跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.204.48.64) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/30 08:45
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:康凱雯
研究生(外文):Kang Kai-Wen
論文名稱:產品屬性、消費者評估參考點與評估情境對購買評價之影嚮
論文名稱(外文):How the product attribute, natural reference and evaluation mode influence willing-to- buy?
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:50
中文關鍵詞:單獨評估同時評估自然參考點容易衡量屬性不易衡量屬性消費者購買評價
外文關鍵詞:seprate evaluatejoint evaluatenatural referenceeasy-to-evaluate attributehard-to-evaluate attributewilling-to-buy
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:14
  • 點閱點閱:788
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:189
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
同一策略群組(Strategic group)中的競爭者所推出的競爭產品常是具有相似性品質(comparable quality)的相似性產品;當然不同品牌之產品雖相似卻未必完全相同,因此在其中幾項屬性表現上會出現互有強弱的情形,在此種狀況企業所關心的是在何種情形下,消費者對本公司產品的評價會優於競爭品牌。
Hsee(1996)將產品的屬性歸化為兩種屬性,一是消費者在無其他可比較資訊下無法評斷產品品質表現程度的屬性,是為「不易衡量屬性Hard-to-evaluate」;另一是消費者即使在單獨評估某一產品時亦可清楚得知其品質表現程度的屬性,此為「容易衡量屬性Easy-to-evaluate」。Hsee(1996)以「衡量假說(The evaluability hypothesis)」來解釋「偏好逆轉效果(Preference reseveal)」。「衡量假說」發現若目標產品在「不易衡量屬性」上較競爭產品為強,則在「同時評估」時因為可以讓消費者互相比較目標產品及競爭產品,而凸顯目標產品的優點,進而提高消費者對目標產品的購買評價;反之,若目標產品表現較強的屬性是「容易衡量屬性(Easy-to-evaluate)」,則目標產品在「單獨評估」下才能以此屬性優勢贏得較高的購買評價。
另外,Hsee(1998)提出「評估模式效果(evaluation mode effect)」指出:當目標產品及競爭產品在屬性表現上互有強弱,且其屬性表現均較參考產品(Reference)為強,則相較於將產品同時呈現予消費者(同時評估Joint evaluation),產品分開單獨呈現(單獨評估Separate evaluation)可提高目標產品及競爭產品的購買評價;反之,當其屬性表現均較參考產品差時,將產品放置一起呈現因在同時評估下消費者會把兩項產品做直接比較,放棄採用參考產品所提供的資訊,所以對目標產品及競爭產品的評價均會上升。
實務上消費者在評估產品時,會同時產生此兩種效果;本研究以過去學者研究成果為出發點,同時考慮「產品本身相對於參考產品的屬性表現」及「屬性衡量難易」,探討在不同的評估情境下,「評估模式效果」及「偏好逆轉效果」有時互為抵換、有時互為加成的影響將使消費者對產品的購買評價產生什麼影響?
本研究發現當目標產品在容易衡量屬性表現較競爭產品強時,且其在兩屬性整體表現均優於參考產品時,在「單獨評估」的購買評價顯著高於「同時評估」時的購買評價;但在兩屬性整體表現均劣於參考產品時,其在「單獨評估」時的購買評價和在「同時評估」時的購買評價沒有差異。反之,當目標產品在「不易衡量屬性」表現較競爭產品強,且其在兩項屬性的整題表現均遜於參考產品時,在「同時評估」的購買評價會高於「單獨評估」下的購買評價;但若目標產品在兩項屬性的整體表現較優於參考產品,則最後目標產品在「同時評估」的購買評價和在「單獨評估」時的購買評價沒有差異。
本研究在行銷理論研究上之貢獻為:結合「衡量假說」及「評估模式效果」,探討此兩種效果的互動影響,使此兩種效果在理論上獲得更進一步的釐清。根據本研究結果:若目標產品為高品質產品且在「容易衡量屬性」之表現較競爭者來得強,建議廠商應降低目標產品和競爭產品出現在同一通路中的情況,在廣告或促銷方面,應引導消費者將注意力放在「容易衡量屬性」;若廠商推出的目標產品為高品質產品,但其相對於競爭產品表現較強的屬性是「不易衡量屬性」,建議廠商透過行銷方法,教育消費者關於此「不易衡量屬性」的產品知識,使其成為「容易衡量屬性」,而可利用專門式的通路或引導消費者的廣告或促銷方式來增加目標產品的購買評價。若目標產品為低品質產品且在「不易衡量屬性」表現較強,本研究建議在通路管理方面,廠商應力求和競爭產品置於同一通路中,在廣告或促銷方面,廠商可考慮採用比較式廣告。
Abstract
Will the products of comparable overall quality be more attractive when presented in isolation and evaluated separately (separate evaluation) or when juxtaposed and evaluated side by side (joint evaluation)? Hsee(1996) investigated a particular type of preference reversal (PR), existing between joint evaluation and separate evaluation, and proposed “evaluability hypothesis”. According to this hypothesis, PRs between joint and separate evaluations occur because one of the attributes involved in the options is hard to evaluate independently (hard-to-evaluate) and another attribute is relatively easy to evaluate independently (easy-to-evaluate). Hard-to-evaluate attribute means that the evaluator does not know how good a given value on the attribute is without comparisons. Easy- to-evaluate attribute means that the evaluator knows how good the value is. When two stimulus options involve a trade-off between a hard-to-evaluate attribute and easy-to-evaluate attribute, the hard-to-evaluate attribute has a lesser impact in separate evaluation than in joint evaluation, and the easy-to-evaluate attribute has a greater impact.
