(3.227.208.0) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/18 13:06
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:鄭遠祥
研究生(外文):Yuan-Hsiang Cheng
論文名稱:美感偏好選擇過程之口語分析研究--從消費者選擇理論中的認知典範,談觀圖者以視覺美感偏好作選擇的思考過程
論文名稱(外文):Some phenomena of consumers choice processing in aesthetic alternatives of preferences:a protocol analysis
指導教授:劉育東劉育東引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立交通大學
系所名稱:應用藝術研究所
學門:藝術學門
學類:應用藝術學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:1998
畢業學年度:87
語文別:中文
論文頁數:143
中文關鍵詞:消費者選擇理論口語分析法語意網絡理論審美經驗認知發展論
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:452
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
消費者選擇理論中,何種情況下的跨分類選項組合可視為「難以比較」的選擇題型(noncomparable choice sets),至今仍未有定論。但Johnson(1989)曾附帶預測:當同分類下的諸選項若有著相當的異質性時,比方汽車賣場中可見到的各種款式汽車,則此情境下的選項組成應也是屬於此「難以比較」型,此時人們從中作抉擇時的運思過程將特別改採「由下往上」式策略。本文將針對此假設進行後續驗證。從實驗結果中作者發現,在諸多具有設計美感的同類產品中作選擇時,真正構成「難以比較」運思現象之條件並非因為各選項獨樹一幟而顯得自成一類(Johnson 1988),亦非由於缺乏定義良好的選擇目的(Park & Smith 1989),而在若是每個選項皆曾為受測者所最喜愛時。本文並發展一套特別的口語編碼與判讀技術,將詳述於後。

  Among the Consumer Choice Theories, what kind of across-categories alternative choice sets could be treated as "noncomparable" still remains ill defined. However, Johnson (1989) had additionally assumed that the noncomparable choice sets could be tenable if these alternatives within categories have significant heterogeneity, for example, considering the various styles of car in the market. In such kind of noncomparable situation, consumers might choose their own favorite one by particularly using "bottom-up" processing strategy. The further research regarding to Johnson's assumption will be developed in this article. The results also show that the real condition of noncomparable choice sets amid within-categories aesthetic products is not because of the uniqueness of each uncategorized alternative (Johnson 1988), and the lack for the well-defined choice goal (Park & Smith 1989), but because of all alternatives having ever been the subject's favorites. A specific coding scheme is also amplified well here.
  Keywords: Consumer Choice Theory; Protocol Analysis; Semantic Network; Cognitive Development Account of Aesthetic Experience (Parsons 1987).  
  
  人類面對週遭事物給予它們適當的美感評價是種十分自然的事(Dewey 1934)。以認知心理學的角度來說,這個「審美能力」是有可能隨著年齡增長與不斷學習而持續發展的(Parsons 1987)。然而對於從事設計工作的各種相關人士而言,他們或許更關心使用者當下如何能在眾多設計產品中以「美感偏好」來進行選擇(Morita 1984, Blau 1984, Margolin 1997)。在設計界用來探討這種問題的方法有很多種,但迄今似乎尚未有以認知心理學的方法來分析「美感選擇過程」的。也就是目前設計學科在預測眾人美感選擇行為時,其重點並不在探究個人選擇時發自內心的個人標準形成與決策過程等認知特徵。本文作者認為這是設計學科在探討美感評價的悠久傳統中,尚缺乏完整的一點小缺憾。
  另一方面,設計領域中雖然有「設計思考」(design thinking)典範應用了認知心理學的「口語分析」(protocol analysis)方法(Akin 1990),來試圖解析設計師從事設計時的種種內心運思過程,但在此中亦尚無針對設計者的「美感」認知能力或其它關於美的記憶與聯想將會如何影響設計過程方面的研究,因此更遑論反過身來面對消費者,探討他們如何看待設計並「依美感評價作選擇」的內心過程。  
  而藉著「口語分析」方法來討論消費者選擇內心過程的,主要散見於行銷學領域中的「消費者選擇理論」(consumer choice theory)相關實證研究論文。不過這些研究者大抵關注消費者如何以「使用上之需要」作出購物抉擇的過程,卻極少有論文以「美感上之需要」設計實驗並進行論證,即使美感評價很顯然在消費者的購物行為中扮演頗為重要角色:至少設計師們都這麼認為著(Margolin 1997)。
