The automotive industry introduces a sizable number of new automobile products annually. The naming of new products may have significant impact on their market performance. Diverging from prior research on the impact of product names, companies’ innovative consciousness endows them with a certain level of proactive positioning, thereby implementing independent naming strategies after considering product factors and consumer preferences passively. This paper analyzes the drivers of the market performance of sequential products on the naming of new products in Chinese automotive industry. We collected market share data and names of various car series from January 2007 to September 2022. Then, we calculated semantic distances between names and performed empirical tests. Our findings show that firms demonstrate a risk preference pattern contrary to traditional prospect theory when using the previous car series’ market share as a reference point. In the interplay between market orientation and risk preferences, the relationship between the market share of the last car series and the similarity in names between old and new car series follows an inverted U-shaped pattern. This study extends the discussion on risk preferences within the behavioral theory of the firm (BTOF) and proposes a decision mechanism for product naming that considers market and firm factors during the response phase of market orientation.
AfshariH.PengQ.& Asme. (2015). Using big data to minimize uncertainty effects in adaptable product design. ASME international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference. Boston, MA.
2.
ArtachoM. A.BallesterA.AlcantaraE. (2010). Analysis of the impact of slight changes in product formal attributes on user's emotions and configuration of an emotional space for successful design. Journal of Engineering Design, 21(6), 693–705. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820902875058
3.
ArthurJ.BejaeiM. (2022). The process of creating a new brand name for a fruit variety: A review and suggested improvements. Horticulturae, 8(11), 990. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8110990
4.
AudiaP. G.GreveH. R. (2006). Less likely to fail: Low performance, firm size, and factory expansion in the shipbuilding industry. Management Science, 52(1), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0446
5.
AzarS. L.AiméI.UlrichI. (2018). Brand gender-bending: The impact of an endorsed brand strategy on consumers’ evaluation of gendered mixed-target brands. European Journal of Marketing, 52(7/8), 1598–1624. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-04-2017-0278
6.
BabinaL. V.DzyubaK. A. (2015). Interpretation of English trademark names of perfumery, cosmetics and household chemistry: cognitive approach. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 6(1), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.14505/jarle.v6.1(11)
7.
BacchiegaE.ColucciM.DenicoloV.MagnaniM. (2024). Only the ugly face? A theoretical model of brand dilution. Management Science, 70(5), 3182–3199. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.00852
8.
BaltasG.SaridakisC. (2009). Brand‐name effects, segment differences, and product characteristics: An integrated model of the car market. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 18(2), 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420910949040
9.
BansalG.ZahediF. M.GefenD. (2016). Do context and personality matter? Trust and privacy concerns in disclosing private information online. Information & Management, 53(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.08.001
10.
BaoY.ShaoA. T.RiversD. (2008). Creating new brand names: Effects of relevance, connotation, and pronunciation. Journal of Advertising Research, 48(1), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.2501/s002184990808015x
11.
BarberisN. C. (2013). Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: A review and assessment. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1), 173–196. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.27.1.173
12.
BaxterS.IlicicJ.KulczynskiA. (2017). You see froot, you think fruit: Examining the effectiveness of pseudohomophone priming. European Journal of Marketing, 51(5/6), 885–902. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-01-2016-0038
13.
BergerB.WatermanM. S.YuY. W. (2021). Levenshtein distance, sequence comparison and biological database search. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 67(6), 3287–3294. https://doi.org/10.1109/tit.2020.2996543
14.
BluhmM.KrahnenJ. P. (2014). Systemic risk in an interconnected banking system with endogenous asset markets. Journal of Financial Stability, 13, 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2014.04.002
15.
BrouthersL. E.O'DonnellE.KeigD. L. (2013). Isomorphic pressures, peripheral product attributes and emerging market firm export performance. Management International Review, 53(5), 687–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-013-0170-7
16.
CarnevaleM.LunaD.LermanD. (2017). Brand linguistics: A theory-driven framework for the study of language in branding. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(2), 572–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2017.01.003
17.
CarrollG. R.KhessinaO. M.McKendrickD. G. (2010). The social lives of products: Analyzing product demography for management theory and practice. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 157–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416521003732362
18.
ChiuC.-M.WangE. T. G.FangY.-H.HuangH. (2014). Understanding customers' repeat purchase intentions in B2C e-commerce: The roles of utilitarian value, hedonic value and perceived risk. Information Systems Journal, 24(1), 85–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2012.00407.x
19.