Hsee(1998) proposed “evaluation mode effect” to explain how judgments differ between these two modes. He concluded that if the options are more attractive than the natural reference used in separate evaluation, then the two options will be judged more positively and have a higher likelihood of purchase in separate evaluation than in joint evaluation. Conversely, if the options are unattractive relative to the reference, they will be perceived more favorably and have a higher likelihood of purchase in joint evaluation than in separate evaluation.
In real life, consumers would be influenced by both “evaluation mode effect” and “preference reversal effect“. This research shows that if the option is attractive relative to the reference and is superior on easy-to-evaluate attribute, its attractiveness will be enhanced under separate evaluation. Conversely, if the option is unattractive relative to the reference and is superior on hard-to-evaluate attribute, subjecting it to joint evaluation will enhance its attractiveness. And if the option is attractive relative to the reference but is superior on hard-to-evaluate attribute or the option is unattractive relative to the reference but is superior on easy-to-evaluate attribute, the attractiveness will not be different between separate evaluation and joint evaluation.
第一章 緒論…………………………………………………….……….1
第二章 文獻探討……………………………………….……………….4
第一節 參考點與消費者評估方式…………………….…………..4
第二節 產品屬性…………………………….……………………..7
第三節 在不同評估情形下的消費者偏好……….………………..9
第三章 研究方法………………………………………………………19
第一節 研究架構……………………………………...…………..19
第二節 研究假設…………………………………………...……..20
第三節 變數之定義與衡量…………………………………….....26
第四節 研究設計………………………………………………….28
第五節 資料分析方法…………………………………………….33
第四章 研究結果分析……………………...………………………….34
第一節 實驗一…………….………………..……………………..34
第二節 實驗二…………….…………………..…………………..34
第三節 實驗三…………….……………………..………………..35
第四節 實驗四…………….………………………..……………..36
第五章 結論與建議……………………...…………………………….38
第一節 研究假說之驗證結果…………..………………………...38
第二節 行銷理論意涵…………………….………………………39
第三節 行銷實務意涵……………………….……………………39
第四節 研究限制………………………………….………………43
第五節 未來研究建議…………………………….………………44
參考文獻……………………………………………………………….46
附錄
參考文獻
一 中文部份
1. 洪華偉,(1996)「比較性廣告對品牌態度及購買意願之影響」國
立成功大學企業管理研究所碩士論文
2. 黃慧中(1998),「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」, 中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
3. 彭昭英(1998),「SAS與統計分析」,儒林圖書有限公司
4. 顏月珠(1995),「商用統計學」,三民書局
二 英文部份
1.Bazerman, Max H., George F. Loewenstein, and Sally Blount White(1992),”Reversal of Preference in Allocation Decisions: Judging an Alternative versus Choosing Among alternatives,” Administrative Science Quarterly,37,220-240.
2. Bazerman, M H., Schroth, H. A., Shah, P.P., Diekmann, K. A.,&Tenbrunsel, A. E.(1994),”The inconsistent role of comparison others and procedural justice in reactions to hypothetical job descriptions :Implications for job acceptance decisions.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,60,326-352
3.Christopher K. Hsee (1996),”The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives,” Organizational, Behavior and Human Decision Precess,67,247-257.
