臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

隨著市場競爭日益激烈與消費者需求多樣化，廠商除了要提供價格誘因外，還要推陳出新來滿足消費者，以維持其競爭地位，於是價格促銷以及產品差異化為現今廣泛採用的新產品上市策略。
在價格促銷方面，近來有很多廠商採「抵價置換」( trade-in ) 的方式來促銷新上市的產品，如IBM推出升級個人電腦中央系統的Xtra方案；HP 惠普科技的『舊換“金”升級專案』。而增加新產品微關屬性 ( trivial attribute ) 則為差異化產品的可能作法，尤其是當愈來愈多競爭產品的各種重要屬性皆達到類似水準時。
消費者在面對目標品牌以「抵價置換」與增加「新產品微關屬性」的方式促銷新產品時，除了考量抵價後的價格與微關屬性實際帶來的利益外，尚會考量目標品牌與目前使用產品品牌的品牌權益差異。從消費者行為的觀點來看，當消費者在考量購物時，購買意願通常決定於其知覺獲得價值 ( perceived acquisition value ) 及知覺交易價值 ( perceived transaction value )。本研究以知覺價值 (Thaler，1985)為理論基礎，實證研究「抵價深度」與增加「新產品微關屬性」以及「品牌權益」對消費者知覺利益、價格公平知覺、知覺交易價值、知覺獲得價值與置換意願的影響，以了解目標品牌採抵價與增加新產品微關屬性此一新產品上市策略是否能達到使目標品牌與他牌的消費者置換產品的目標。
本研究採2 (產品新增屬性顯著微關、非微關)× 2 (高抵價深度、低抵價深度)× 4 (目標品牌的品牌權益與他牌的品牌權益沒有顯著差異、目標品牌的品牌權益大於他牌的品牌權益、目標品牌的品牌權益小於他牌的品牌權益；在目標品牌的品牌權益與他牌的品牌權益沒有顯著差異的情況下，又可分為消費者拿目標品牌的舊產品去置換目標品牌的新產品和消費者拿他牌舊產品去置換目標品牌的新產品兩種情境，因此品牌權益此一因子有四種水準)受試者間的實驗設計方式，以知覺利益、價格公平知覺、知覺獲得價值、知覺交易價值及置換意願為內生變數進行分析。主要分析工具為Cronbach’α檢定、獨立樣本t檢定、LISREL (線性結構關係模式)，而樣本的採樣以商學院的大學生為對象。
由實驗結果，本研究結論如下：
1、當產品新增屬性愈微關時，消費者的知覺利益就愈低；當推出新產品的品牌之品牌權益愈高，則消費者的知覺利益就愈高。
2、當消費者知覺利益愈高與抵價深度愈高時，消費者的價格公平知覺就愈高。
3、當消費者知覺利益、知覺交易價值與抵價深度愈高時，其知覺獲得價值就愈高。
4、當消費者價格公平知覺愈高，其知覺交易價值就愈高。
5、消費者的置換意願受其知覺獲得價值的影響。

Because of the fierce market competition and demand variety, firms that want tomaintain their competitiveness should offer price induces and update their products to satisfy the consumers, so that they often adopt price promotion and product differentiation as the launch strategies for new products.
Recently, there are a lot of firms adopting “trade-ins” to promote their new products, such as IBM, HP et al. And when the important attributes of every kind of products become the same, the supply of new product trivial attributes forms another possible practice of product differentiation.
When the target brand uses “trade-ins” as promotion strategy to promote its new product with trivial attributes, at this situation, besides the discount depth and the trivial attributes, consumers also consider the brand equity of the target brand and the using brand.
In terms of consumers’ behavior, the consumers’ purchase intentions often be influenced by their perceived acquisition value and perceived transaction value. This study, which is based on perceived value, tries to understand the effects of new product trivial attributes, trade-ins and brand equity on consumers’ perceived benefits, fair price perception, perceived transaction value, perceived acquisition value and replacement purchase intentions.
This study employs 2 (two levels of new product attributes, significant trivial and not significant trivial) × 2 (two levels of discount depth, high and low) × 4 (four levels of brand equity, the target brand’s brand equity is higher than other’s, the target brand’s brand equity is lower than other’s, the target brand’s brand equity is equal to other’s，at the level of the target brand’s brand equity is equal to other’s, it has two situations：consumers replace the target’s new product by the target’s old product and consumers replace the target’s new product by the other’s old product.) between-subjects factorial design. Datas were analyzed Cronbach’α, t test, and LISREL. The major conclusions are as followings：
1、As the new product adds more trivial attributes to consumers, they will perceive worse product benefits. AS the target brand has higher brand equity, consumers will perceive better product benefits.