ChuJ. F.ChinK. S.LiuX. W.WangY. (2017). A prospect theory based approach to multiple attribute decision making considering the decision maker's attitudinal character. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 32(3), 2563–2578. https://doi.org/10.3233/jifs-16543
20.
ClarkW. A. V.LisowskiW. (2017). Prospect theory and the decision to move or stay. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(36), E7432–E7440. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708505114
21.
CuiY. (2019). The presentation of brand personality in English-Chinese brand name translation. International Journal of Market Research, 61(1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785318775358
22.
de FigueiredoJ. M.KyleM. K. (2006). Surviving the gales of creative destruction: The determinants of product turnover. Strategic Management Journal, 27(3), 241–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.512
23.
DemingW.E.NeumannJ.V.MorgensternO. (1945). Theory of games and economic behavior. 100 Years of Math Milestones. https://doi.org/10.2307/2280142
24.
DerfusP. J. M. P.MaggittiP. G.GrimmC. M.SmithK. G. (2008). The red queen effect: Competitive actions and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.30708624
Di-weiL.Wei-hongC.Wei-mingQ., (2023). Performance aspiration gap and inbound open innovation behavior of the firms: A cognitive - behavioral perspective. Journal of Management Science and Engineering, 26(02), 49–65.
27.
DongX.ZhangZ.HinschC. A.ZouS. (2016). Reconceptualizing the elements of market orientation: A process-based view. Industrial Marketing Management, 56(1), 130–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.12.005
28.
FingerR.GarciaV.McCallumC.RommelJ. (2024). A note on European farmers' preferences under cumulative prospect theory. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75(1), 465–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12565
29.
GielensK.SteenkampJ.-B. E. M. (2007). Drivers of consumer acceptance of new packaged goods: An investigation across products and countries. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2006.12.003
30.
GligorD.GligorN.MaloniM. (2019). The impact of the supplier’s market orientation on the customer market orientation-performance relationship. International Journal of Production Economics, 216(4), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.04.022
31.
GlynnM. A.AbzugR. (2002). Institutionalizing identity: Symbolic isomorphism and organizational names. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 267–280. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069296
32.
GreveH. R. (2003). A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: Evidence from shipbuilding. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 685–702. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040661
33.
GuruR. R. D.PaulssenM.JaputraA. (2024). Role of brand attachment and satisfaction in driving customer behaviors for durables: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 217–254. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-01-2022-0028
34.
Hanzaee KHaAL. (2012). The influence of brand loyalty on cosmetics purchase intention of Iranian female consumers. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(No.5), 5389–5398.
35.
HlédikE.HorváthC. (2022). Strategic use of preference stability information for product evaluation. International Journal of Market Research, 64(6), 738–755. https://doi.org/10.1177/14707853221101763
36.
HönlA.MeissnerP.WulfT. (2017). Risk attribution theory: An exploratory conceptualization of individual choice under uncertainty. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 67, 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2017.02.001
37.
HouJ.ShenH. C. (2022). Contract manufacturer's market entry and its impact under asymmetric customer loyalty. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 31(2), 174–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-021-5511-7
38.
HuS.OblójJ.ZhouX. Y. (2023). A casino gambling model under cumulative prospect theory: Analysis and algorithm. Management Science, 69(4), 2474–2496. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4414
39.
HuiJ. (2016). An economic and psychological discussion of risk taking and risk attitude based on expected utility theory, prospect theory and psychological risk-return model. Financial Economy, (12), 140–141. https://doi.org/10.14057/j.cnki.cn43-1156/f.2016.12.058
40.
IyerD. N.MillerK. D. (2008). Performance feedback, slack, and the timing of acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4), 808–822. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.33666024
41.
JaputraA.SitumorangR.MarianiM.PereiraV. (2024). Understanding employer branding within MNC subsidiaries: Evidence from MNC hotel subsidiaries in Indonesia. Journal of International Management, 30(1), 101100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2023.101100
42.
JiangF. W.DingH.JinF. J. (2023). Reference point effect, corporate governance and financial restatement of listed companies. Economic Research, 58(10), 191–208.
43.
JoshiP.KronrodA. (2019). Sounds of green: How brand name sounds metaphorically convey environmental friendliness. Journal of Advertising, 49(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2019.1696720
44.
KahnemanD. (2015). Thinking, fast and slow. Fortune, 172(1), 20.
45.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Choices, Values, and Frames, 47(2), 17–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
46.
