臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

消費者透過網路搜尋資訊與購物行為的日漸普及，消費者進行跨虛擬與實體通路的比價行為也是非常地普遍，然而，消費者對網路價格影響的相關研究，尚未被完整探討，因此本研究主要目的為，建構消費者網路價格認知之理論價格模型，並依此理論模型發展研究操作模型，探討網路價格建構方式、行銷情境與相對價格，對消費者網路價格認知的影響，在主觀價格認知部分，由「主觀節省認知」、「客觀節省認知」、「主觀搜尋意圖」、「客觀搜尋利益」四個方面來詮釋。
本研究採用2×2×2實驗設計，透過線上網路問卷蒐集到528份樣本，並利用共變異數分析將消費者網路使用行為、網路涉入與參考價格可信度的對價格認知的影響排除。研究假設如下：
1、行銷情境不同，消費者的價格認知有顯著差異。
2、消費者的價格認知會因不同的價格建構方式有顯著差異。
3、在行銷情境為促銷時，相較於建構方式為附加一種價格資訊的參考價格，售價與附加兩種價格資訊有較高的主/客觀節省，較低的主/客觀搜尋意願。
4、在相對水準低與即將漲價之行銷情境下，消費者對於售價與附加兩種價格資訊的價格建構方式會有較高的主/客觀節省與較低的主/客觀搜尋意圖。
5、在相對價格高與即將漲價之行銷情境下，價格建構方式對主/客觀節省與主/客觀搜尋意圖沒有顯著的影響。
實驗設計共分八組，經由ANCOVA所得之實證結果顯示：
1、在主觀節省認知部分，行銷情境與相對價格具有交互作用，因此假設1與2獲得支持。
2、在客觀節省上，價格建構方式與行銷情境交互效果顯著，且在促銷情境下，消費者對於售價附加兩種價格資訊的建構方式，有較高的客觀節省，因此假設3成立。
3、相對價格水準與價格建構方式具有交互作用，因此消費者在不同的價格水準與建構方式時，在價格認知上會有所差異，例如當相對價格高時，消費者對於售價附加兩種價格建構方式的標示方式，有較高客觀搜尋意圖。
4、在相對價格、行銷情境與價格建構方式的三因子交互作用不顯著，因此假設4未獲得支持，而假設5則成立。

年齡介於20~29歲之樣本，在共變異數分析之結果與研究中528個樣本所分析後結果相似，故本研究之結果亦可提供後續研究與廠商參考。

There are many people shopping online. Consumers collect price information online and compare internet prices with those in traditional market channels. However, there are few studies investigating online price perception and factors affecting the perception. The main purposes of this thesis are first to setup a theoretical model of internet price perception and then turn it to an operational model. Based on the operational model of price perception online, a 2x2x2 experiment design is formed. There are four dependent variables capturing the concept of price perception. They are subjective saving, objective saving, subjective search intension, and objective search intension. Three independent or manipulating variables are market situation (promotion vs raising price soon), price framing (price vs price and percentage information), and price levels of product (high (22 inches) vs low (17 inches)). In addition, confidence on advertised prices, involvement of internet and behavior of internet searching are three covariate variables. The hypotheses to be tested are:
(1)Different market situations cause different price perceptions.
(2)Different price framings cause different price perceptions.
(3)Under promotion, two pieces of price framing cause higher sub/objective saving, and lower sub/objective search intension.
(4)When price of product is low and price will be raised soon, two pieces of price framing cause higher sub/objective saving, and lower sub/objective search intension.
(5)When price of product is high and price will be raised soon, price framing has no significant effects on sub/objective saving and sub/objective search intension.
There are eight cells in the experiment design and eight simulated advertisements online designed for random assignment. Each advertisement has minor price information, market situation and the size of monitor differences. The object of experiment is LCD monitor. It is chosen because monitor is a popular item purchased online and it is free of gender difference. All data were collected online (My3Q) from May 1 to May 20, 2008. In total, 528 samples were collected. The average sample size of each cell is 66, closed to a balanced design.
Data were analyzed with ANCOVA. There major findings are:
(1) There is a significant interaction effect between the price of product and market situation for subjective saving. Market situation and price framing have only main effect on subjective saving. This implies that market situations cause different price perceptions. Hypotheses (1) and (2) are supported.
(2) As for objective saving, market situation and price framing form an interaction effect. Under promotion, two pieces of price framing cause higher objective saving, implying hypothesis (3) holds.
(3) There are two interaction effects on objective search intension. They are price levels x price framing and market situation x price framing. When, for example, the price of product is high, two pieces of price framing has more objective search intension. When there are price and percentage information posed together, product with high price would generate more objective search intension, which is as expected.
(4) Since there are no 2x2x2 interaction effect exists, hypothesis (4) will be rejected and hypothesis (5) could be supported.
Results with 20-29 years old sample are similar to 528 sample size case. Suggestions to firms and future research are also provided, based on the results of ANCOVA.

