跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.204.48.69) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/29 14:55
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:張凱雲
研究生(外文):Chang, Kai-Yun
論文名稱:產品特殊屬性與共同屬性對消費者選擇之影響
論文名稱(外文):The Effect of Common and Unique Features in Consumer Choice
指導教授:張重昭張重昭引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chang, Chung-Chau
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:商學研究所
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:一般商業學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2000
畢業學年度:88
語文別:中文
論文頁數:104
中文關鍵詞:產品特殊屬性產品共同屬性消費者選擇
外文關鍵詞:Unique FeaturesCommon FeaturesConsumer Choice
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:16
  • 點閱點閱:493
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:102
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
產品特殊屬性與共同屬性對消費者選擇之影響
發表人:張凱雲/台大商研所
指導教授:張重昭先生
摘要:
關於比較過程中產品共同屬性(common features)與特殊屬性(unique features)所扮演的角色已有學者做過相關研究指出:人們在做偏好選擇時,會將焦點放在特殊屬性上,而比較容易忽略共同屬性(Tversky,1977;Houston,1989)。但雖然學者驗證出在偏好選擇時,所有產品的共同屬性將被抵銷而將評斷的焦點放在特殊屬性上,卻甚少有研究提出如何透過此特殊、共同屬性的操弄,使自身產品正面屬性更顯突出同時隱藏產品負面特性,以增加產品吸引程度。也因此本篇研究即希望站在過去學者對於消費者偏好選擇時會將評斷重心放在產品間特殊屬性的研究結果上,並以此為出發點,進一步找出如何藉由消費者選擇情境的操弄,使既定的某些產品屬性顯得獨一無二,而某些屬性則顯得平淡無奇,以凸顯產品的吸引力。為了達成此研究目的,本研究主要分成三大部份。(1)如何藉由選擇情境的操弄,增加整體選擇組合的吸引力。(2)如何藉由選擇情境的操弄,增加個別方案的吸引力。(3)如何藉由選擇情境的操弄,加入多個引誘品牌更加凸顯個別方案的吸引力。
經過實驗結果發現經過特定設計搭配的集合的確可以增加或減少選擇組合的整體吸引力,但不同配對組合將產生強弱程度不一的結果。相較之下對提昇整體組合吸引力的影響以「特殊正面屬性配對」效果最為顯著,其次是「組合中沒有特殊屬性呈現的對照組」(A,G1-B1;B,G2-B2),最負面效果則是「特殊負面屬性配對」。另外,在增加個別選擇方案吸引力的部份亦可發現藉由特定引誘品牌的加入不但可以增加目標產品的個別吸引力,亦同時減低了消費者對競爭產品的相對偏好,而且不論是加入一個和目標產品負面屬性相同並與競爭產品正面屬性相近的引誘品牌C1;或是導入一個模仿目標產品的正面屬性,但負面屬性比目標產品還要差的引誘品牌C2;甚至是置入一個和目標產品負面屬性近似,但正面屬性不如目標產品的引誘品牌C3,均對增加目標品牌A的相對吸引力有顯著影響。最後本研究亦證明出一個選擇方案的對偏好並不會因為加入愈多引誘品牌而使效果更加顯著,過多方案的加入反而使消費者的資訊負荷過重,扭曲了應有的結果。
因此本篇研究行銷上的主要意涵為提供資訊中介商(例如通訊產品經銷商、旅遊業者、保險經紀、電腦代理商、投資理財顧問等等)以及工業產品銷售人員一些操控選擇情境的建議。本研究建議這些廠商可以藉著將整體選擇組合以「特殊正面屬性配對」的方式呈現在顧客面前,也就是利用共同負面屬性(common bad)的設計隱藏起產品負面屬性,誘使消費者在選擇時將評判的重心放在個別選擇方案所獨有的正面屬性上,如此將使消費者購買力大福增加。另外若為了打擊競爭對手,或是某項產品利潤較高而想要特別凸顯個別產品吸引力時,並可以利用引誘品牌的加入達成理想的效果。此外,對於產品線延伸或多品牌的廠商本研究亦有一些建議。例如對於高涉入產品,當市場中形成雙峰交會局面且旗鼓相當時,可以藉由犧牲打方式,推出劣勢延伸產品,以達競爭效果,吸引部份競爭者市場佔有率,提高母產品相對地位。另外若市場中品牌眾多,而且沒有主導者時,不太適合應用犧牲打策略,因為效果不太穩定,可能是消費者處理能力有限,除了明顯替代關係外若想勾勒所有產品的相對優劣,並不容易。最後本篇論文對於比較式廣告的設計上亦提出建議。比較式廣告應特別注意如何讓本身產品正面屬性相對其他競爭者顯得獨一無二,也就是透過比較式廣告的配對比較,創造一種讓消費者對本身產品產生獨特及有力聯想的情境。
THESIS ABSTRACT
Graduate Institute of Business Administration
National Taiwan University
NAME: Chang, Kai-Yun MONYH/YEAR: JUNE,2000
ADVISER: Processor Chang, Chung-Chau
The Effect of Common and Unique Features in Consumer Choice.
