬代言人物的類型對線上廣告效果之研究-以產品類別為干擾
變數(碩士論文)。國立台北大學，台北市。
莊珮偵(2011)。產品價格與訊息數量對商品知覺品質的影響；性別消費捷思觀
點探討(碩士論文)。國立高雄第一科技大學，高雄市。
陳依卿(2011)。如果你看到的醫師有娃娃臉?探討醫師性別及專科影響(碩士論
文)。國立中山大學，高雄市。
陳逸慧(2015)。品牌擬人化在負面事件中之影響(碩士論文)。國立中興大學，台
中市。
陳姿君(2016)。療癒系可愛麻吉─可愛元素的療癒感效果(未出版之碩士論文)。
國立中山大學，高雄市。
曾音綺(2008)。企業公仔引發情緒與涉入程度之相關研究(碩士論文)。國立交通
大學，新竹市。
曾惠群(2007)。促銷訊息架構、折扣水準、產品價格，以及認知需求的干擾效
果對於消費者效用及購買意願的影響(碩士論文)。國立成功大學，台南
市。
黃毓澖 (2015)。食物可愛造型如何影響食物種類和不同情緒下之食用量(未出版
之碩士論文) 。國立高雄應用科技大學，高雄市。
黃明緯(2016)。品牌擬人化類型對消費者購買意願之影響(碩士論文)。國立中興
大學，台中市。
鄭岱昀 (2012)。限量策略的稀少性效果對消費者購買意圍之影響(碩士論文)。
國立成功大學，台南市。
蕭至惠、蔡進發、許雅涵 (2012)。自我建構與調節焦點對衝動性購買行為之影
響。臺大管理論叢，23(1), 119-150。
藍麗娟譯（2007）。《亞洲 名牌聖教》，台北：天下雜誌。Radha Chadha and Paul
Husband(2006).The Cult of the Luxury Brand:Inside Asia’s Love Affair with
Luxury.London,England:Consortium Book Sales & Dist
饒婉平 (2006)。癒系商品之消費者體驗研究 (碩士論文)。私立銘傳大學，台
北市。
 
英文文獻
Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as
a basis for the evaluation of anthropomorphized products. Journal of
Consumer Research, 34(4),468-479.
Aggarwal, J., Sung, Y. J., & Huh, J. H. (2011). Scarcity messages: A consumer competition perspective. Journal of Advertising, 40(3), 19–30.
Alley, T. R. (1981). Head shape and the perception of cuteness.
DevelopmentalPsychology, 17(5), 650-654.
Alley, T. R. (1983a). Growth-produced changes in body shape and size as
determinants of perceived age and adult caregiving. Child Development,
　54(1),241-248.
Alley, T. R. (1983b). Infantile head shape as an elicitor of adult protection. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 29(4), 411-427.
Allard, T., & Griffin, D. (2017). Comparative price and the design of effective product
communications. Journal of Marketing, 81(5), 16-29.
Ball,S.B.,& Eckel,C.C. (1996). Buying status: Experimental evidence on
status in negotiation. Psychology and Marketing,13(4),381-405.
Bambauer-Sachse, S., & Grewal, D. (2011). Temporal reframing of prices: When is it
beneficial?. Journal of Retailing, 87(2), 156-165.
Bazerman, M. H., Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Wade-Benzoni, K. (1998). Negotiating with
yourself and losing: Making decisions with competing internal preferences.
Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 225–241.
Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world. Journal
of Consumer Research, 2(3), 265-280.
Berman, P. W. (1980). Are women more responsive than men to the young? A review
of developmental and situational variables. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 668-695.
Bohlin, G. (1976). Delayed habituation of the electrodermal orienting response as a
function of increased level of arousal. Psychophysiology, 13(4), 345-351.
Borgi, M., Cogliati-Dezza, I., Brelsford, V., Meints, K., & Cirulli, F. (2014). Baby
Schema in human and animal faces induces cuteness perception and gaze
allocation in children. Frontiers in Psychology, 5.
　　Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00411
Botti, S., & McGill, A. L. (2011). The locus of choice: Personal causality and
satisfaction with hedonic and utilitarian decisions. Journal of Consumer Research,
37(6), 1065–1078
Boush, D.,& Loken,B. (1991). A process-tracing study of brand extension
evaluation, Journal of Marketing Research, 28(1), 16-28.
Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (2001). Emotion and
motivation I: Defensive and appetitive reactions in picture processing. Emotion,
1(3), 276-298.
Brendl, C. M., Higgins, E. T. & Lemm, K. M. (1995). Sensitivity to varying gains and
losses: the role of self-discrepancies and event framing. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 69(66), 1028-1051.
Brockner, J., Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory Focus Theory: Implications for the study
of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process,
61(1), 35-66.
Brockner, J., Higgins, E. T. & Low, M. B.(2004). Regulatory Focus Theory and
entrepreneurial. Journal of Business Venturing,19(2), 203-220.
Brockner, J., Paruchuri, L. S., Idson C. & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Regulatory Focus and
Probability Estimates of Conjunctive and Disjunctive Events. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Process, 87(1), 5-24.
Brosch, T., Sander, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2007). That baby caught my eye... Attention capture by infant faces.Emotion,7(3),685-689.
Chang, C.-T. & Yen, C.-T. (2013). Missing ingredients in metaphor advertising: The right formula of metaphor type, product type, and need for cognition.Journal of Advertising ,42(1),80-94.
Cheok, A. D. (2010). Art and Technology of Entertainment Computing and
Communication. London:Springer Science & Business Media.
Cheok, A. D., & Fernando, O. N. N. (2012). Kawaii/cute interactive media. Universal
Access in the Information Society, 11(1), 295-309.
Chernev, A. (2004). Goal-attribute compatibility in consumer choice. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 14(1 &2), 141–150.
Cohen, J.B., & Basu, K.(1987).Althernative models of categorization :Toward a
contingent processing framework.Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 455-472.
Creusen, M. E., & Schoormans, J. P. (2005). The different roles of product appearance
in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(1), 63-81.
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations:
Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Process, 69(2), 117-132.
Dodds, W.B. & Kent B. M., (1985). The effect of brand and price
information on subjective product evaluations.In advancesin consumer
research,12, Elizabeth Hirschman and Morris Holbrook, eds. Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research, 85-90.
Dodds,W.B.,Kent B. M., & Dhruv G.(1991). Effects of price,brand and
store information on buyers product evalluation.Journal of Marketing
Research,28(1),307-309.
Du, J. G., & Fan, X. C. (2006). A model of salesperson's trust and
satisfaction based on the high-priced products selling in retailing. In 2006
International Conference on Management Science and Engineering (1055-
1060). IEEE.
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886.
Fiske, S. T., & Pavelchak, M. (1986). Category-based versus piecemeal-based affective responses: Developments in schema-triggered affect. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgens (Eds.), The handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior: 167–203. New York: Guilford.
Fiske, S. T., Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2ⁿd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Freidman, R., Higgins, E. T. & Shah, J. Y. (1997). Emotional responses to goal
Attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality
and Psychology, 72(3), 515-525.
Geistfeld, L.V. (1982).The price‐quality relationship revisited. Journal of
Consumer Affairs,16(2),334-346.
Glocker, M. L., Langleben, D. D., Ruparel, K., Loughead, J. W., Gur, R. C., &
Sachser, N. (2009). Baby schema in infant faces induces cuteness perception
and motivation for caretaking in adults. Ethology, 115(3), 257-263.
Glocker, M. L., Langleben, D. D., Ruparel, K., Loughead, J. W., Valdez, J. N., Griffinf,
M. D., & Gur, R. C. (2009). Baby schema modulates the brain reward system
in nulliparous women. PNAS , 106(22), 9115-9119.
Golle, J., Lisibach, S., Mast, F. W., & Lobmaier, J. S. (2013). Sweet puppies and cute
babies:Perceptual adaptation to babyfacedness transfers across species. Plosone,
8(3).Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058248
Goodstein, R.C. (1993). Category-Based applications and extensions in
advertising:Motivating more extensive ad processing, Journal of Consumer
Research, 20(1) , 87-99.
Granot, E., Alejandro, T. B., & Russell, L. T. M. (2013). A socio-marketing analysis of
the Concept of cute and its consumer culture implications. Journal of Consumer
Culture, 14(1), 66-87.
Guthrie, Stewart (1993).Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion, New York:
Oxford.
Hahn, A. C., Xiao, D., Sprengelmeyer, R., & Perrett, D. I. (2013). Gender differences
in the incentive salience of adult and infant faces. The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 66(1), 200-208.
