臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

容器形狀對於消費者的容量判斷是有影響的，其中較常被討論的是延伸偏誤(或稱高徑比偏誤)。所謂的延伸偏誤是指兩個容量相等的圓柱體，一個高瘦另一個矮胖，消費者會認為高瘦容器容量比矮胖容器容量來的多。相關研究已對延伸偏誤的干擾效果作討論，但較少從空間判斷與重量角度切入，本研究主要目的即在探討空間能力與重量對於延伸偏誤的干擾效果。
本研究採用實驗法，共有四個實驗。實驗一在探討不同空間能力者在容量判斷上是否會受到容器形狀的影響，採用2 (空間能力：高 vs.低) ×2(容器形狀：高瘦vs.矮胖)的實驗設計。結果發現，不管是高空間能力者或低空間能力者對於容量判斷都沒有顯著影響，依然存在延伸偏誤。實驗二則加入認知負荷，探討其對空間能力與延伸偏誤兩者之間的干擾效果，採用2(空間能力：高vs.低) ×2 (認知負荷：有 vs.無) ×2 (容器形狀：高瘦vs.矮胖)的實驗設計。結果發現，不同空間能力者對認知負荷的吸收處理在容量判斷沒有關係，在容量判斷上仍會發生延伸偏誤。
實驗三為探討重量是否會影響延伸偏誤，採用2 (重量感：輕vs.重)× 2(容器形狀：高瘦vs.矮胖)的實驗設計。結果發現，重量干擾容器形狀對容量判斷的影響，當在重的重量感下，延伸偏誤不存在。實驗四則進一步加入重量一致性，採用2 (一致性：一致vs.不一致)× 2 (重量感：輕vs. 重) × 2(容器形狀：高瘦vs.矮胖)的實驗設計。結果發現，在高瘦與矮胖容器的重量一致下，無論輕或重，受測者的容量判斷是沒有差異的，而在重量不一致的情況下，受測者對重的高瘦容器的容量判斷高於輕的矮胖容器，而重的矮胖容器的容量判斷則高於輕的高瘦容器，換言之，當容器有重量感時，受測者會使用重量訊息作為容量判斷的線索。

The shape of the container influences the judgment of consumers on the volume of the container. Among which, the elongation bias was more frequently discussed. The so-called elongation bias refers to the case where for a tall slender versus a short wide cylindrical container both with the same volume the consumers tend to consider the tall slender one to have a larger volume. Although the effects due to elongation bias were well discussed in the literature, little was known about the effects of spatial ability and weight on the volume judgment. The main purpose of this research was to address the interference from spatial ability and weight on the elongation bias.
This research was conducted according to experimental methods. There were four experiments. The first experiment, adopting a “2 (spatial ability: high vs. low) x 2 (container shape: tall slender vs. short wide)” experimental design, addressed the question whether the volume judgment of people with different spatial ability would be affected by the shape of the container. The results demonstrated that people with either high or low spatial ability exhibited no significant differences on the volume judgment. The similar elongation bias was remained. In the second experiment with the introduction of the effect from cognitive load, utilizing a “2 (spatial ability: high vs. low) x 2 (cognitive load: with vs. without) x 2 (container shape: tall slender vs. short wide)” experimental design, the interference of cognitive bias on spatial ability and elongation bias was investigated. The results showed that cognitive load made no contribution to the volume judgment of people having different spatial ability. Elongation bias stayed unchanged for volume judgment.
The third experiment addressed the effect of weight on elongation bias, adopting a “2 (sense of weight: light vs. heavy) x 2 (container shape: tall slender vs. short wide)”experimental design. The results demonstrated that the weight factor interfered with volume judgment. In the presence of the feel of heavy weight, elongation bias no longer existed. In the fourth experiment, the consistency of the sense of weight was further introduced. The experiment adopted a “2 (weight consistency: consistent vs. inconsistent) x 2 (sense of weight: light vs. heavy) x 2 (container shape: tall slender vs. short wide)”design. The results suggested that when the consistency of weight of the container was maintained, no matter heavy or light, no differences were found on the volume judgment for people under test. However, under the circumstance where the weight was made inconsistent, the people subjected to the test considered the heavier tall slender container to have a larger volume than that of the lighter short wide container. And they also considered the heavier short wide container to have a larger volume than that of the lighter tall slender container. In other words, when the weight factor came into play, the people under test would utilize that information as a cue for volume judgment.