Consumer choice often involves a comparison among the available alternatives. Recent research finds that features shared by alternatives are canceled and greater weight placed on the unique in choosing among alternatives provided (Tversky 1972). Besides, many formal analyses suggest that the evaluation of an alternative can vary depending on the valence of its unique features (Houston an d Sherman 1995). Given the importance of the unique features in comparative judgements, different choice contexts may highlight different features, and the valence of such features may influence the decision whether to choose as well as the relative preference for a specific alternative. Following the previous studies, this research is interested in proving that the attractiveness of the choice set can be enhanced or reduced by altering which features appear unique.
We examine the effect on consumer preferences of altering the features that are seen as common or unique in a choice set. Specifically, building on the notion of different focus on unique as opposed to common features, we expose the fact that the uniqueness of certain features in a given context can make the choice set appear more or less attractive depending on whether the good features are unique and the bad features are shared or the bad features are unique and the good features are shared. In order to examine all the hypotheses, the experiments divide into three parts and the purpose of each experiment are stated below. In experiment 1, we want to increase the attractiveness of the choice set as a whole and test our proposition by altering the choice set under consideration such that either the good or the bad features are unique and, thus, are seen as central and important. Further, we propose that manipulations of the uniqueness of the good or bad features can influence the willing to switch to a new alternative, and allow subjects to change their decision after an initial choice. In the experiment 2, we show that the focus on the unique features can also alter the relative preference for an alternative when a new option is added to the choice set. In the last experiment, the research wants to prove the attractiveness of a single alternative can be most enhanced by the introduction of many new options.
The findings of this research are as follows:
1.「Unique good pairs」lead to an increase and「unique bad pairs」lead a decrease in the attractiveness of the choice set as a whole.
2. The relative preference of any single alternative can be enhanced by adding a new alternative which make the single option whose good features appear unique and bad features appear common in the choice set.
3. If we add too many new options into choice set, the attractive of the specific alternative will decrease because of information overload.
To sum up, the manipulation of the unique and common features not only can affect the attractiveness of the choice set as a whole; it can also affect the attractiveness of any single alternative in that set. Our results indicate that it is not the objective values of the alternatives taken independently that contribute to the preference; rather, it is the comparison process engaged by the preference task that brings about these effects. The same item can be chosen and valued highly, chosen and valued little, rejected and valued highly, or rejected and valued very little depending on the features of the other alternatives in the choice set. Theses findings will help some companies to find out how to influence consumer''s decision by manipulating the choice set.