Hastie, R., (1981). Schematic Principles in Human Memory,in Higgins, E. T., Herman,
C. P. and Zanna, M.P.(Eds), Ontario Symposium on Personality and Social
Psychology, NY : Lawrence Erlbaum Associate
Haws, K. L., Dholakia, U. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2010). An assessment of chronic
regulatory focus measures. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 967-982.
Higgins, E.T. (1987). Self-Discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Affect.
Psychologcal Review, 94(3), 319-340.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1230.
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational
principle. In M. P. Zanna(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology,30,
1-46.
Higgins, E. T. (2001). Promotion and prevention experiences: Relating emotions to
nonemotional motivational states. In J. P. Forgas(Eds.), Handbook of affect and
social cognition,186-211.
Higgins, E. T., Kruglanski, A. W. & Pierro, A. (2003). Regulatory mode: Locomotion
as distinct orientation. In M. P. Zanna(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology,293-344.
Hildebrandt, K. A. (1983). Effect of facial expression variations on ratings of infants’
physical attractiveness. Developmental Psychology, 19(3), 414-417.
Hildebrandt, K. A., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (1978). Adults’ responses to infants varying in
perceived cuteness. Behavioural Processes, 3(2), 159-172.
Huettl, V., & Gierl, H. (2012). Visual art in advertising: The effects of utilitarian vs.
hedonic product positioning and price information. Marketing Letters, 23(3), 893-
904.
Hutt, C. (1972). Sex differences in human development. Human Development, 15(3),
153-170.
Idson, L. C., Liberman, N. & Higgins, E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from non-
losses and losses from non-gains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic
intensity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(3), 252-274.
Jhang, J. H., Grant, S. J., & Campbell, M. C. (2012). Get it? Got it. Good! Enhancing
new product acceptance by facilitating resolution of extreme incongruity. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 247-259.
Kanai, Y., & Nittono, H. (2014). Predictive modeling of the feelings of kawaii by
empathy and affiliation motives]. The Japanese Journal of Personality, 23(3), 131-
141.
Kardes, F. R., Cronley, M. L., Kellaris, J. K., & Posavac, S. S. (2004). The role of
selective information processing in price-quality inference. Journal of Consumer
Research, 31(2),368–374.
Karraker, K. H., & Stern, M. (1990). Infant physical attractiveness and facial
expression:Effects on adult perceptions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
11(4), 371-385.
Keller, K.L & Aaker D.A.(1992). The effects of sequential introduction of
brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(2), 35-50.
Kotler, P. (1999). Marketing Management, Singapore: Prentice Hall, 185.
Lang, P. J., Greenwald, M. K., Bradley, M. M., & Hamm, A. O. (1993).
Looking at pictures: Affective, facial, visceral, and behavioral reactions.
Psychophysiology, 30(3), 261-273.
Lee, H. C., Chang, C. T., Chen, Y. H., & Huang, Y. S. (2018). The spell of cuteness in
food consumption? It depends on food type and consumption motivation.Food
Quality and Preference,65, 110-117.
Lehmann, V., Huis in’t Veld, E. M. J., & Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M. (2013). The human
and animal baby schema effect: Correlates of individual differences. Behavioural
Processes, 94, 99-108.
Li,Y.,&Yan, D. (2017). The diverging effects of cuteness on risk preference:
Moderating role of gender. ACR North American Advances,45,740-741.
Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., Camacho, S. J. & Higgins, E. T. (1999). Promotion and
prevention choices between stability and change. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 77(6), 1135-1145.
Lichtenstein, D.R., Ridgway N.M. & Netemeyer R.G. (1993). Price perceptions and
consumer shopping behavior: A field study. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 234-245.
. Lin, L.-Z., Hsu, Tsuen-Ho, & Huang, Liang-Chih. (2011). Application of fuzzy
measures in the product appearance value assessment. Applied Soft Computing,
11(2), 1867-1875.
Little, A. C. (2012). Manipulation of infant-like traits affects perceived cuteness of
infant, adult and cat faces. Ethology, 118(8), 775-782.
Lobmaier, J. S., Sprengelmeyer, R., Wiffen, B., & Perrett, D. I. (2010). Female and
male responses to cuteness, age and emotion in infant faces. Evolution & Human
Behavior, 31(1), 16-21.