  因此認知心理學發展至今,雖衍生出諸如「審美能力」「設計過程」「選擇過程」「口語分析法」以及其他各種研究範域,但卻很少有研究者以「美感事物的選擇過程」作為主題。不過儘管如此,本文作者在過去對文獻的研讀中發現了一個可供切入的間隙。在消費者選擇理論中,Johnson(1989)曾作如下預測:在「同分類」的設計產品中以美感偏好作選擇時,不同於一般情況下的選擇,其評估因子的形成與選擇策略將會特別類似「不斷抽象化建構起來」的過程,意即所謂「由下往上」(bottom-up)式的過程,在定義上這個現象即是屬於「難以比較」難題的特徵,而這在「同分類」的題型中算是特例(Johnson 1989)。本文即將針對這點假設進行後續性的觀察與驗證,期能為前述的困境在還沒有更好的理論出現之前,先跨出嚐試性的一小步。
第一章  導 論。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。01
 1.1 進入「消費者選擇理論」              02
 1.2 問題陳述                     03
 1.3 本文目標                     04
 1.4 實驗方法與步驟                  05
 1.5 文章內容結構                   07
第二章 文獻探討。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。09
 2.1 探討美感的學科                  10
 2.2 消費者選擇理論                  14
 2.3 運思過程的判別方式                18
第三章 建立推論。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。24
 3.1 「選擇目的」與「使用目的」            24
 3.2 Park與Smith認為兩種難題分野在「有無共同選擇目的」 26
 3.3 Johnson認為兩種難題分野在「各類中選項是否單一」  29
 3.4 本文作者認為兩種難題分野在「各選項是否皆最意欲」 31
 3.5 提出推論                     33
第四章 實驗設計。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。35
 4.1 實驗選案組                    35
 4.2 受測者身份之判定方式               39
 4.3 施測環境說明                   40
 4.4 施測方式說明                   41
 4.5 選擇結果概要說明                 45
第五章 口語實驗分析技術。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。48
 5.1 選擇策略之判定                  49
 5.2 「揀新採集法」的理論背景             57
 5.3 編碼技術制定                   62
第六章 口語分析結果。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。74
 6.1 抉擇點的運思方向                 74
 6.2 受測者的口語徵狀                 80
 6.3 新增評述因子數量與時間歷程的關係         82
第七章 結論與展望。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。86
 7.1 對相關美感課題的貢獻               87
 7.2 本文的侷限                    88
參考文獻。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。90
附錄
附錄一 四組施測用風景明信片              附錄之01
附錄二 四位受測者之原始口語紀錄及分析         附錄之05
附錄三 各受測者口語紀錄首次新增抽象詞彙範域分布統計  附錄之50

圖目錄
圖1.1:兩類三項選擇題型以英文原意示意的分類圖 02
圖2.1:兩類三項選擇題型以英文原意示意的分類圖 14
圖2.2:修改後適用於中文說明的兩類三項選擇題型分類示意圖 15
圖3.1:Park與Smith (1989) 定義的「難以比較」與「可分類的」題型之兩者差別. 27
圖3.2:Johnson(1989)定義的「難以比較」與「可分類的」題型之兩者差別示意. 29
圖3.3:本文作者定義的「難以比較」與「可分類的」題型之兩者差別示意. 32
圖4.1:Z組風景明信片選案組. 38
圖4.2:A組風景明信片選案組. 38
圖4.3:B組風景明信片選案組. 38
圖4.4:C組風景明信片選案組. 39
圖4.5:四位受測者施測方式以時間進程分類的示意圖. 41
圖5.1:受測者內心運思時「以選項為基礎」與「以屬性為基礎」兩種策略之釋義. 49
圖5.2:受測者兩種策略之口語描述特徵:「結合式」與「比較式」. 50
圖5.3:Johnson (1988) 對描述用詞抽象程度高低的定義. 53
圖5.4:Park與Smith (1989) 對兩種決策標準形成方式的定義. 54
圖5.5:本文作者對美感選擇問題,判斷是否「由下往上」運思過程的方法. 56
圖6.1:同類選項之異質性與抽象化建構策略發生率的關係. 77
圖6.2:四位受測者口語評述因子指涉範域之分布圖. 81
圖6.3:受測者甲之口語評述因子增生模式. 82
圖6.4:受測者乙之口語評述因子增生模式. 84

表目錄
表2.1:審美階層論觀點的各階層口語特徵及其所指範域. 13
表2.2:結合式與比較式選擇策略的同義名詞列表. 20
表4.1:四位受測者背景分類認定. 40
表4.2:受測者施測方式說明. 41
表4.3:受測者所選之各組優勝選項. 46
表5.1:以審美階層論觀點劃分的口語指涉知識範域,其定義與相關簡例. 62
表6.1:受測者各組抉擇點其最喜愛選項之評述因子一覽. 75
表6.2:前四組(非最愛組)之抽象化建構機率與競爭選項個數的關係. 79
Akin, O. (1984). An exploration of design process. in Developments in Design Methodology, ed. Cross, N., 189-208. NY: John Wiley.