目錄
第一章 緒論
第一節 研究背景與動機
第二節 研究目的
第三節 研究貢獻
第四節 本研究與過去研究不同之處
第二章 理論基礎與文獻探討
第一節 特殊屬性與共同屬性相關文獻
第二節 引誘品牌的相關文獻探討
第三章 研究方法
第一節 基本觀念架構
第二節 研究架構
第三節 研究假設
第四節 研究變數的操作定義
第五節 研究設計
第六節 資料蒐集與分析方法
第四章 資料分析
第一節 增加整體吸引力部份
第二節 增加個別吸引力部份
第三節 更加突顯吸引力部份
第四節 研究結果彙整
第五章 結論與建議
第一節 研究結論
第二節 行銷理論含意
第三節 行銷實務含意
第四節 研究限制
第五節 未來研究建議
參考文獻
附錄一
附錄二
附錄三
附錄四
附錄五
參考文獻
一、中文部分
1.鄭雅莉,產品屬性對消費者偏好之影響:以台北市市民為例,中國文化大學新聞研究所未出版碩士論文,民國 七十八年六月。
2.呂玉華,「產品特質」、「資訊價值」與「企業行銷策略」關係之研究,國立政治大學企業管理研究所未出版 碩士論文,民國七十九年六月。
3.陳文賢,統計學(個人電腦運用),初版,台灣大學工商管理學系,民國七十九年八月。
4.顏月珠,商用統計學,第八版,三民書局,民國八十二年八月。
5.黃俊英,行銷研究-管理與技術,第四版,華泰書局,民國八十一年二月。
6.顧萱萱,產品線延伸策略對母產品及競爭產品影響之研究-消費者選擇取向,國立台灣大學未出版之博士論文 ,民國八十六年四月。
7.林奎佑,產品利益無關屬性產品類別及訊息負荷量與廣告效果及產品評價之關係,國立台灣大學未出版之碩士 論文,民國八十五年六月。
8.黃慧中,產品相對屬性及品牌引入策略對目標品牌及競爭品牌影響之研究-消費者選擇取向,國立中央大學未 出版之碩士論文,民國八十七年六月。
9.沈秋燕,新產品組合引入策略對目標產品與競爭產品影響之研究,國立中央大學未出版之碩士論文,民國八十 六年六月。
二、 英文部分
Agostinelli, G., Sherman, S.J., Fazio, R.H. & Hearst, E.S.(1986), "Detecting and identifying change:Additions and deletions.", Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 12, pp.445-454.
Assael Henry(1998),"Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action", 6th ed., South-Western College Publishing.
Birnbaum, Michael H. (1974), "Using Contextual Effects to Derive Psychological Scales", Perceptions and Psychophysics, 15(1), pp.89-96.
Buday, T.(1989), "Capitalizing on Brand Extensions", Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6(Fall), pp.27-30.
Chakravarti, Dipankar and John G. Lynch, Jr.(1983), "A Framework for Exploring Context Effects in Consumer Judgment and Choice", in Advances in Consumer Research, 10, ed. Richard Bagozzi and Alice Tybout, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, pp.289-297.
Chernev,Alex(1995),"The Effect of Common Features on Brand Choice Option:Moderation Effect of Attribut Importance.", Journal of Consumer Research 23,March, pp304-311.
Copulsky, William(1976), "Cannibalism in the Marketplace", Journal of Marketing, October, pp.103-105.
Dhar, Ravi and Rashi Glazer(1996),"Similarity in Context: Cognitive Representation and Violation of Preference and Perceptual Invariance in Consumer Choice", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(September), pp.280-293.
Dhar, Ravi and Steven J.Sherman(1996),"The Effect of Common and Unique Features in Consumer Choice.", Journal of Consumer Research 23,December, pp193-203.
Hauser, John R. and Patricia Simmie (1981),"Profit Maximizing Perceptual Positions: A Selection of Product Features and Price", Management Science, 27,1(January), pp.33-56.
Helson, Harry (1964), Adaptation Level Theory: An Experimental and Systematic Approach to Behavior, New York: Harper & Row.
Highhouse, Scott (1996), "Context-Dependent Selection: The Effects of Decoy and Phantom Job Candidates", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(January), pp.68-76.
Holyoak, K.J.,& Gordon, P.C.(1983),"Social Reference Points", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,44, pp881-887.
Houston, David A., Steven J. Sherman and Sara M. Baker(1989),"The Influence of Unique Features and Direction of Comparison on Preference", Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 25,March,pp.121-141.
Houston, David A., Steven J. Sherman and Sara M. Baker(1991),"Feature Matching, Unique Features, and the Dynamics of the Choice Process: Predecision Conflict and Postdecision Satisfaction.", Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 27,September,pp.411-430.