2、As consumers perceive better product benefits and the discount depth is higher, consumers will have better fair price perception.
3、Consumers’ perceived acquisition value is positively influenced by their perceived product benefits, perceived transaction value and the discount depth.
4、Consumers’ perceived transaction value is positively correlated to their fair price perception.
5、And this higher acquisition value will lead to higher intentions to replace.

第一章 緒論
第一節 研究動機與問題
第二節 研究目的
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 抵價置換
第二節 產品微關屬性理論
第三節 品牌權益
第四節 知覺價值理論
第五節 價格公平知覺
第三章　 研究方法
第一節 研究架構
第二節 研究變數之定義與衡量
第三節 研究假設
第四節 研究設計
第五節 資料來源與分析工具
第四章 研究結果
第一節 樣本回收情形
第二節 外生變數之操弄檢定
第三節 內生變數之描述性統計、效度與信度
第四節 線性結構關係模式分析
第五章 研究結果與建議
第一節 研究結論
第二節 研究貢獻
第三節 行銷實務意涵
第四節 研究限制與未來研究建議
表 目 錄
表2-5.1 學者對內部參考價格的相關定義
表3-2.1 本研究外生變數之定義與衡量
表3-2.2 本研究內生變數之定義與衡量
表3-2.3 本研究結果變數之定義與衡量
表3-4.1 品牌權益的衡量問題
表3-4.2 品牌情境檢定結果
表3-4.3 受測者使用電子辭典的統計結果
表3-4.4 受測者評估電子辭典各功能屬性的統計結果
表3-4.5 受測者預期價格的檢驗結果
表3-4.6 期望價格為7000元的抵價深度統計結果
表3-4.7 期望價格為6600元的抵價深度統計結果
表3-4.8 抵價深度檢定結果
表4-1.1 有效樣本的基本資料
表4-1.2 各組有效樣本之回收情形
表4-2.1目標品牌的品牌權益與他牌的品牌權益沒有差異與目標品
牌的品牌權益大於他牌的品牌權益的操弄檢定結果
表4-2.2 目標品牌的品牌權益大於他牌的品牌權益與目標品牌的品牌權益小於他牌的品牌權益的操弄檢定結果
表4-2.3 目標品牌的品牌權益與他牌的品牌權益沒有差異與目標品
牌的品牌權益小於他牌的品牌權益的操弄檢定結果
表4-2.4 產品新增特性操弄檢定的結果
表4-2.5 價格操弄檢定結果
表4-2.6 期望價格為分別7000元與6600元之抵價深度操弄檢定結
果
表4-2.7 抵價深度操弄檢定結果
表4-3.1 品牌權益無異未整合前各實驗情境中內生變數之描述性統
計值
表4-3.2 A牌與B牌的品牌權益沒有差異的情況下，且重要屬性和高
抵價深度的實驗情境中，以A牌置換B牌與以B牌置換A牌在各內生變數的檢定結果
表4-3.3 A牌與B牌的品牌權益沒有差異的情況下，且微關屬性和高
抵價深度的實驗情境中，以A牌置換B牌與以B牌置換A牌在各內生變數的檢定結果
表4-3.4 A牌與B牌的品牌權益沒有差異的情況下，且重要屬性和低抵價深度的實驗情境中，以A牌置換B牌與以B牌置換A牌在各內生變數的檢定結果
表4-3.5 A牌與B牌的品牌權益沒有差異的情況下，且微關屬性和低抵價深度的實驗情境中，以A牌置換B牌與以B牌置換A牌在各內生變數的檢定結果
表4-3.6 A牌與B牌的品牌權益沒有差異的情況下，以A牌置換B牌與以B牌置換A牌在各內生變數的檢定結果
表4-3.7品牌權益無異整合後各實驗情境中內生變數之描述性統計值
表4-3.8 各內生變數之相關係數矩陣
表4-3.9 內生變數之因素分析結果與信度
表4-4.1 LISREL模型各變數路徑之關係及適合度檢定結果
圖 目 錄
圖2-1.1 商店、品牌名稱及折扣深度對消費者評價與購買意願影響之
模式
圖2-4.1 知覺價格、品質與價值之因果模式
圖2-4.2 期望理論之價值函數
圖2-4.3 交易效用理論
圖3-1.1 本研究之研究架構
圖3-2.1 本研究結構模式分析之假設

一、中文部分
1.王又鵬 (1992)，“廠商促銷活動對消費者購買行為之研究”，國立政治大學企業管理學系博士班博士論文
