Search

The article offers information on utilizing humanoid robots to support students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) by leveraging business model canvas (BMC) and customer discovery interviews. Topics discussed include the development of a framework for robot-student-teacher interactions, the role of BMC in designing educational robots; and also mentions about the integration of consumer behavior research with social robotics.

The article focuses on examining the impact of anthropomorphism, xenocentrism, intentionality, and sociality (AXIS) concepts in robotics on robot likeability and successful human-robot interaction (HRI) implementation. The study utilizes data from various scales to measure these concepts, finding that pivotal AXIS concepts positively influence robot likeability and HRI implementation, with perceived inferiority moderating the relationship between anthropomorphism and likeability.

Research Question Marketing literature has focused very little on how consumers evaluate diffusion brands as potential substitutes for parent brands with respect to country-of-origin (COO) and countryof- manufacture (COM) image studies, brand authenticity, and contagion. The purpose of this article is to investigate: (1) whether incongruence (or conflicting COO-COM scenario) versus congruence (or matching COO-COM scenario) between COO and COM images for parent and diffusion brands affect consumers' purchase intentions with respect to levels of purchase involvement (high versus low involvement brands); and (2) how conflicting versus matching COO-COM situations lead to perceptions of contagion and brand authenticity for everyday consumer products and brands. Method and Data In our research, we used real-life brands and their advertisements to maintain the validity of conflicting and matching COO-COM combinations, similar to Arora et al. (2015); and our audience is 'French' nationals. Studies 1 and 2 test conflicting COO-COM situations for high involvement versus low involvement parent and diffusion brands. The goal of these studies is to empirically distinguish the psychological mechanisms of contagion and brand authenticity in relation to COO-COM incongruence. These experiments deal with two scenarios. Study 1 explores the conflicting scenario when consumers confront a parent brand along with its diffused brand from developed COO and developing COM; while Study 2 explores a reverse (and often rare) conflicting scenario when consumers confront a parent and its diffused brand from developing COO and developed COM. In studies 3 and 4, we manipulate COO and COM matching scenarios (developed COO and COM versus emerging COO-COM matching situations) along with high versus low product involvement situations. Study 3 explores the matching scenario when consumers confront a parent brand along with its diffused brand from developed COO and (the same) developed COM; while Study 4 explores a reverse matching scenario when consumers confront a parent and its diffused brand from developing COO and (the same) emerging COM. We hypothesize that differences in COO-COM conflicting as well as matching scenarios, demonstrated through experimental studies 1-4, will correspond to differences in consumer beliefs and attitudes towards brand authenticity, brand contagion (transferred essence), and subsequent product valuation exhibited through consumers' purchase intentions. Summary of Findings In four experiments, the authors provide strong evidence that consumers' willingness to purchase branded parent and diffusion brands differ with respect to high versus low involvement product situations under matching and conflicting COO-COM scenarios. With regard to contagion effects, the authors find that due to contagion (i.e., the notion that objects may acquire a special aura or essence or charisma) beliefs of consumers, consumers viewed parent brands as more contagious and authentic over diffusion brands during conflicting COO-COM situations; while they preferred diffusion brands over parents during matching COO-COM situations. Key Contributions Our research contributes to the existing literature in several respects. Previous research has examined how COO effects shape consumer preferences (e.g., Johansson, Douglas, and Nonaka, 1985; Maheswaran, 1994; Schooler, 1965; Verlegh and Steenkamp, 1999; Arora et al., 2015); how COO relates to the literature streams on authenticity and contagion (e.g., Grayson and Martinec, 2004; Argo, Dahl, and Morales, 2006, 2008; Beverland and Farrelly, 2010; Newman and Dhar, 2014); and how COO and COM effects impact hedonic and utilitarian, diffused and luxury parent brands (Arora et al., 2015). The present experimental studies in our research provide evidence that both COO and COM are important to understand consumers' perceptions and preferences towards parent and diffusion brands, especially in the context of psychological mechanisms of brands' authenticity and contagion during conflicting versus matching COOCOM scenarios. We offer implications for researchers and practitioners to evaluate consumer preferences for diffusion branding; and how brand contagion and authenticity result in varying consumers' purchase intentions with respect to COO-COM effects on diffusion branding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An abstract of the article "Strategic Sustainable Purchasing and Organizational Sustainability Performance: An Empirical Investigation" by Amit Arora and colleagues is presented.