(3.80.6.131) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/14 03:30
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:楊佩玲
研究生(外文):Pei-Ling Yang
論文名稱:屬性熟悉度對消費者偏好之影響
論文名稱(外文):Effect of Attribute Knowledge on Consumer Preference
指導教授:沈永正沈永正引用關係王勝本王勝本引用關係
指導教授(外文):Yung-Cheng ShenSheng-Pen Wang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:長庚大學
系所名稱:企業管理研究所
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:企業管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2001
畢業學年度:89
語文別:中文
論文頁數:73
中文關鍵詞:屬性熟悉度推論歷程模型動機推理模型產品涉入程度
外文關鍵詞:attribute familiarityinference processing modelmotivated reasoning modelproduct involvement
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:18
  • 點閱點閱:461
  • 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:163
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:4
摘要
一般人在面臨產品抉擇時,通常會針對產品的屬性仔細斟酌,例如,價格、包裝、功能...等,個別屬性對消費者本身是否具有實質的效益。產品屬性如何形成偏好或選擇,多數的研究者認為消費者會依據可見的也就是有說明的屬性來評量產品形成偏好或選擇。這個假設的問題是並非所有的產品資訊都是可得的,因此消費者會對遺漏資訊作推論。本研究試圖以產品屬性涵蓋不熟悉資訊作為行為探測的標的,衡量消費者是否會因屬性資訊不完整所刻意塑造的專業形象而對產品產生正面的態度。
實驗證實,在熟悉屬性與不熟悉屬性之間的抉擇,依據本研究不同模型下對不熟悉屬性的假設來看,高價產品的評價歷程與推論歷程模型相符,消費者會降低對不完整資訊的評價。低價產品的評價歷程則與推論歷程模型相違背,消費者反而會提高對不完整資訊的評價,而這樣的結果可以用動機推理模型來解釋。若以涉入程度作為動機激勵的表現來看,高涉入的消費者面對不完整資訊時選擇性的偏向原先的預設立場,進而產品正面的評價。並非與推論歷程模型的假設一致會降低對屬性的偏好,產生負面平均移轉效果。兩種評價歷程在消費者的心中交互作用著,至於最後的結果是那一種歷程的被採用,可能取決於價格、產品特質、涉入程度、產品熟悉度以及其他可能的原因。
ABSTRACT
People usually considered all the attributes of a product, such as price, package, function…etc which may benefit the consumer themselves when they want to choose one product of several brands. How do product attributes formed preference, most researcher think consumer will rely on visible that is stated attribute to evaluate the produce and construct their preference. The problem with this assumption is that not all the relevant product information is available, so that consumers will inference about missing information. The main purpose of this research is going to find out the attitude of consumer under the incomplete or unfamiliar information of a product.
The result of this experiment shows that the consumer choice between familiar attributes and unfamiliar attributes have implied two-product category into two different theories. The subjects of high-price product category have discounted their evaluate on unfamiliar attributes which support by the theory of Inference Processing Model while the subjects of low-price product category have appreciated unfamiliar attributes which support by the theory of Motivated Reasoning Model. On the same time, the high product involvement subjects are also appreciated unfamiliar attributes, which consistent with the behavior forecast of Motivated Reasoning Model. The unfamiliar attributes will discount the evaluation in some cases but appreciated in other cases has proved that motivation will influence the choice or behavior of people and lead the result to the direction they want to.