2.王又鵬 (1997)，“廠商促銷活動策略, 消費者對促銷活動的價值認知與購買意圖關係之研究”，華泰書局
3.林淑真 (2001)，“生活型態與購買涉入對品牌權益的影響研究----以電子字典為例”，國立政治大學廣告學系碩士班碩士論文
4.李秉倫 (2001)，“折扣深度、產品屬性與促銷情境對品牌評價與購買意願影響之研究”，私立銘傳大學企業管理學系碩士班碩士論文
5.周宇真 (1999)，“知覺品質與參考價格對消費者知覺價值與購買意願之影響”，私立東吳大學企業管理學系碩士班碩士論文
6.曾慈惠 (1998)，“產品微關屬性,產品知識對消費者行為影響之實驗研究”，私立實踐大學企業管理學系碩士班碩士論文
7.彭秋萍 (2001)，“新產品預告對消費者知覺價值與購買意願影響之分析”，東吳大學國際貿易學系碩士班碩士論文
8.劉美琪 (1995)，“促銷管理－理論與實務”，正中書局，pp. 95-97
9.霍淑儀 (1997)，“銷售促進活動對消費者行為影響之研究”，私立淡江大學國際貿易學系碩士班碩士論文
10.快譯通電腦辭典股份有限公司網站 http://www.instant.com.tw
11.萊思康教育網網站 http://www.lexicomp.com.tw
12.無敵科技股份有限公司網站 http://www.besta.com.tw
二、英文部分
1. Aaker David A. (1992)　, "The Vaule of Brand Equity", Journal of Business Strategy, Vol.13 Iss.4 July/August 1992 P.27-32.
2. Aaker David A.（1991）, Managing Brand Equity, New York: The Free Press.
3.Aaker, David A. and Keller, K.L.（1990）, "Consumer Evaluations of BrandExten
sions", Journal of Marketing, Vol.54, P.27-41.
4. Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1991), “Ignoring irrelevant information situational determinants of consumer learning” Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), pp.325-345.
5. Assael, Henry A., and Marvin Roscoe. , (1976)“Approach to Market Segmentation Analysis,”Journal of Marketing, Vol.40 , pp.67-76
6. Barwise（1993）,"Introduction to The Special Issue on Brand Equity" International Journal of Research in Marketing , 10.
7. Bellizzi, J. A., Krueckeberg H. F., Hamilton J. R. and W. S. Martin(1981), “Consumer Perception of National, Private, and Generic Brands,” Journal　of　Retailing, Vol.57(4), pp.56-70.
8. Blattberg, Robert C. and Scott A. Neslin (1990), Sales Promotion：Concepts, Methods and Strategies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ：Prentice Hall.
9. Brasco（1988）,"Hoe Brand Name are Valued for Acquisitions", In :L. Leuthesser, ed., Report #88-104, Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
10. Broniarczyk, Susan M. and Andrew Gershoff (1996), “Meaningless Differentiation Revisited,”working paper, University of Texas at Austin.
