↓ Skip to main content

Logo Effects on Brand Extension Evaluations from the Electrophysiological Perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Logo Effects on Brand Extension Evaluations from the Electrophysiological Perspective
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2017.00113
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qian Shang, Guanxiong Pei, Shenyi Dai, Xiaoyi Wang

Abstract

Brand extension typically has two strategies: brand name extension (BN) and brand logo extension (BL). The current study explored which strategy (BN or BL) better enhanced the success of dissimilar brand extension and product promotion in enterprises. Event-related potentials (ERPs) were used to investigate electrophysiological processes when subjects evaluated their acceptance of the brand extension using a combined picture of S1 and S2. S1 was a famous brand presented by two identity signs (brand name and brand logo). S2 was a picture of an extension product that belonged to a dissimilar product category than S1. The behavior data showed that BL was more acceptable than BN in the dissimilar brand extension. The neurophysiology process was reflected by a less negative N2 component and a larger P300 component in the BL than in the BN. We suggested that N2 reflected a whole conflict between the brand-product combination and the long-term memory and that P300 could be regarded as the reflection of the categorization process in the working memory.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 22%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Researcher 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 8 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 6 22%
Neuroscience 4 15%
Psychology 2 7%
Linguistics 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 9 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 March 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#10,138
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#281,960
of 321,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#190
of 213 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 213 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.