Houston, David A. and Steven J. Sherman(1995),"Cancellation and Focus:The Role of Shared and Unique Features in the Choice Process.", Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 31,July, pp357-378.
Huber, Joel, John W. Payne, and Christopher Puto(1982),"Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis", Journal of Consumer Research, 9(June), pp.90-98.
Huber, and Christopher Puto(1983), "Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects", Journal of Consumer Research, 10(June), pp.31-44.
Jacoby, Jacob, Carol A. Kohn, and Donald E. Speller (1973),"Time Spent Acquiring Information as a Function of Information Load and Organization," Proceedings of the American Psychological Association''s 81st Annual Convention, Washington, D.C.,Vol.8, pp.813-814.
Jain, Shaliendra P.(1993),"Positive versus Negative Comparative Advertising", Marketing Letters, 4 (October), pp.302-320.
Kahneman, Darieh and Amos Tversky(1991), "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice:A Reference Dependent Model", Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(November),pp.1039-1061.
Kerin, R., Harvey M., and Rothe, J.(1978), "Cannibalism and New Product Development", Business Horizons, 21(October), pp.25-31.
Kotler Philip(1996),"Marketing Management-Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control", 9th ed., Prentice-Hall Inc Publishing, pp.456.
Lehmann, Donald R. and Yigang Pan.(1994), "Context Effects, New Brand Entry, and Consideration Sets", Journal of Marketing Research, 31(August), pp.364-374.
Luce, Duncan R.(1959), Individual Choice Behavior, New York: John Wiley.
Mahajan, Vijay, Subhash Sharma, and Robert D. Buzzell(1993), "Assessing the Impact pf Competitive Entry on Market Expansion and Incumbent Sales", Journal of Marketing, 57(July), pp.39-52.
Moorthy, K. Sridhar (1984), "Marketing Segmentation, Self-Selection, and Product Line Design", Marketing Science, 3, 4(Fall), pp.288-307.
Read,S.J.(1987),"Similarity and Causality in the Use of Social Analogies", Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, pp.189-207.
Reddy, Srinivas K., Susan L. Holak, and Subodh Bhat(1994), "To Extend or not to Extend: Success Determinants of Line Extensions", Journal of Marketing Research, 31(May), pp.259-267.
Samuelson, William and Richard Zeckhauser(1988), "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making", Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(March), pp.7-59.
Scammon, D.L.(1977)"Information Load and Consumers," Journal of Consumer Research ,4(December),pp.68-72.
Sen, Sankar(1998), "Knowledge, Information Mode, and the Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, 25(June), pp.64-77.
Simonson, Itamar and Amos Tversky(1992),"Choice in Context: Trade-off Contrast and Extremeness.", Psychological Review 29,August,pp.281-296.
Simonson, Itamar(1989),"Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects", Journal of Consumer Research,16(September),pp.158-174.
Srinivasan Ratneshwar, Allan D. Shocker, and David Stewart(1987), "Toward Understanding the Attraction Effect: The Implications of Product Stimulus Meaningfulness and Familiarity", Journal of Consumer Research, 13(March) pp.520-533.
Srull,T.K.& Gaelick,L.(1983),"General principles and individual differences in the self as a habitual reference point:An examination of self-other judgements of similarity.", Social Cognition 2, p.107-121.
Tversky,Amos(1972),"Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice" ,Psychological Review, 79(July), pp.281-299.
Tversky Amos(1977), "Features of Similarity.", Psychological Review 84, July, pp.327-352.
Tversky, A., & Gati, I.(1978). "Studies of similarity. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd(Eds.)", Cognition and categorization(pp.81-98). Hillsdale, Nj: Erlbaum.
Tversky, A., & Gati, I.(1978). "Similarity, separability, and the triangle inequality.", Psychological Review, 89 ,pp.123-154.
Tversky Amos, Daniel Kahneman(1991), Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference Dependent Model", Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, pp.1040-1061.
Tversky Amos and Eldar Shafir(1992), "Choice under Conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision", Psychological Science,3(November), pp.358-361.
Winter, F.W.(1975), "Laboratory Measurement of Response to Consumer Information," Faculty Working Papper No 227, College of Commerce and Business Administration, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