11. Brown, Christina L. and Gregry S. Carpenter (1998), “Why is the Trivial Important？：A Reasons-Based Account for the Effects of Trivial Attribute on Choice,”working paper, New York University
12. Carpenter, Gregory S., and Kent Nakamoto (1989),“Consumer Preference
Formation and Pioneering Advantage, ” Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (August) , pp.285-298
13. Carpenter, Gregory S., and Kent Nakamoto (1990),“Competitive Strategic for Late Entry into a Market with a Dominant Brand,”Management Science, 36, pp.1268-1278
14. Carpenter, Gregory S., Rashi Glazer, and Kent Nakamoto (1994),“Meaningful Brands from Meanings Differentiation：The Dependence on Irrelevant Attributes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (August), pp. 339-350
15. Charlton, P. and A.S.C Ehrenberg, “An Experimentation in Brand Choice,”Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.13 , pp.152-160
16. Cobb-Walgeren, Cathy J., Ruble,Cynthia A.; Donthu, Daveen(1995), “Brand Equity, Brand Preference, and Purchase Intent”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24, No. 3, Fall 1995, pp.25-41
17. D. Eric Boyd and Subodh Bhat(1998), “The Role of Dual Entitlement and Equity
Theories in Consumers For Fair Price Judgments：An Investigation Within a Business-Business Service Setting,” Journal of Professional Services Marketing , 17(1), pp. 1-13
18. Davis, Scott, J. Jeffery Inman, and Leigh McAlister (1992),“Promotion Has a Negative Effect on Brand Evaluations or Does It? Additional Disconfirming Evidence,”Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (February) , pp. 143-148
19. Deighton, John (1984),“The Interaction of Advertising and Evidence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (December), pp.763-770
20. Dickson, Pter R. and Rosemary Kalapurakal (1994), “The Use and Perceived Fairness of Price-Setting Rules in Bulk Electricity Market,” Journal of Economic Psychology , 15, pp. 427-448.
21. Dodds, W. B., Monroe K. B., and D. Grewal(1991), “Effects of Price, Brand and Store Information on Buyers’ Product Evaluations,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.28(August), pp.307-319.
22. Dodds, William B. and Kent B. Monroe (1985), “The Effects of Brand and Price Information on Subjective Product Evaluations,” in Advances in Consumer Research, 12 , Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook, eds. Provo, UT：Association for Consumer Research , pp. 85-90.
23.Dodds, William B., Kent B. Monroe, and Dhruv Grewal (1991), “The Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers’ Product Evaluations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28(August), pp. 307-319.
24. Dodson , Joe A. , Alice M. Tryout, and Brain Sternthal, (1978)“Impacy of Deals and Deal Retration on Brand Swatching,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.15, (February) , pp.172-181
25. Doyle（1990）, "Building Successful Brands:The Strategic Options", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Spring,P.5-20
26. Einhorn, Hillel J. and R. M. Hogarth (1986),“Judging Probable Cause,”Psychological Bulletin, 99, pp.3-9
27. Farquhar（1990）,"Managing Brand Equity", Journal of Advertising Research, August / September,,P.7-12
28. Grewal, Dhruv, Kent B. Monroe, and R. Krishnan (1998), “The Effects of Price comparison Advertising on Buyers’ Perceptions of Acquisition Value, Transaction Value, and Behavioral Intentions,” Journal of Marketing, 62(April), pp. 46-59.
29. Grewal, Dhruv, R. Krishnan, Julie Baker and Norm Borin “The Effect of Store Name, Brand Name, and Price Discount on Consumers’ Evaluations and Purchase Intentions,” Journal of Retailing, Vol.74(1998),331-352
30. Grewal,Dhruv and R.Krishnan(1998),“The Effects of Store Name, Brand Name ,and Price Discounts on Consumers’Evaluations and Purchase Intentions,” Journal of Retailing, 74(Fall), Issre.3, pp. 331-352.
31. Grewal. D., Krishnan, R., Baker J. and N. Borin(1998), “The Effect of Store Name , Brand Name and Price Discounts on Consumers’ Evaluations and Purchase Intentions,” Journal of Retailing, Vol.74(3), pp.331-352
32. Ha, Young-Won and Stephen J. Hoch (1989),“Ambiguity Processing Strategy, Advertising-Evidence Interaction,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (December), pp.354-360
33. Harris, R. J. and G. E. Monaco (1978),“Psychology of Pragmatic Implications：Information Processing Between the Lines,”Journal of Experimental Psychology：General, 107, pp.1-27
34. Hoch, Stephen J. and Young-Won Ha (1986),“Consumer Learning：Adverstising and Ambiguity of Product Experience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13, pp.221-233
35. Hsee, Christopher (1995),“Elastic Justification：How Tempting but Task-Irrelevent Factors Influence Decisions,”Organization Behavior and Human Decision Process, 62 (August), pp.330-337
36. Huppertz, John W., Sidney J.Arenson and Richard H. Evans (1978), “An Application of Equity Theory to Buyer-Seller Exchange Situation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 15(May), pp. 250-260
37. Hutchinson, J. Wesley and Joseph W. Alba (1991),“Ignoring Irrelevant Information：Situational Determinants of Consumer Learning,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (December), pp.325-345
38. Kahneman and Tverskey (1979),“Prospect Theory：Analysis of Decision under Risk,”Economics, 47 (March), pp.263-291
39. Kahneman, Jack L. Knetsch and Richard H. Thaler(1986), “Fairness and The Assumptions of Economics,” Journal of Business, 59(4) , pp. 285-300
40. Kalapurakal, Rosemary, Peter Dickson and Joe Urbany (1991), “Perceived Price　Fairness and Dual Entitlement,” in Advances in Consumer Research, 18, Rebecca Holman and Michael Solomon(eds.),Provo,UT：Association for Consumer Research, pp.788-793
41. Kalwani, Manohar U. and Chi-Kin Yim (1992), “Consumer Price and Promotion Expectations: An Experimental Study,” Journal of Marketing Research, 27(August), pp. 251-262.