Lockwood, P., Jordan, C.H., &Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative
role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 854–864
Loken, B., Ward, J. (1990). Alternative Approaches to Understanding the Determinants
of Typicality. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(1), 111-126.
Lynn, M. (1989). Scarcity effects on desirability: mediated by assumed
expensiveness. Journal of Economic Psychology, 10(2), 257-274.
Lynn, M. (1992). Scarcity's enhancement of desirability: The role of naïve economic
theories. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13(1), 67-78.
Lynn, M., Bogert, P. (1996). The effect of scarcity on anticipated price appreciation.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(22), 1978-1984.
Mandler, G. (1982). The structure of value: Accounting for taste. In M. S. Clark & S.
T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition.NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Maoz, E., & Tybout, A. M. (2002). The moderating role of involvement and differentiation in the evaluation of brand extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(2), 119-131
Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(2), 63-78.
Markus, H. & Zajonc, R. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology.
In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed.,
137-229). New York: Random House.
Meyers, L. & Alice, M. T. (1989). Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product.
Evalution. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 39-55.
Michael, L. & Judy, H. (1997). The desire for Ullique consumer products: A new
individual differences scale. Psychology & Marketing, 14(6), 601-616.
Miesler, L., Leder, H. & Herrmann, A. (2011). Isn’t it cute: An evolutionary
perspective of baby-schema effects in visual product designs. International
Journal of Design, 5(3), 17-30.
Monroe, K. B. (1976). The influence of price differences and brand familiarity on
brand preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 3(1), 42-49.
Monroe,W.B., Dodds ,W.B. (1988). A research program for establishing the validity
ofthe price-quality relationship. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1),
151-168.
Morris, R. T. & Bronson, C. S. (1969). The chaos in competition indicated by
consumer reports. Journal of Marketing, 33(3), 26-43.
Nan, X. L. (2006). Affective cues and brand extension evaluation: Exporing the
influence of attitude toward the parent brand and attitude toward the extension
ad. Psychology & Marketing, 23(7), 597-616.
Nenkov, G. Y. & Scott, M. L. (2014). So cute I could eat it up”: Priming effects of
cute products on indulgent consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2),
326-341.
.Nittono, H. (2016). The two-layer model of “kawaii”: A behavioural science
framework for understanding kawaii and cuteness. East Asian Journal of
Popular Culture,2(1),79-95.
Nittono, H., Fukushima, M., Yano, A.,& Moriya, H. (2012). The power of Kawaii: viewing cute images promotes a careful behavior and narrows attentional focus. PLoS One, 7(9). Retrieved from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0046362
Nittono, H., & Ihara, N. (2017). Psychophysiological responses to kawaii pictures
with or without baby schema. SAGE Open, 7(2), 1-11.
Noseworthy, T. J., Cotte, J., & Lee, S. H. M. (2011). The effects of ad context and gender on the identification of visually incongruent products. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 358–375.
Noseworthy, T.J., Muro, F.D., & Murray, K.B. (2014), The Role of
Arousal in Congruity-Based Product Evaluation,Journal of Consumer Research,
41 (4), 1108–26.
Pancer, E.,McShane,L., & Noseworthy,T.J. (2017), Isolated
Environmental Cues and Product Efficacy Penalties: The Color Green and Eco-
Labels, Journal of Business Ethics, 143 (1), 159-177.
Pankaj A. & Ann L. M. (2007). Is That Car Smiling at Me? Schema Congruity as a
Basis for Evaluating Anthropomorphized Products. Journal of Consumer
Research. 34(4), 468-479.
Peracchio, L. A., & Tybout, A. M. (1996). The moderating role of prior knowledge in
Schema based product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(3), 177-
192.
Ratchford, B.T. (1987), “New insights about the FCB grid,” Journal of
Advertising Research, 27 (4), 24–38.
Rao, A. R., & Kent, B. M. (1988). The moderating effect of prior knowledge on cue
utilization in product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2) , 253-64.
Rumelhart, D. & Norman, D. (1978). Accretion, tuning and restructuring: Three
modes of learning. In. J.W. Cotton & R. Klatzky (Eds.), Semantic factors in
cognition (pp37-60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rumelhart, D. E. & Norman, D. A. (1988). Representation in memory. In R. C.