KampsJ. (2009). Michael T. Hannan, lászló pólos, and glenn R. Carroll: Logics of organization theory: Audiences, codes, and ecologies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(2), 350–353. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2009.54.2.350
47.
KeszeyT. (2020). Environmental orientation, sustainable behaviour at the firm-market interface and performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 243(1), 118524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118524
48.
KhessinaO. M.CarrollG. R. (2008). Product demography of de novo and de alio firms in the optical disk drive industry, 1983-1999. Organization Science, 19(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0301
49.
KhessinaO. M.ReisS. (2016). The limits of reflected glory: The beneficial and harmful effects of product name similarity in the U.S. Network TV program industry, 1944–2003. Organization Science, 27(2), 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1036
50.
KlinkR. R.AthaideG. A. (2010). Consumer innovativeness and the use of new versus extended brand names for new products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00697.x
51.
KohliA.JaworskiB. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251866
52.
KohliC. S.HarichK. R.LeuthesserL. (2005). Creating brand identity: A study of evaluation of new brand names. Journal of Business Research, 58(11), 1506–1515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.07.007
53.
KovalenkoL.SorescuA.HoustonM. B. (2021). What brand do I use for my new product? The impact of new product branding decisions on firm value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 50(2), 338–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-021-00817-8
54.
KrishnanR. (1998). The effect of store name, brand name and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 331–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(99)80099-2
55.
KronrodA.LowreyT. M. (2016). Tastlé-Nestlé, Toogle-Google: The effects of similarity to familiar brand names in brand name innovation. Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 1182–1189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.09.015
56.
KusevP.van SchaikP.AytonP.DentJ.ChaterN. (2009). Exaggerated risk: Prospect theory and probability weighting in risky choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 35(6), 1487–1505. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017039
57.
KuuselaP.KeilT.MaulaM. (2017). Driven by aspirations, but in what direction? Performance shortfalls, slack resources, and resource‐consuming vs. resource‐freeing organizational change. Strategic Management Journal, 38(5), 1101–1120. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2544
58.
LamP. Y.ChanA.GopaocoH.OhK.SoT. H. (2013). Dual branding strategy for a successful new product launch in China. Business Horizons, 56(5), 583–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2013.05.003
59.
LazaroiuG.NeguritaO.GrecuI.GrecuG.MitranP. C. (2020). Consumers’ decision-making process on social commerce platforms: Online trust, perceived risk, and purchase intentions. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 890. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00890
60.
LeeD.NamK.HanI.ChoK. (2022). From free to fee: Monetizing digital content through expected utility-based recommender systems. Information & Management, 59(6), 103681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2022.103681
61.
LeonhardtJ. M.PechmannC. (2021). Is this product easy to control? Liabilities of using difficult-to-pronounce product names. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 165(3), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2021.04.009
62.
LiF.LiaoL.ZhangL.ZhuX.ZhangB.WangZ. (2020). An efficient approach for measuring semantic similarity combining WordNet and Wikipedia. IEEE Access, 8, 184318–184338. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.3025611
63.
LiH. R.Van LooE. J.BaiJ. F.van TrijpH. C. M. (2024). Understanding consumer attitude toward the name framings of cultured meat: Evidence from China. Appetite, 195(2), 107240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107240
64.
LiM.ChinC. H.LiS. K.WongW. P. M.ThongJ. Z.GaoK. (2022). The role of influencing factors on brand equity and firm performance with innovation culture as a moderator: A study on art education firms in China. Sustainability, 15(1), 519. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010519
65.
Lind-CombsH. C.BentT.HoltR. F.ClopperC. G.BrownE. (2023). Comparing Levenshtein distance and dynamic time warping in predicting listeners’ judgments of accent distance. Speech Communication, 155, 102987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2023.102987
66.
LiuX. W.YangY. Y.JiangJ. (2023). The behavioral topsis based on prospect theory and regret theory. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, 22(05), 1591–1615. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219622022500778
67.
LowreyT. M.ShrumL. J.DubitskyT. M. (2003). The relation between brand-name linguistic characteristics and brand-name memory. Journal of Advertising, 32(3), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2003.10639137
68.
MartinC.MatharT.DuffC.JohnsonK.AndersonT. (2023). The impact of behavioural framing effects on market research conversion rates. International Journal of Market Research, 65(5), 507–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/14707853221133048
69.