42. Kalyanarum, Gurumurthy and John D. C. Little (1987), “A Pricing Model Based on Perception Theories and Its Testing on Scanner Panel Data,” working paper, Sloan School of Management, M.I.T., Cambridge, MA.
43. Kamakura and Russell（1993）,"Measuring Brand Value with Scanner Data", International Journal of Research in Marketing , 10.,P.9-22
44. Kamen, J. and R.Toman (1970), “Psychophysics of Prices,” Journal of Marketing Research , 7(Febuary), pp.27-35
45. Keller, Kevin L.(1993),"Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer- Based Brand Equity", Journal of Marketing Research,P.1-22
46. Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer- Based Equity,” Journal of marketing, 57(1), 1-22
47. Keon , John W.(1980), “The Bargain Value Model and a Comparison of Managerial Implications with the Linear Learning Model,”Management Science , 26 (November) , pp.17-30.
48. Kim（1990）,"A Perspective on Brands," Journal of Consumer Marketing, Fall, P. 20-30
49. Lasser, Walfried, Banwari Mittal and Arun Sharma (1995), " Measuring customer- base Brand Equity", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Fall 1995 Vol.12 No.4 P.11- 20.
50. Lattin, James M. and Randolph E. Bucklin, (1989)“Reference Effects of Price and Promotion on Brand Choice Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, August , pp.299-310
51. Leuthesser，Kohli and Harich（1995）,"Brand Equity: the Halo Effect Measure", European Journal of Marketing,29,p.57-66.
52. Lichtenstein, Donald R., and William O. Bearden (1989), “Contextual Inferences on Perceptions of Merchant Supplied Reference Price,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15(September), pp. 55-66.
53. Lichtenstein, Donald R., Richard G. Netemeyer, and Scot Burton (1990), “Distinguishing Coupon Proneness From Value Consciousness: An Acquisition- Transaction Utility Theory Perspective,” Journal of Marketing, 54(July), pp. 54-67.
54. Mahajan, Ran and Srivastava(1991),"An Approach to Assess the Importance of Brand Equity in Acquistition Decisions", Report #93-124, Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
55. Manjit S. Yadav (1994), “How Buyers Evaluate Product Bundles：A Model of Anchoring and Adjustment,” Journal of Consumer Research , 21(September), pp. 342-353.
56. Martins, Marielza and Kent B.Monroe(1994), “Perceived Price Fairness：A New Look at an Old Construct,” Advances in Consumer Research,21, Rebecca Holmanand 57. Michael Solomon(eds.),Provo,UT：Association for Consumer Research, pp. 75-78
58. Mayhew, Glenn E. and Russell S. Winer (1992), “An Empirical Analysis of Internal and External Reference Prices Using Scanner Data.” Journal of Consumer Research, 19(June), pp. 62-70.
59. McGill, Ann L. (1989), “Context Effect in Judgments of Causation,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, pp.189-200
60. Monroe, Kent B. and R. Krishnan (1985), “The Effect of Price on Subjective Product Evaluations,” in Perceived Quality, J. Jacoby and J. Olson, eds. Lexington, MA Lexington Books, pp. 209-232.
61. Monroe, Kent B., Dhruv Grewal, and Larry D. Compeau (1991), “The Concept of Reference Prices: Theoretical Justifications and Research Issues,” present at the Association for Consumer Research Conference, Chicago(October).