Atkinson, R. J. Herrnstein, G. Lindzey, & R. D. Luce (Eds.), Stevens' handbook
of experimental psychology: Learning and cognition (2ⁿd ed., pp. 511-587). New
York, NY: Wiley
Scott, M. L. & Nenkov, G. Y. (2016). Using consumer responsibility reminders to
reduce cuteness-induced indulgent consumption. Marketing Letters, 27(2), 323-
336.
Sherman, G. D. & Haidt, J. (2011). Cuteness and disgust: The humanizing and
dehumanizing effects of emotion. Emotion Review, 3(3), 245-251.
Sherman, G. D., Haidt, J. & Coan, J. A. (2009). Viewing cute images increases
behavioral carefulness. Emotion, 9(2), 282-286.
Sherman, G. D., Haidt, J., Iyer, R. & Coan, J. A. (2013). Individual differences in the
physical embodiment of care: Prosocially oriented women respond to cuteness
by becoming more physically careful. Emotion, 13(1), 151-158.
Sheng, S., Bao, Y., & Pan, Y. (2007). Partitioning or bundling? Perceived fairness of
the surcharge makes a difference. Psychology & Marketing, 24(12), 1025-1041
Snyder, C. R. (1992). Product scarcity by need for ulliqueness interaction: A consumer catch-22 carousel. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13(1), 9-24.
Snyder, C. R. & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference.
New York, NY: Plenum.
Sprengelmeyer, R., Perrett, D. I., Fagan, E. C., Cornwell, R. E., Lobmaier, J. S.,
Sprengelmeyer, A. & Young, A. W. (2009). The cutest little baby face: A
hormonal link to sensitivity to cuteness in infant faces. Psychological Science,
20(2), 149-154.
Stayman, D.M., Alden, D.L. &Smith, K.H. (1992).Some effects of schematic processing on consumer expectations and disconfirmation judgement.Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 240-255
Sujan, M. (1985). Consumer knowledge: Effects of evaluation strategies mediating consumer judgment.Journal of Consumer Research, 12(1), 31-46.
Swami, S. & Khaimar, P. J. (2003). Diffusion of products with lirnited supply and
known expiration date. Marketing Letters, 14(1), 33-46.
Szybillo, G. J. & Jacoby, J. (1974). Intrinsic versus extrinsic cues as determinants of
perceived product quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(1), 74-78.
Tellis, G.J., Wernerfelt, B., 1987. Competitive price and quality under asymmetric
information. Marketing Science, 6 (3) , 240-253.
Thompson-Booth, C., Viding, E., Mayes, L. C., Rutherford, H. J., Hodsoll, S., &
McCrory, E. (2014). I can't take my eyes off of you: Attentional allocation to
infant, child, adolescent and adult faces in mothers and non-mothers. PLoS One,
9(10). Retrieved from
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0109362
Tian, T. K., Bearden, W. O. & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers' need for uniqueness:
scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 50-66.
Toure´-Tillery, M.,&McGill,A.L. (2015), Who or what to believe: Trust
and the differential persuasiveness of human and anthropomorphized
messengers. Journal of Marketing, 79 (4), 94–110.
Vaughn, R. (1980). How advertising works: A planning model. Journal of
Advertising Research, 20(5), 27-33.
Veblen, T. B.(1965). The theory of the leisure class. New York: A.M. Kelly. (Original
work published 1899.)
Verhallen, T. M. M. & Robben, H. S. J. (1994). Scarcity and preference: An
experiment on unavailability and product evaluation. Journal of Economic
Psychology, 15(2), 315-331.
Voss, G.B., Parasuraman,A. ,& Grewal,D.(1998),The roles of price,
performance, and expectations in determining satisfaction in service
exchanges.Journal of Marketing, 62 (4), 46–61
Wang, T., Mukhopadhyay, A. & Patrick, V. M. (2017). Getting consumers to recycle
now! When and why cuteness appeals influence prosocial and sustainable
behavior. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 36(2), 269-283.
Waytz, A., Heafner, J., & Epley, N. (2014). The mind in the machine:
Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 113–117.
Zebrowitz, L. A., Luevano, V. X., Bronstad, P. M. & Aharon, I. (2009). Neural
activation to babyfaced men matches activation to babies. Social Neuroscience,
4(1), 1-10.
Zickfeld, J. H., Kunst, J. R. & Hohle, S. M. (2018). Too sweet to eat: Exploring the
effects of cuteness on meat consumption. Appetite, 120(1), 181-195.