Akin, O. (1990). Necessary conditions for design expertise and creativity. Design Studies 2 (2), 107-113.
Akin, O. (1993). Architects’ reasoning with structures and functions, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 20, 273-294.
Anderson, J. R. & Bower, G. H. (1973), Human Associative Memory. Washington, D.C.: Winston.
Anderson, J. R. (1980). Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Kline, P. J., and Neves, D. M. (1981). Acquisition of problem-solving skill. in Cognition Skills and their Acquisition. ed. Anderson, J. R., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 191-230
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognition Psychology and its Implications. 3rd ed. NY: W. H. Freeman.
Atkinson, R. C. and Shiffrin, R. M. (1971). The control of short-term memory. Scientific American 225, 82-90.
Barsalou, L. W. (1982). Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts. Memory and Cognition 10, 82-93.
Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition 11, 211-227.
Barsalou, L. W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: learning, Memory, and Cognition 11, 629-649.
Bettman, J. R. (1970). Information processing models of consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing Research 7, 370-376.
Bettman, J. R. (1974). Decision-net models of buyer information processing and choice: findings, problems, and prospects. in Buyer/Consumer Information Processing, eds. Hughes, G. D. and Ray, M. L. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 59-74.
Bettman, J. R. and Zins, M. A. (1977). Constructive Processes in consumer choice, Journal of Consumer Research 4, 75-85.
Bettman, J. R. and Zins, M. A. (1979). Information format and choice task effects in decision making, Journal of Consumer Research 6, 141-153.
Bettman, J. R. (1979). An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bettman, J. R. and Park, C. W. (1980). Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of the choice process on Consumer decision processes: a protocol analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 7, 234-248.
Bettman, J. R. and Sujan, M. (1987). Effects of framing on evaluation of comparable and noncomparable alternatives by expert and novice consumers. Journal of Consumer Research 14, 141-154.
Blasio, M. K. D. (1988). Education application of How We Understand Art. Journal of Aesthetic Education 22(4), 103-107.
Blau, J. R. (1984). Architects & Firms: A Sociological Perspective on Architectural Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chan, C. S. (1997). Mental image and internal representation. Journal of Architecture and Planning Research 14(1), 52-73.
Chen, K. and Owen, C. L. (1997). Form language and style description. Design Studies 18(2), 249-274.
Collins, A. M. and Qullian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8, 240-248.
Collins, A. M. and Loftus, E. F. (1975). Spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review 82, 407-428.
Cross, N., Dorst, K. and Roozenburg, N. (1992). Research in Design Thinking. Delft: Delft University Press.
Devlin, K. and Narsar, J. (1989). The beauty and the beast: some preliminary comparisons of “high” versus “popular” residential architecture and public versus architect judgements of the same. Journal of Environmental Psychology 9, 333-344.
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as Experience. New York: Balch Minton.
Eckersley, M. (1988). The form of design Process: a protocol analysis study. Design Studies 16(2), 86-94.
Ericsson, K. A. and Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review 87, 215-251.
Goldsmith, L. T., and Feldman, D. H. (1988). Aesthetic judgement changes in people and changes. Journal of Aesthetic Education 22(4), 85-89.
Howard, J. (1977). Consumer Behavior: Application of Theory. New York: John Wiley.
Johnson, M. D. (1984). Consumer choice strategies for comparing noncomparable alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research 11, 741-753.