中文摘要 i
ABSTRACT iii
目錄 v
圖目錄 vii
表目錄 viii
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究問題與目的 4
一、研究問題 4
二、研究目的 4
第三節 研究範圍 5
第四節 研究流程 6
第二章 文獻探討與理論模型 8
第一節 消費者決策流程與價格認知流程 8
一、消費者決策流程 8
二、價格認知流程 12
第二節 參考價格與建構方式 22
一、外部參考價格 22
二、內部參考價格 25
第三節 網路價格認知模型建立 32
一、環境階段 33
二、情感認知階段 35
三、行為階段 43
第三章 操作模型與實驗設計 46
第一節 研究架構 46
第二節 前置實驗 48
一、目標產品之選擇 48
二、電腦液晶螢幕價差影響因素 48
三、參考價格與價格波動幅度選定 50
四、前置實驗與結果 51
第三節 變數定義與操作化 56
一、自變項的定義與操作化 56
二、依變項的定義與操作化 57
三、控制變數 58
第四節 研究假設 61
一、研究假設 61
二、正式實驗 63
第四章 研究結果與討論 67
第一節 基本資料分析 67
第二節 信度與效度檢驗 70
第三節 實驗操弄檢驗 73
第四節 研究假設檢驗 74
一、三因子交互效用差異性檢定分析 74
二、研究結果 88
資料來源：本研究整理 88
三、研究假設檢驗 90
第五章 行銷意涵討論 93
一、產品相對價格水準 93
二、行銷情境 96
三、價格建構方式 97
第六章 結論、研究貢獻與建議 98
一、學術上的貢獻 98
二、研究限制 99
三、未來研究方向 100
參考文獻 101
附錄1 前測問卷 106
附錄2 正式問卷1 109
附錄3 20~29年齡層之共變異數分析 116
附錄4 未刪除問項前構面之信度與問項內容 119
附錄5 三因子交互作用檢定表 120

一、中文部份
1.王貞懿(2007)。產品特性與差別取價：以液晶螢幕為例。未發表碩士論文，國立中央大學，桃園縣。
2.李元恕(2003)。消費者對網路價格與廣告參考價格資訊的認知與反應探討。長榮大學學報，7(1)，頁23-37。
3.李元恕(2004)。消費者對網路價格資訊的認知、處理與搜尋意圖之探討。樹德科技大學學報，6(1)，頁105-116。
4.李元恕(2004)。決策情境與語意線索對消費者價格促銷之影響。中華管理評論國際學報，7(1)，頁39-49。
5.吳靜宜(2000)。購買過程中運用網際網路與實體商店之比較。未發表碩士論文，國立成功大學，台南市。
6.林建煌、王旭民(1996)。參考價格知合理性與建構方式對消費者價格認知的影響。管理科學學報，頁305-330。
7.張重昭、高麗文(1995)。參考價格對消費者行為之影響。中山管理評論，頁80-107。
8.楊順安(2004)。消費者訊息搜尋模式與消費型態之分析。未發表碩士論文，國立中興大學，台中市。