中文摘要 …………………………………………………………………………i
英文摘要…………………………………………………………………………ii
致謝………………………………………………………………………………iv
目錄 ………………………………………………………………………………v
表目錄 …………………………………………………………………………vii
圖目錄 …………………………………………………………………………viii
第一章 緒論 ……………………………………………………………………1
1.1 研究背景與動機………………………………………………………1
1.2 研究目的………………………………………………………………3
1.3 研究流程………………………………………………………………4
第二章 延伸偏誤 ………………………………………………………………5
第三章 實驗一……………………………………………………………………9
3.1 研究方法……………………………………………………………11
3.1.1 實驗設計 ………………………………………………………11
3.1.2 受測者……………………………………………………………11
3.1.3 變數操弄 ………………………………………………………11
3.1.4 實驗流程 ………………………………………………………12
3.1.5 變數衡量 ………………………………………………………12
3.2 分析結果……………………………………………………………13
3.3 結果討論……………………………………………………………14
第四章 實驗二……………………………………………………………16
4.1 研究方法……………………………………………………………19
4.1.1 實驗設計 ………………………………………………………19
4.1.2 受測者……………………………………………………………19
4.1.3 變數操弄 ………………………………………………………19
4.1.4 實驗流程 ………………………………………………………20
4.1.5 變數衡量 ………………………………………………………20
4.2 分析結果……………………………………………………………21
4.3結果討論……………………………………………………………21
第五章 實驗三……………………………………………………………23
5.1 研究方法……………………………………………………………25
5.1.1 實驗設計 ………………………………………………………25
5.1.2 受測者…………………………………………………………25
5.1.3 變數操弄 ………………………………………………………25
5.1.4 實驗流程 ………………………………………………………26
5.1.5 變數衡量 ………………………………………………………27
5.2 分析結果……………………………………………………………27
5.3結果討論……………………………………………………………28
第六章 實驗四……………………………………………………………29
6.1研究方法……………………………………………………………29
6.1.1 實驗設計 ………………………………………………………29
6.1.2 受測者…………………………………………………………29
6.1.3 變數操弄 ………………………………………………………29
6.1.4 實驗流程 ………………………………………………………31
6.1.5 變數衡量 ………………………………………………………31
6.2 分析結果……………………………………………………………31
6.3 結果討論……………………………………………………………33
第七章 綜合討論………………………………………………………………34
7.1研究方法……………………………………………………………34
7.2 分析結果……………………………………………………………35
7.3 結果討論……………………………………………………………36
參考文獻 ………………………………………………………………………37
附錄一 指導語……………………………………………………………43
附錄二 空間能力之答案卷………………………………………………44
附錄三 認知負荷之答案卷(困難)………………………………………45
附錄四 認知負荷之答案卷(簡單)………………………………………46
附錄五 重量之答案卷…………………………………………………………47
附錄六 認知負荷之影片…………………………………………………………48
表目錄
表3-1 空間能力與容器形狀對容量判斷之分析…………………………………14
表4-1 認知負荷測量方法分類表…………………………………………………18
表4-2 空間能力、認知負荷與容器形狀對容量判斷之分析………………………21
表5-1 實驗三之實驗容器…………………………………………………………25
表5-2 重量與容形狀對容量判斷之分析…………………………………………28
表6-1 實驗四重量感一致之實驗容器……………………………………………30
表6-2 實驗四重量感不一致之實驗容器…………………………………………30
表6-3 重量感一致性與容器形狀對容量判斷之分析……………………………32
圖目錄
圖 1-1 研究流程……………………………………………………………………4
圖 2-1 突出顯示圖示…………………………………………………………………6
圖 3-1 實驗一之實驗容器…………………………………………………………11
圖 3-2 PVRT測驗範例圖…………………………………………………………13
圖 4-1 認知負荷概念圖……………………………………………………………17
圖 4-2 實驗二之實驗容器…………………………………………………………20
圖 6-1 重量感不一致性之實驗模式容量判斷比較圖……………………………32

一、 中文部分
1. 台灣區飲料工業同業公會。2011年1月3日，取自http://www.bia.org.tw/。
2. 行政院主計數。國民所得統計。2012年6月7日，取自http://www.dgbas.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=28862&;ctNode=3572&;mp=1。
3. 宋曜廷 (2000)。先前知識文章結構和多媒體呈現對文章學習的影響。未出版手稿，國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所，台北市。