Johnson, M. D. (1986). Modeling Choice strategies for noncomparable alternatives. Marketing Science 5(1), 37-54.
Johnson, M. D. (1988). Comparability and hierarchical processing in multialternative choice. Journal of Consumer Research 15, 303-314.
Johnson, M. D. (1989). The differential processing of product category and noncomparable choice alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research 16, 300-309.
Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior 19(1), 3-32.
Kosslyn, S. M., Ball, T. M., and Reiser, B. J. (1978). Visual images preserve metric spatial information: evidence from studies of image scanning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 8, 47-60.
Larkin, J., Mcdermott, J., Simon, D., and Simon, H. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science 208, 1335-1342.
Lea, G. (1975). Chronometric analysis of the method of loci. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 4, 95-104.
Liu, Y. T. (1995). Some phenomena of seeing shape in design. Design Studies 15(2), 125-140.
Liu, Y. T. (1997). Is designing one search or two? Design Studies 17(4), 435-449.
Margolin, V. (1997). Getting to know the user. Design Studies 18(2), 227-236.
McCown, W., Keiser, R., Mulhearn, S., and Williamson, D. (1997), The role of personality and gender in preference for exaggerated bass in music. Personality and Individual Differences 23(4), 543-547.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychology Review 63, 81-97.
Mitchell, W. J. (1990). The Logic of Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Morita, A. (1984). Made in Japan: Akio Morita and Sony. New York: New American Library.
Newell, A. and Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Osgood, C. E., Suci G. J., and Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The Measure of Meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and Verbal Processes. NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representation: a Dual Coding Approach. NY: Oxford University Press.
Pariser, D. (1988). Review of Michael Parsons: How We Understand Art. Journal of Aesthetic Education 22(4), 93-102.
Park, C. W. (1978). A conflict resolution choice model. Journal of Consumer Research 5, 124-137.
Park, C. W. and Smith, D. C. (1989). Product-level choice: a top-down or bottom-up process? Journal of Consumer Research 16, 289-299.
Parsons, M. J. (1987). How we understand art: a cognitive developmental account of aesthetic experience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Payne, J. W. (1976). Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: an information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16, 366-387.
Payne, J. W. and Ragsdale, E. K. E. (1978). Verbal protocols and direct observation of supermarket shopping behavior: some findings and a discussion of methods, in Advances in Consumer Research. Vol.5, ed. H. Keith Hunt, Chicago: Association for Consumer Research, 571-577.
Peterson, L. R. and Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology 58, 193-198.
Rhman, O. M. A. (1992). Visual quality and response assessment: an experimental technique. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 19, 689-708.
Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design Thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Santa, J. L. (1977). Spatial transformations of words and pictures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 3, 418-427.
Schon, D. A. and Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their function in design. Design Studies 13(2), 135-156.
Scruton, R. (1990). Architectural principles in an age of nihilism, Composicion Arquitectonica, Art & Architecture 5, 93-120. Bilbao, Spain: Instituto de Arte y Humanidades Press.
Simon, H. A. (1969). The Science of Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Simon, H. A. (1974). How big is a chunk? Science 183, 482-488.
Simon, H. A. (1983). Search and reasoning in problem solving. Artificial Intelligence 21, 7-29.
Solso, R. L. (1988). Cognitive Psychology. London: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
Solso, R. L. (1994). Cognition and the Visual Arts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stamps, A. E. and Nasar J. (1997). Design Review and public preferences: effects of geographical location, public consensus, sensation seeking, and architectural style. Journal of Environmental Psychology 17, 11-32.
Strumse, E. (1994). Perceptual dimensions in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology 14, 281-292.
Strumse, E. (1996). Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology 16, 17-31.
Suwa, M. and Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design studies 18(4), 385-403.
Tversky, A. and Sattath, S. (1979). Preference trees. Psychological Review 86(6), 542-573.
Yen, J. J. and Lin, Y. J. (1996). The Preference Formation Model and Its Influencing Factors of Aesthetic Quality for Rural Landscape. Doctor Thesis of Institute of Horticulture, National Taiwan University.
Zube, E., Pitt, D. and Taylor, J. (1982). Landscape perception: research, application, and theory. Landscape Planning 9, 1-33.
顏家芝. (1996). 非都市景觀美質評估模式及其影響因素. 國立台灣大學園藝學研究所博士論文.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