二、英文部分
1.Arnet, Jeffery Jenson, Reed Larson, ＆ Daniel Offer (1995), “Beyond Effects: Adolescents as Active Media Users,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence”, 24 (5). pp.38-45.
2.Berkowitz, Eric N. and John R. Walton (1980), “Contextual Influences on Consumer Price Responses: An Experimental Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (August), pp.349-358
3.Bickart, B., and Robert M. Schindler (2001), “Internet Forums as Influential Sources of Consumer Information,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 15(3), Summer, pp.31-40.
4.Biswas, A., and Blair, E.A.(1991), “Contextual Effects of Reference Price in Retail Advertisements,” Journal of Marketing (55:3), July, pp.1-12.
5.Dehaene and Rokny Akhavein (1995), “Attention, Automat city, and Levels of Representation in Number Processing,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21(2), pp.314-26.
6.Dickson, Peter R. and Alan G. Sawyer (1990), “The Price Knowledge and Search of Supermarket Shoppers,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, July, pp.42-53.
7.Engel, J.E., R.D. Blackwell and P.W. Miniard (1990), Consumer Behavior, The Dryden Press.
8.Fishbein, Martin and Ajzen, Icek (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
9.Fishbein, Martin (1980), An Overview of the Attitude Construct, in A Look Back, A Look Ahead, edited G, B. Hafer (Chicago: AMA), pp. 8.
10.Grewal, Monroe, and R. Krishnan (1998), “The Effect of Price-comparison dvertising on Buyer’s Perception of Acquisition Value, Transaction Value, and Behavioral Intentions,” Journal of Marketing, 62(April), pp.46-59.
11.Helson, Harry (1964), Adaptation-Level Theory, New York: Harper & Row.
12.Houston, M.J. and M.L. Rothschild (1978), “Conceptual and Methodological Perspectives on Involvement,” Research frontiers in Marketing Dialogues and Directions, S.C. Jain (ed.), Chicago, American Marketing Association, pp.184-187.
13.Jacoby and Olson, Jerry C. (1977), “Price as an Information Cue: Effects in Product Evaluation,” Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior, Woodside, Arch G., Jagdish N. Sheh, and Peter D. Bennet, eds., New York: North Holland Publishing Company, pp.267-286.
14.Joan L.M., “Beyond Reference Price: Understanding Consumers’ Encounters with Unexpected Prices,” Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12, (2/3), pp.140-153.
15.Kerlinger, F.N. (1996), Foundation of Behavior RESEARCH. McGraw-Hill, NEW YORK, NY.
16.Krugman, H. E.(1965), “The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning without Involvement,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 29, pp.349-356.
17.Lichtenstein, Donald R. and William O. Bearden.(1989), “Contextual Influence on Perception of Merchant-Supplied Reference Prices,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16,June, pp.56-66.
18.Lichtenstein, Nancy M. Ridgaway, and Richard G. Netemeyer (1993), “Price Perceptions and Consumer Shopping Behavior：A Field Study,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30, May, pp. 234-245.
19.Lichtenstein, Scot Burton. And Eric J. Karson (1991), “The effect of Semantic Cues on Consumer Perceptions pf Reference Price Ads,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18, December, pp.380-391.
20.Lowengart, O.(2002), “Reference Price Conceptualizations: An Integrative Framework of Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Management,18(1/2) pp.145-171.
21.Mandler, George, (1980), “Recognizing: The Jugement of Previous Occurrence,” Psychological Review, 87(3), pp.252-71
22.Monroe, Kent B.(1990), Pricing: Making Profitable Decision, (2nd ed.), New York.
23.Monroe, Kent B. and Angela Y. Lee (1999), “Remembering versus Knowing: Issues in Buyers’ Processing of Price Information,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, pp.207-225.
24.Olshavsky, R.W. and D.H. Granbois (1979), “Consumer Decision Making–Fact or Fiction?” Journal of Consumer Research, .6, pp.93-100.
25.Peter, J. P., & Olson, J. C. (1993), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy (3rded.). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
26.Robert M. Schindler and Diana M. Bauer (1988), “The Uses of Price Information: Implications for Encoding,” in Gary Frazier et al.., Effectiveness Marketing. Chicago: American Marketing Association, pp.68-73.
27.Shin-Fen S. Chen, Kent B. Monroe and Yung-Chien Lou.(1998), “The effects of framing price promotion messages on consumers’perceptions and purchase intentions.” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 74(3), pp.353-372
28.Smith, M. D., Bailey, J. and Brynjolfsson.(1999), E. “Understanding Digital Markets: Review and Assessment.”, Paper 140, MIT Sloan Press, Jul 1999
29.Strader, T. J. and Shaw, M. J. (1997), “Characteristics of Electronic Markets.” Decision Support Systems 21, pp.185-198.
30.Thaler, Richard (1985), “Mental Accounting and Consumer Voice,” Marketing Science, 4, pp. 199-214.
31.Turley, L. W. and Roy F. Cabaniss (1995), “Price Knowledge for Services An Empirical Investigation,” Journal of Professional Services Marketing, Vol.12, pp.39-52.
32.Urbany, Joel E. Willian O. Bearden and Dan C. Weilbaker (1988), “The Effect of Plausible and Exaggerated Reference Prices on Consumer Perceptions and Price Search,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15, pp.95-110.
33.Urbany, Joel E, and Peter R. Dickson (1991), “Consumer Normal Price Estimation: Market versus Personal Standard,” Journal of Consumer Research,18, pp.45-51
34.Vanhuele Marc and Xavier Dreze (2002), “Measuring the Price Knowledge Shoppers Bring to the Store,” Journal of Marketing, 66, pp.72-85
35.Zaichkowsky, J.L., (1985), “Measuring the Involvement Construct,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12, pp.341-352.
36.Zaichkowsky, J.L., (1986), “Conceptualizing Involvement,” Journal of Advertising, 15, pp.4-14.