4. 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 Process,67,280-293
5.Fischer, G. W.,&Hawkins,S.A.(1993),”Strategy compatibility , scale compatibility, and the prominence effect.” Journal of Experimental Psycho;ogy: Human Perception and Performance,19,580-597
6.Hsee, C.K. (1995),”Elastic justification: How tempting but task- irrelated event factors influence Decisions” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process,62,330-337
7.Hsee, C.K. (1996),”Elastic justification: How unjustifiable factors influence judgments” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process,66,122-129
8.Hsee, C.K. (1994),”Less Is Better: When Low-value Options Are Valued More Highly than High-value Options” Journal of Behavioral Behavioral Decision Making,11,107-121
9.Hsee, France Leclerc(1998), “Will Products Look More Attractive When Presented Separately or Together?” Journal of Consumer Research , 25 ,175-186
10. Huber, Joel, John W. Payne, and Christopher Puto (1982),”Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypotheses,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9,90-98.
11.Johnson, Eric J., John W. Payne, and James R. Bettman (1988),”Information Displays and Preference Reversals,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process,42,1-21
12.Kahneman, Daniel and Dale T. Miller (1986),”Norm Theory: Comparing Reality to Its Alternatives,” Psychological Review,93,136-153
13.Kahneman, D., & Ritov, I(1994),”Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods, A study in the headline method” Journal of Risk And Uncertainty,9,5-38
14.Kahneman, Darieh and Amos Tversky(1979), ”Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk” Econometrica,47,263-291
15.Kahneman, Darieh (1991),”Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Regardance Dependent Model” Quarterly Journal of Economics,106.1.39-1061
16.Lichtenstein, D., Tversky, A.(1979),”Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk” Econometrica,47,263-291
17.Linville, Patricia W. and Gregory W. Fischer(1991),” Preferences for Separating and Combining Events,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,2-24
18.Mellers, B. A., Richards, V.,& Birnbaum, M H.(1992),”Distrbutional Teory of Impression Formation” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process,51,313-343
19.Medvec, Victoria H., Scott F. Madey, and Thomas Gilovich (1995),”When Less Is More: Counterfactual Thinking and Satisfaction Among Olympic Medalists” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,69,603-610
20.Nowlis, Stephen M. and Itamar Simonson (1997),” Attribute Task Compatibility as a Determinant of Consumer Preference Reversals,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34,205-219
21.Puto, Christopher P.(1987),”The Framing of Buying Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14,301-315
22.Risso, J. Edward, Victoria H. Medvec, and Margaret G, Meloy(1996),”The Distortion of Information during Decisions,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process,66,102-110
23.Slovic, P.,& Lichtenstein, S.(1968),”The relative Importance of Probabilities and Payoffs in Risk Taking” Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs,78,(3,Pt.2)
24.Slovic,Paul (1995),” The Construction of Preferebce:102d Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award Address,” American Psychologist,50,364-371
25.Simonson, Itamar(1989),” Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research,16,158-174
26.Shafir, Itamar Simonson and Amos Tversky(1993),” Reason-Based Choice,” Cogition,49,11-36
27.Shaur, Eldar B., Daniel N. Osherson, and Edward E. Smith(1993),” The Advantage Model: A Comparative Theory of Evaluation and Choice under Risk,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process,55,325-378
28.Tversky, Amos(1972)”Elimination by Aspects: a Theory of Choice” Psychological Review,79,281-299
29.Tversky, Amos, Sattath, S.,&, P.(1988)”Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice” Psychological Review,98,371-384
30.Tversky,Amos A.(1969)”Intranstivity of Preferences” Psychological Review,76,31-48
31.Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman(1973),” Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability,” Cognitive Psychology, 5,207-232
32. Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman(1974),” Judgment under Uncertainty :Heuristics and Biases,” Science,185,1124-1131
33.Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman(1981),”The Framing of Decisions and the Psycho;ogy of Choice,” Science,211,453-458
34.Tversky and Daniel Kahneman(1991),” Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model,” Quarterly Journal of Economics,106,1039-1063
35.Tversky and Eldar Shafir(1992),”Choice under Conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision,” Psychological Science,3,358-361
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