MerzM. A.ZarantonelloL.GrappiS. (2018). How valuable are your customers in the brand value co-creation process? The development of a customer Co-creation value (CCCV) scale. Journal of Business Research, 82, 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.08.018
70.
MishinaY.DykesB. J.BlockE. S.PollockT. G. (2010). Why “good” firms do bad things: The effects of high aspirations, high expectations, and prominence on the incidence of corporate illegality. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 701–722. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.52814578
71.
MotokiK.ParkJ.PathakA.SpenceC. (2021). Constructing healthy food names: On the sound symbolism of healthy food. Food Quality and Preference, 90(8), 104157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104157
NegroG.LeungM. D. (2013). “Actual” and perceptual effects of category spanning. Organization Science, 24(3), 684–696. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0764
74.
O'BrienJ. P.DavidP. (2014). Reciprocity and R&D search: Applying the behavioral theory of the firm to a communitarian context. Strategic Management Journal, 35(4), 550–565. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2105
75.
OhlweinM.BrunoP. (2022). A brand like a friend—how brand likeability influences brand perception. International Journal of Market Research, 64(3), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/14707853211039190
76.
OlsonJ. C.DoverP. (1976). Effects of expectation creation and disconfirmation on belief elements of cognitive structure. ACR North American Advances.
77.
ParkJ.MotokiK.PathakA.SpenceC. (2021). A sound brand name: The role of voiced consonants in pharmaceutical branding. Food Quality and Preference, 90, 104104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104104
78.
Paté-CornellE. (2024). Preferences in AI algorithms: The need for relevant risk attitudes in automated decisions under uncertainties. Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14268
79.
PingQ. (2019). Experimental research on the spillover mechanism of brand crisis network. Journal of Management, 16(04), 561–568.
80.
PogacarR.ShrumL. J.LowreyT. M., (2018). The effects of linguistic devices on consumer information processing and persuasion: A language Complexity × Processing mode framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(4), 689–711. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1052
PuligaddaS.RossW. T.GrewalR. (2012). Individual differences in brand schematicity. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(1), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0051
83.
QinJ.LiuX.PedryczW. (2017). An extended TODIM multi-criteria group decision making method for green supplier selection in interval type-2 fuzzy environment. European Journal of Operational Research, 258(2), 626–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.09.059
84.
QingL. L.ChunD.DagestaniA.LiP. (2022). Does proactive green technology innovation improve financial performance? Evidence from listed companies with semiconductor concepts stock in China. Sustainability, 14(8), 4600. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084600
RosaJ. A.JudsonK. M.PoracJ. F. (2005). On the sociocognitive dynamics between categories and product models in mature markets. Journal of Business Research, 58(1), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0148-2963(03)00080-8
87.
RoundG.RoperS. (2015). Untangling the brand name from the branded entity the conceptualisation and value of the established brand name. European Journal of Marketing, 49(11/12), 1941–1960. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-09-2014-0541
88.
RoundG.RoperS. (2017). When and why does the name of the brand still matter?European Journal of Marketing, 51(11/12), 2118–2137. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-06-2016-0360
89.
SedliacikováM.AlácP.MoresováM. (2020). How behavioral aspects influence the sustainable financial decisions of shareholders: An empirical study and proposal for a relevant decision-making concept. Sustainability, 12(12), 4813. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124813
90.
SeoJ. Y.ScammonD. L. (2017). Do green packages lead to misperceptions? The influence of package colors on consumers’ perceptions of brands with environmental claims. Marketing Letters, 28(3), 357–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-017-9420-y
91.
ShepherdD. A.WilliamsT. A.PatzeltH. (2015). Thinking about entrepreneurial decision making: Review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 41(1), 11–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314541153
92.
ShrumL. J.LowreyT. M.LunaD.LermanD.LiuM. (2012). Sound symbolism effects across languages: Implications for global brand names. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(3), 275–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.03.002
93.
Shuang ZhangX. Z.HuC. (2015). A survey of semantic similarity and its application to social network analysis. Proceedings 2015 ieee international conference on big data (pp. 2362–2367). IEEE
94.
SinghS. K.Del GiudiceM.TarbaS. Y.De BernardiP. (2022). Top management team shared leadership, market-oriented culture, innovation capability, and firm performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(6), 2544–2554. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2019.2946608
95.
SkorinkoJ. L.KemmerS.HeblM. R.LaneD. M. (2006). A rose by any other name . . .: Color-naming influences on decision making. Psychology and Marketing, 23(12), 975–993. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20142
96.