4. 林隆儀 (2000)。策略聯盟，創造新競爭優勢-清涼飲料產業突破傳統的策略。經濟部：經濟情勢暨評論，5(4)，115-127。
5. 周穆謙 (2001)。零售商品包裝標準字設計之應用趨勢及視認性評估設計。國立台灣科技大學設計研究所，台北市。
6. 康鳳梅、鍾瑞國、劉俊祥、李金泉 (2002)。高職機械製圖科學生空間能力差異之研究。師大學報：科學教育類，47 (1)，55-69。
7. 郭璟瑜 (2003)。媒體組合方式與認知型態對學習成就與認知負荷之影響。未出版碩士論文。國立中央大學資訊管理研究所，桃園。
8. 陳密桃 (2003)。認知負荷理論及其對教學的啟示。教育學刊，21，29-51。
9. 黃克文 (1996)。認知負荷與個人特質及學習成就之關聯。未出版碩士論文。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所，台北市。
10. 蔣家唐（1995）。視覺空間認知能力向度分析暨數理-語文資優學生視覺空間認知能力差異研究。未出版研究報告。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。台北市：國科會。
11. 戴文雄（1998）。不同正增強回饋形式電腦輔助學習系統對不同認知形態與空間能力高工學生機械製圖學習成效的研究。未出版研究報告。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。台北市：國科會。
二、 英文部分
1. Anastasi, A. (1936). The Estimation of Area. Journal of General Psychology, 14(1), pp. 201-225.
2. Amazeen, E. L. (1999). Perceptual Independence of Size and Weight by Dynamic Touch. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, pp. 102-119.
3. Brunken, R., Plass, J. L., &; Leutner, D. (2003). Direct Measurement of Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), pp. 53-61.
4. Citrin, A. V., Stem, D. E., Spangenberg, E. R., &; Clark, M. J. (2003). Consumer Need for Tactile Input: An Internet Retailing Challenge. Journal of Business Research, 56(11), pp. 915-922.
5. Clement, J. (2007). Visual Influence on In-Store Buying Decisions: An Eye-Track Experiment on The Visual Influence of Packaging Design. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(9-10), pp. 917-928.
6. Chandon, P., &; Ordabayeva, Nm. (2009). Supersize in One Dimension, Downsize in Three Dimensions: Effects of Spatial Dimensionality on Size Perceptions and Preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, pp. 739-753.
7. Einhorn, H. J., &; Hogarth, R. M. (1986). Judging probable cause. Psychological Bulletin, 99, pp. 3-19.
8. Ellis, R. R., Lederman S. J., (1993), The Role of Haptic versus Visual Volume Cues in the Size-Weight Illusion. Perception &; Psychophysics, 53(3), pp. 315-324.
9. Fisher, G. H., &; Foster, J. J. (1968). Apparent Sizes of Different Shapes and the Facility with Which They Can Be Identified. Nature, 219(5154), pp. 653-654.
10. Frayman, B. J, &; Dawson, W. E. (1981). The Effect of Object Shape and Mode of Presentation on Judgments of Apparent Volume. Perception and Psychophysics, 29(1), pp. 56-62.
11. Folkes, V., &; Matta, S. (2004). The Effect of Package Shape on Consumers’ Judgments of Product Volume: Attention as A Mental Contaminant. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), pp. 390-401.
12. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
13. George, M. B., &; Roland, B. G. (1997). The Purdue Visualization of Rotations Test. The Chemical Educator, 2(4), pp. 1-17.
14. Garber, L. L., Hyatt, E. M., Boya, &; Uuml, &; Ouml. (2009). The Effect of Package Shape on Apparent Volume: An Exploratory Study with Implications for Package Design. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 17, pp. 215-234.
