臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究的目的是探討在交易上等值(即消費者付出的金額是相同的)，但以不同訊息框架或描述的促銷方式如何影響消費者的知覺節省。本研究主張對不同促銷方案偏好的差異，主要來自於消費者心理會計運作的差異：也就是消費者受到不同框架訊息的影響，而產生不同的心理會計運作，使得不同的訊息框架下消費者對每一件促銷商品的成本配置是不同的。
基於屬性相符原則(Tversky, 1977)和Houston, Sherman, 和Baker(1989)的實證結果，作者推論消費者在面對混合促銷時，會聚焦於最後一件商品，因此在每一件商品上對於促銷折扣產生不同的配置。本研究利用三個實驗來加以驗證本研究的主張：實驗一的結果驗證相對於全部折扣框架(例如：兩件75折)，消費者會比較偏好於聚焦折扣框架(例如：第二件5折)的促銷方案；此外，實驗一也證實，當最後一件商品發生損失時(例如：已經購買的咖啡打翻了)，相較於聚焦折扣框架，消費者會認為在全部折扣框架下會感到較心疼。實驗二採用組間設計以排除實驗一的結果是來自組內設計的影響，並採用不同的決策任務情境，以及不同的促銷折扣標準，再次驗證本研究的主張。實驗三促發消費者聚焦的商品(第一件vs.最後一件)，結果發現，當促發消費者聚焦在第一件商品時，促銷框架的效果會受到干擾，進一步支持本研究的主張。
本研究提供一個更完整的觀點來探討促銷框架如何影響消費者的偏好差異，並且以心理會計成本配置的觀點來解釋不同的促銷框架效果，這不僅說明了本研究的結果，也可以解釋過去促銷相關研究的發現。
關鍵詞：心理會計(mental accounting)、屬性相符原則(feature matching principle)、促銷折扣框架(framing of sales promotions)

This research has explored the reason for which the relative attractiveness of mixed promotions, with the same total cost, may vary depending on their frames (e.g., “buy two, get 25% off” versus “get the second one 50% off”). Different frames influence consumers’ mental accounting processes, as well as the determination of the referent and subject of their price comparison. Therefore, a focused discount promotion (e.g., last item for x% off) should be more attractive than an all discount promotion (i.e., buy N, get y% off). Participants perceive more savings when they consider a focused discount framing because they assign the discounts differently to each item and more on the final item in the mixed promotion; however, priming participants to focus on the first (rather then the final) item reduces this effect. This more comprehensive view of the framing effects of mixed promotions suggests some ways companies might frame their promotions to increase their relative attractiveness.
Keywords：mental accounting、feature matching principle、framing of sales promotions

目錄
摘要 iii
Abstract iv
誌謝 v
目錄 vi
表目錄 viii
圖目錄 viii
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究動機 1
1.2 研究目的 4
1.3 研究架構 5
1.4 研究流程 7
第二章 文獻探討 8
2.1 框架效果與促銷方式 8
2.2 心理會計(mental accounting theory) 12
2.3 屬性相符原則(feature matching principle) 18
2.4 假說 21
第三章 研究方法與統計分析 24
3.1 實驗一 24
一. 實驗一A 25
二. 實驗一B 26
3.2 實驗二 31
3.3 實驗三 37
第四章 結論與建議 44
4.1 研究結果 44
4.2 行銷理論之意涵 44
4.3 行銷實務之建議 46
4.4 研究限制與未來研究之建議 47
參考文獻 48
附錄A：實驗一A 51
附錄B：實驗一B 52
附錄C：實驗二-買三送一情境 54
附錄D：實驗二-買四張75折情境 56
附錄E：實驗三-促發在第一杯的情境 58
附錄F：實驗三-促發在第二杯的情境 60