SongH. Q.DuanH. S.DengS. J.XuJ. (2022). Brand extension and channel structure: An analysis of the effects of social influence. Omega, 110, 102626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2022.102626
97.
SongH. Q.YangH. J. (2023). Ethnic restaurants' outdoor signage: The effect of colour and name on consumers' food perceptions and dining intentions. British Food Journal, 125(1), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1108/bfj-08-2021-0888
98.
SoviarJ.HolubcíkM.VodakJ.RechtoríkM.PollákF. (2019). The presentation of automotive brands in the on-line EnvironmentThe perspective of KIA, peugeot, toyota and VW in the Slovak republic. Sustainability, 11(7), 2132. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072132
99.
Subodh Bhat GEKaKAOD. (1998). An investigation of consumer reactions to the use of different brand names. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 7(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610429810209728
SunZ. Q.YoonS. J. (2022). What makes people pay premium price for eco-friendly products? The effects of ethical consumption consciousness, CSR, and product quality. Sustainability, 14(23), 15513. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315513
102.
TaylorS. E.FiskeS. T. T. (2020). Social cognition: From brains to culture. Social Cognition, 1–672.
103.
TianX. L.MaJ. S.LiL.XuZ.TangM. (2022). Development of prospect theory in decision making with different types of fuzzy sets: A state-of-the-art literature review. Information Sciences, 615(2), 504–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2022.10.016
104.
TopolinskiS. (2017). Articulation patterns in names: A hidden route to consumer preference. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(4), 382–391. https://doi.org/10.1086/692820
105.
TruongY.KlinkR. R.SimmonsG.GrinsteinA.PalmerM. (2017). Branding strategies for high-technology products: The effects of consumer and product innovativeness. Journal of Business Research, 70, 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.003
106.
UllahM. I.RuheG.GarousiV. (2010). Decision support for moving from a single product to a product portfolio in evolving software systems. Journal of Systems and Software, 83(12), 2496–2512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2010.07.049
107.
WangR. X. (2018). When prospect theory meets consumer choice models: Assortment and pricing management with reference prices. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 20(3), 583–600. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2017.0688
108.
WenF.LiC.ShaH.ShaoL. (2021). How does economic policy uncertainty affect corporate risk-taking? Evidence from China. Finance Research Letters, 41(2), 101840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101840
109.
WlodarskaK.Pawlak-LemanskaK.GóreckiT.SikorskaE. (2019). Factors influencing consumers' perceptions of food: A study of apple juice using sensory and visual attention methods. Foods, 8(11), 545. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8110545
110.
WuF.SunQ.GrewalR.LiS. (2018). Brand name types and consumer demand: Evidence from China’s automobile market. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(1), 158–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243718820571
111.
WuF.SunQ.GrewalR.LiS. (2019). Brand name types and consumer demand: Evidence from China’s automobile market. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(1), 158–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243718820571
112.
WuF.SunQ.GrewalR.LiS. (2019). Brand name types and consumer demand: Evidence from China's automobile market. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(1), 158–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243718820571
113.
XiaoT. W.WeiH.ChenS.LiuF. (2023). The impact of audio-visual representation of a brand name on consumers and its mechanisms. Advances in Psychological Science, 31(9), 1756–1774. https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.j.1042.2023.01756
114.
YanX. M.ZhaoW. H.YuY. G. (2022). Optimal product line design with reference price effects. European Journal of Operational Research, 302(3), 1045–1062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2022.01.032
115.
YangC.CastroA. (2008). Representing tone in Levenshtein distance. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 2(1-2), 205–219. https://doi.org/10.3366/e1753854809000391
116.
YangS. Q.HuangG. Y.OfoghiB.YearwoodJ. (2022). Short text similarity measurement using context-aware weighted biterms. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 34(8), e5765. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.5765
117.
ZengX. T.YuG. F.WuJ. (2019). A new approach for hybrid multi-attribute variable weight decision making with decision maker's behavioral character. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 37(6), 7737–7746. https://doi.org/10.3233/jifs-182539
118.
ZhangR.HanaokaT. (2021). Deployment of electric vehicles in China to meet the carbon neutral target by 2060: Provincial disparities in energy systems, CO2 emissions, and cost effectiveness. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 170(2), 105622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105622
119.
ZhongY. H.LiY. H.YangY.LiT.JiaY. (2022). An improved three-way decision model based on prospect theory. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 142(C), 109–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2021.11.011
