|
RC：超市Promotion试吃
Consider an experience that most people are familiar with: sampling food items in a grocery store. If a food sample tastes good, the following question arises: Is the pleasure that consumers experience, and therefore their subsequent preference for the sample, stronger if they are distracted while tasting the item than if they are paying attention while tasting the item? Thus, from marketers' perspectives, the following question arises: Would it be better to have a protocol at the sampling station that distracts consumers, or should marketers try to focus consumers' attention on the experience while they taste the food product?
Although the focus of this research is on pleasure rather than on pain, several researchers have noted the overlap in neural substrates that are activated by pleasurable and aversive stimuli. Therefore, it is possible that findings in the domain of pain apply to the domain of pleasure as well. A robust but counterintuitive finding in research on pain is that that the intensity of the somatosensory experience is actually greater when a person is distracted rather than paying attention to specific aspects of the experience. If such findings in the domain of pain also apply to the domain of pleasure, the effects of distraction in the domain of pleasure may also run counter to intuition and to the opinions of the marketing experts whom we surveyed. Specifically, if findings in the domain of pain are consistent with those in the domain of pleasure, distraction (versus paying attention) while tasting a food sample should actually increase the intensity of the pleasure experienced and therefore increase subsequent preferences for the sampled option.
A major goal of this research was to identify the key influences on the choice of a sampled food item. We did this by focusing on a common issue in food sampling, namely, that the consumer is often distracted (e.g., by others, looking at information, his or her own thoughts) while tasting the sampled product. In examining how distractions could affect whether the sampled item was or was not chosen, we found support for a dual-process model of food sampling, which derives from work on the interplay of affect and cognition in decision making. This model proposes that two major components influence the choice of a sampled food item: an informational component and an affective component. These two inputs combine to influence the amount of pleasure that a person experiences when tasting a food sample, and this pleasure can then translate into choice. According to this model, the affective component is associated with automatic processes and is not affected by levels of distraction. In contrast, the informational component is associated with controlled processes and is affected by distractions.
第一段
在超市通常都会有试吃，然后一堆人就开始做了研究，发现了一些事情。
第二段，研究发现，
这种promotion sampling确实对购买会有影响，还发现人们购买这种sample主要根据information 和effect(现场吃的效果）来决定是不是购买的。
第三段
研究发现，这种促销的声音越大，就会对购买习惯产生越大的影响，也就是说，可以影响到effect这一块。如果人们不喜欢，那么声音越大，就会越使他们不想买；反之亦然。除了那些本来就是特别关注当场effect的人（这拨人不管促销声音大小都不会受到影响）
RC的文章应该是这篇研究的总结，只有摘要, 绿色的是文章中没有包括的，其实文章很简单的，貌似选项也不难。这篇RC出现在20-30之间，研究是05年的，估计是测试题
Sampling programs are a significant element of the promotions mix, particularly in the food category. In this research, the authors find that the degree to which consumers are distracted while sampling a product can influence the effectiveness of such programs. In particular, the authors find that distraction actually increases subsequent choice of the sampled food, a finding that is contrary to what industry experts predict. The authors propose a dual-process model of somatosensory experiences to account for the findings. In line with the model, the findings suggest that the ultimate pleasure that a consumer derives from the taste of a food sample depends on two components, an informational component and an affective component. Furthermore, the findings suggest that distraction affects the subsequent choice of the sampled item by increasing (decreasing) the impact of the affective component (informational component) on subsequent choice.
研究文献已经找到，读前言和结论了解背景就够了，关键是理解个别词汇的意思和研究记录和思路，这篇RC题好像不难的，3个，一个是main idea。2个好像都考infer。
文献下载地址http://www.91files.com/?CG6G3J7161ZWRIBU8I2I | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2009-10-5 18:37:00
楼主