15. Holmberg, L. (1975). The Influence of Elongation on The Perception of Volume of Geometrically Simple Objects. Psychological Research Bulletin, 15(2), pp. 1-18.
16. Rinaldo, S. B. (2008). The Interaction of Haptic Imagery with Haptic Perception for Sighted and Visually Impaired Consumers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kentucky University, U. S.
17. Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2006). The Perceived Importance of Sensory Modalities in Product Usage: A Study of Self-Reports. Acta Psychologica, 121(1). pp. 41–64.
18. Krider, R. E., Raghubir, P., &; Krishna, A. (2001). Pizzas: π or Square? Psychophysical Biases in Area Comparisons. Marketing Science, 20(4), pp. 405-425.
19. Krishna, A. (2006). Interaction of Senses: The Effect of Vision Versus Touch on The Elongation Bias. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), pp. 557-566.
20. Kahrimanovic, M., Bergmann T. W. M., &; Kappers, A. M. L. (2010). Seeing and Feeling Volumes: The Influence of Shape on Volume Perception. Acta Psychologica, 134(3), pp. 385-390.
21. Lohman, D. F. (1979). Spatial Ability: Individual Differences in Speed and Level. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
22. Linn, M. C., &; Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and Characterization of Sex Differences in Spatial Ability: A Meta-Analysis. Child Development, 56(6), pp. 1479-1498.
23. Lord, T. R. (1985). Enhancing the Visual-Spatial Aptitude of Students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5), pp. 395-405.
24. McGee, M. G. (1979). Human Spatial Abilities: Psychometric Studies and Environmental, Genetic, Hormonal, and Neurological Influences. Psychological Bulletin, 86(5), pp. 889-918.
25. McCormack, A. J. (1988). Visual/Spatial Thinking: An Essential Element of Elementary School Science. Washington, DC: Council for Elementary School Science.
26. Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison Processes in Social Judgment. Psychological Review, 110(3), pp. 472-489.
27. Piaget, J. (1968). Quantification, Conservation, and Nativism. Science, 162(3857), pp. 976-979.
28. Paas, F. G. W. (1992). Training Strategies for Attaining Transfer of Problem-Solving Skill in Statistics: A Cognitive Load Approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), pp. 429-434.
29. Paas, F., &; Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of Worked Examples and Transfer of Geometrical Problem-Solving Skills: A Cognitive-Load Approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), pp. 122-133.
30. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., &; Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive Load Measurement as A Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory. Educational psychologist, 38(1), pp. 63-71.
31. Peck, J., &; Childers, T. L. (2003a). To Have and To Hold: The Influence of Haptic Information on Product Judgment. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), pp. 35-48.
32. Raghubir, P., &; Krishna, A. (1999). Vital Dimensions in Volume Perception: Can the Eye Fool the Stomach?. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(3), pp. 313-326.
33. Scandura, J. M. (1971). Deterministic Theorizing in Structural Learning: Three Levels of Empiricism. Journal of Structural Learning, 3(1), pp. 21-53.
34. Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., &; Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), pp. 251-296.
35. Tartre, L. A. (1990). Spatial Orientation Skill and Mathematical Problem Solving. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(3), pp. 216-229.
36. Voyer, D., Voyer, S., &; Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of Sex Differences in Spatial Abilities: A Meta-Analysis and Consideration of Critical Variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), pp. 250-270.
37. Wansink, B. (1996). Can Package Size Accelerate Usage Volume?. Journal of Marketing, 60(3), pp. 1-14.
38. Wansink, B., &; Van Ittersum, K. (2003). Bottoms Up! The Influence of Elongation on Pouring and Consumption Volume. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), pp. 455-463.
39. Wansink, B., &; Van Ittersum, K. (2005). Shape of Glass and Aamount of AlcoholPoured: Comparative Study of Effect of Practice and Concentration. British Medical Journal, 331(7531), pp. 1512-1514.
40. Yang, S., &; Raghubir, P. (2005). Can Bottles Speak Volumes? The Effect of Package Shape on How Much to Buy. Journal of Retailing, 81(4), pp. 269-281.