目錄
頁數
第一章 緒論...................... 1
第一節 研究動機.................. 1
第二節 研究目的.................. 3
第三節 研究範圍.................. 4
第四節 研究流程.................. 6
第二章 文獻探討.................... 6
第一節 評價能力.................. 7
第二節 評價動機..................14
第三節 產品涉入..................20
第四節 小結....................26
第三章 研究方法....................29
第一節 研究架構..................29
第二節 研究假設..................30
第三節 實驗設計與衡量...............35
第四節 數量方法..................37
頁數
第四章 資料分析與解釋.................38
第一節 樣本基本資料................38
第二節 涉入程度..................40
第三節 產品態度..................41
第四節 討論....................46
第五章 結論與建議...................51             
第一節 研究結論..................51
第二節 實務上的意涵................54
第三節 研究限制與研究建議.............56
參考文獻........................57
附錄..........................61
參考資料
一、中文
1.Ash1003(2000),“工作!為科技產品花錢的好藉口”,iSIRVEY-華人市場 消費行為及生活研究,http://www.isurvey.com.tw/,2000,12,16。
2.Labyrinth(2001),”健康,優酪乳重要訴求”,iSIRVEY-華人市場 消費行為及生活研究,http://www.isurvey.com.tw/ ,2001,01,12。
3.王保進,視窗版SPSS與行為科學研究,心理出版社,台北,民國八十八年十月,初版一刷。
二、英文
1.Anderson, N. H. (1974), “ Algebraic Models in Perception,” in Handbook of Perception 2, E. C. Carteremette and M. P. Friedman, eds. New York: Academic Press, 215-298,
2.Chaiken, Shelly and Maheswaran, Durairaj (1994), “Heuristic Processing Can Bias Systematic Processing: Effects of Source Credibility, Argument Ambiguity, and Task Importance on Attitude Judgment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460-473.
3.Ditto, Peter H. and Lopez, David F. (1992),“Motivated Skepticism: Use of Differential Decision Criteria for Preferred and Nonprferred Conclusions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 568-584.
4.Ditto, Peter H. and Lopez, David F.(1992), “Motivated Skepticism: Use of Differential Decision Criteria for Prefered and Nonpreferred Conclusions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 568-584.
5.Fishbein, M.(1986), “An Investigation of the Relationships between Beliefs about an Object and the Attitude toward that Object,” Human Relations, 16, 233-240.
6.Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I.(1975), “Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior,” Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
7.Jaccard, James and Wood, Gregory(1988), “The Effect of Incomplete Informtation on the Formation of Attitudes Toward Behavioral Alternatives,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 580-591.
8.Jain, Shailendra Pratap and Maheswaran, Durairaj(2000), “Motivated Reasoning: A depth-of-processing perspective,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26(4), 358-371.
9.Kunda, Ziva(1990), “The Case for Motivated Reasoning,” Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480-498.
10.Lee, Dong Hwan and Olshavsky, Richard W.(1994), “Toward a Predictive Model of the Consumer Inference Process: The Role of Expertise,” Psychology & Marketing, 11(2), 109-127.
11.Lichtenstein, Donald R., Bloch, Peter H. and Black, William C.(1988), “Correlates of Price Acceptability,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15(September), 243-152.
12.Lim, Jeen-Su and Kim, John (1992), “Impact of Consumers’ Confidence in Judgements About Missing Information on Product Evaluations,” Journal of Business Research, 25, 215-229.
13.Meyer, Robert J. (1981),“A Model of Multiattribute Judgments Under Attribute Uncertainty and Informational Constraint,” Journal of Marketing Research, 8(November), 428-441.
14.Petty, Richard E., Cacioppo, John T. and Schumann, David (1983),“Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role o Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135-146.
15.Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. (1986), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-203.
16.Sanbonmatsu, David M., Kardes, Frank R. and Herr, Paul M. (1992),“The Role of Prior Knowledge and Missing Information in Multiattribute Evaluation,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 51(February), 76-91.
17.Solomon, Michael R. (1999), Consumer Research, 4th ed., NJ; Prentice-Hall.
18.Wilkie, William L.(1986), Consumer Research, NY: Wiley.
19.Yamagishi, Toshio and Hill, Charles T.(1983), “Initial Impression Versus Missing Information As Explanations of the Set-Size Effect,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 5, 942-951.
20.Yuce, Payam and Highhourse, Scott(1998), “Effects of Attribute Set Size and Pay Ambiguity on Reaction to ‘Help Wanted’ Advertisements,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 337-352.
21.Zaichkowsky, Judity Lynne (1985), “Measuring the Involvement Construct,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12(December), 341-352.
22.Zaichkowsky, Judity Lynne (1986), “Conceptualizing Involvement,” Journal of Advertising, 15(2), 4-14.
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