參考文獻
1.Barnes, J. G., “Factors Influencing Consumer Reaction to Retail Newspaper Sale Advertising.” In E. Mazze, (Ed.), Combined Proceedings, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, 471-477, 1975.
2.Chen, S. S., Monroe, K. B. and Lou, Y. C., “The Effect of Framing Price Promotion Messages on Consumers’ Perception and Purchase Intentions,” Journal of Retailing, 74 (3), 353-372, 1998.
3.Diamond, W. D. and Campbell, L., “The Framing of Sales Promotions: Effects on Reference Price Change,” Advance in Consumer Research, 16, 241-247, 1989.
4.Diamond, W. D. and Johnson, R. R., “The Framing of Sales Promotions: An Approach to Classification,” Advance in Consumer Research, 17, 494-500, 1990.
5.Diamond, W. D. and Sanyal, A., “The Effect of Framing on the Choice of Supermarket Coupons, ” Advance in Consumer Research, 17, 488-493, 1990.
6.Diamond, W. D., “Just What Is a Dollar’s Worth? Consumer Reactions to Price Discounts vs. Extra Product Promotions,” Journal of Retailing, 68(3), 254-270, 1992.
7.Emery, F., ‘‘Some Psychological Aspects of Price,’’ Pricing Strategy, ed. Bernard Taylor and Gordon Wills, London: Staples, 98-111, 1969
8.Gabor, A. and Granger, C. W. J., “Price Sensitivity of the Consumer,” Journal of Advertising Research, 4(4), 40-44, 1964.
9.Gourville, J. T. and Soman, D., “Transaction Decoupling: How Price Bundling Affects the Decision to Consume,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 30-44, 2001.
10.Gourville, J. T., “Pennies-a-Day: The Effect of Temporal Reframing on Transaction Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24(March), 395-408, 1998.
11.Grewal, D. Marmorstein, H. and Sharma, A., “Communicating Price Information Through Semantic Cues: The Moderating Effects of Situation and Discount Size,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23(September), 148-155, 1996.
12.Hardesty, D. M. and Bearden, W. O., “Consumer Evaluations of Different Promotion Types and Price Presentations: The Moderating Role of Promotional Benefit Level,” Journal of Retailing, 79(1), 17-25, 2003.
13.Harlam, B.A. , Krishna, D.R.Lehmann, and C.Mela, “Impact of Bundle Type, Price Framing and Familiarity on Purchase Intension for the Bundle,” Journal of Business Research, 33(May), 57-66, 1995.
14.Houston, D. A. Sherman, S. J. and Baker, S. M., “The Influence of Unique Features and Direction of Comparison on Preferences,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(2), 121-141, 1989.
15.Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A., “Prospect Theory: Am Analysis of Decision under Risk,” Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291, 1979.
16.Levin, I. P. and Gaeth, G. J., “How Consumers Are affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product,” Journal of Consumer Research,15(December), 374-378, 1988.
17.Lichtenstein, D. R. Burton, S. and Karson, E. J., “The Effect of Semantic Cues on Consumer Perceptions of Reference Price Ads,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18(December), 380- 391, 1991.
18.Mervis, C. B. and Rosch, E., ‘‘Categorization of Natural Objects,’’ Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 82-115, 1981.
19.Nunes, J. C. and Park, C. W., “Incommensurate Resources: Not Just More of the Same,” Journal of Marketing Research, 40(1), 26-38, 2003.
20.Prelec, D. and Loewenstein, G., “The Res and the Black: Mental Accounting of Savings and Debt,” Marketing Science, 17(1), 4-28, 1998.
21.Schwarz, N. and Bless, H., ‘‘Constructing Reality and Its Alternatives: An Inclusion/Exclusion Model of Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Social Judgment,’’ The Construction of Social Judgments, ed. Leonard L. Martin and Abraham Tesser, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 217–245, 1992.
22.Seibert, J. L., “What Consumers Think about Bouns Pack Sales Promotion,” Marketing News, 31(4), 9-11, 1997.
23.Shafir, E. and Thaler, R. H., “Invest Now, Drink Later, Spend Never: On the Mental Accounting of Delayed Consumption,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 27(5), 694-712, 2006.
24.Sherif, M. and Hovland, C., “Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change,” New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1961.
25.Smith, M. F. and Sinha, I., “The Impact of Price and Extra Product Promotions on Store Preference,” International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 28(2), 83-92, 2000.
26.Soman, D. and Cheema, A., “The Effect of Windfall Gain on the Sunk Cost Effect,” Marketing Letters, 12(1), 51-62, 2001.
27.Soman, D., “Contextual Effects of Payment Mechanism on Purchase Intention: Check or Charge?,” Unpublished working paper, University of Colorado, 1997.
28.Stokes, M.E., Davies, C.S., and Koch, G.G., “Categorical Data Analysis using the SAS System,” Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc, 1995.
29.Sujan, M. , ‘‘Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgments,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (June) , 31-46, 1985.
30.Thaler, R. H., “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice,” Marketing Science, 4(3), 199-124, 1985.
31.Thaler, R. H., “Mental Accounting Matters,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(3), 183-206, 1999.
32.Tversky, A., “Features of Similarity,” Psychological Review, 84(4), 327-352, 1979.