62. Monroe, Kent B., Pricing: Making Profitable Decision, Second edition, New York, Harper and Row, 1990
63. Mullen and Mainz（1989）,"Brands, Bids and Balance Sheet: Putting a Price on Protected Products", Acquistions Monthly, 24,Apr. P.26─27
64. Neslin, Scott A., and Robert Shoemaker, (1989)“An Alternative Explanation for Lower Repeat Rates After Promotional Purchase,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.26, (May ), pp.205-213
65. Oytmeyer, Gwen, James M. Lattin, and Montgomery, “Individual difference in Response to Consumer Promotions,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol.8, June 1991, pp.169-186
66. Park, C. W. , B.J. Jaworski and D.J. Maclinnis (1986), “Strategic Brand Concept- Image Management,”Journal of Marketing, vol 50. (Oct.), pp. 135-145
67. Park, C. W. , S. Millberg , and R. Lawson (1991),“Evaluation of Brand Extensions：The Role of Product Feature Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency,”Journal of Consumer Research, vol.18 (Sep.), pp. 185-193
68. Raghubir,P. and K. Corfman(1999),”When Do Price Promotions Affect Pretrial Brand Evaluations?” Journal of Madeting Research ,Vol.36,pp.211-222.
69. Raghubir,P. and K. Corfman(1999),”When Do Price Promotions Affect Pretrial Brand Evaluations?” Journal of Madeting Research ,Vol.36,pp.211-222.
70. Rangaswamy，Burke and Oliva（1993）,"Brand Equity and Extendibility of Brand Names", International Journal of Research in Marketing , 10.,P.61-75
71. Rao, Akshay R. and Kent B. Monroe (1988), “The Moderating Effect of Prior Knowledge on Cue Utilization in Product Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15(September), pp. 253-264.
72. Rothschild, Michael L., and William C. Gaidis, (1981)“Behavior Learning Theory：The Relevance to Marketing and Promotions,” Journal of Marketing , Vol. 45, Spring , pp.70-78
73. Sawyer, Alan G. and Peter Dickson (1984), “Psychological Perspectives on Consumer Response to Sales Promotion,” in Research on Sales Promotion：Collected Papers, Katherine Jocz, ed. Cambridge, MA：Marketing Science Institute.
74. Scott, Carol A., (1976)“The Effect of Trial and Incentives on Repeat Purchase Behavior, ” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 13, August , pp.263-269
75. Scott, Carol A., and Richard F. Yalch (1980),“Consumer Response to Initial Product Trial：A Bayesian Analysis, ” Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (June), pp.32-41
76. Shafir, Eldar (1993),“Choosing versus Rejecting：Why Some Options are Both Better and Worse than Others,” Memory and Cognition, 21 (April), pp.546-566
77. Shafir, Eldar, Itamar Simonsom, and Amos Tversky (1993),“Rease-Based Choice,”Cognition, 49, pp.11-36
78. Shocker, A. D. and B. Weitz（1988）,"A Perspective on Brand Equity Priniciples and Issues," in : L. Leuthesser, ed. , Report #88-104, Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
79. Simon and Sullivan（1993）,"The Measurement and Determinants of Brand Equity: A Financial Approach", Marketing Science, Winter.
80. Simonson, Itamar and Amos Tversky (1992),“Choice in Context：Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (August), pp.281-295
81. Simonson, Itamar, Ziv Carmon, and Suzanne O’Curry (1994),“Experimental Evidence on the Negative Effect of Product Feature and Sales Promotions on Brand Choice,”Marketing Science, 13,1, (Winter), pp.23-40
82. Smith, J. Walker（1991）,"Brand Equity and the Analysis of Customer Transactions", In E.Maltz,ed., Managing Brand Equity. Report#91-110, Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
83. Stobert, P.（1989）,"Alternative Methods of Brand Valuation" In: J. Murphy, ed., Brand Valuations : Establishing a True and Fair View, London: The Interbrand Group.
84 Szybillo, George J. and Jacob Jacoby(1974), “Intrinsic Versus ExtrinsicCues as Determinants of Perceived Quality,” Journal of Applied Psychology , 59 (February) , pp.74-78
85. Tauber（1988）,"Brand Leverage:Strategy for Growth in a Cost Control World", Journal of Advertising Research, August / September,,P.26-30
86. Thaler, Richard (1985), “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice,” Marketing Science, 4 , pp. 199-244.
87. Tversky,Amos and Daniel Kahneman(1974), “Judgment under Uncertainty ：Heuristics and Biases,” Science,185(September), pp. 1124-1131.
88. Ziethaml, Valarie A. (1988), “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence,” Journal of Marketing, 52(July) , pp. 2-22.