臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

現今消費者的消費行為模式，較以往更加的複雜且難以掌握，不論在本土或進口、傳統或流行上，均產生一套有別於傳統的消費價值觀，此即兩極化與多元性消費時代的來臨。消費者的消費習性並不單純，故價值對消費者之導引，亦是多面向且不易界定的。消費者選擇產品受到實用與享樂考量所驅使，「實用性消費價值」或是「情緒性消費價值」之購物策略實際並存於一社會文化中。本研究試圖探討消費者對於「價值」的解釋，除會受個人價值取向的影響外，亦會受產品權變因素與購買決策情境的影響。
本研究的研究動機即擬透過對兩極化與多元性消費觀的探討，分析與瞭解既存之兩極與多元之消費型態，進一步探討消費者的決策行為，希冀提供更完整而正確的消費者決策行為預測。其結果顯示：
一、消費者的最終消費決策會因為事前的消費態度不同，而有顯著差異。
二、消費者最終消費決策會因為消費過程的決策長度不同, 而有顯著差異。
三、情緒性或實用性消費態度與人格特質存在高度相關。
四、不同人格特質的消費者在其最終消費決策上，存在顯著差。

Nowadays, the consumption behavior of consumers is more complicated and uncontrollable than before; besides, whether in local or in import, as well as in tradition or in fashion, there has been a new set of consumption concept different from the tradition-referring to the coming of age of the two-way-extreme and multi-choice consumption. Consumption habits of consumers are not simple, thus the values to consumers also have diverse guides and are hard to be defined. The way consumer choose products is affected by the consideration of hedonic and utilitarian purposes, in other words, the buying strategies of " hedonic Value" and " utilitarian Value" are both existed in our society today. This study tries to explore what the consumer does explain "value"-be influenced not only by the individual value approach, but also by factors of the products versatileness and buying strategy circumstances.

Through discussing concepts of the two-way-extreme and multi-choice consumptions, the research motivation of this study is to analyze and understand the existed patterns of the two-ways-extreme and multi-choices consumptions, furthermore, it also discusses the decision behavior of consumers in order to provide more complete and correct forecast about this aspect. The result shows:
1.The Final consumption decision of consumers results from the consumption attitude at that moment before. There are apparent differences.
2.The final consumption decision is affected by how long to decide in the buying process. There are apparent differences.
3.There are close relationships between “hedonic value" and “utilitarian value" and the personality.
4.People with different personality have different final buying strategy. There are apparent differences.

第一章緒論1
第一節研究動機1
第二節研究目的5
第三節研究流程6
第二章文獻探討8
第一節產品屬性10
第二節消費價值理論12
第三節決策情境與消費者選擇之屬性的關係24
第四節人格特質31
第五節研究架構與假設33
第三章研究方法與設計40
第一節研究範圍界定40
第二節問卷設計、實驗程序40
第三節統計方法45
第四節研究工具之信度檢定47
第五節研究限度50
第四章研究方法與分析52
第一節問卷回收與樣本特徵52
第二節消費態度與人格態度之因素分析55
第三節不同消費態度之最終消費決策變異數分析58
第四節不同決策情境在最終消費選擇上的不同64
第五節消費態度與人格特質之間的關係67
第六節不同人格特質之最終消費決策變異數分析68
第七節不同基本資料最終消費選擇上的不同71
第五章結論與建議81
第一節研究結果彙整81
第二節行銷實務上的建議84
第三節管理實務上的建議85
第四節研究限制85
第五節未來研究方向建議87
參考文獻88

一、中文部分1.江郁芳，民國87年，兩極化與多元性消費價值觀之探討，私立元智大學管理研究所，碩士論文。2.李毓芳，民國90年，購買決策情境對產品屬性選擇偏好之影響，國立台灣大學，碩士論文。3.許士軍，「管理學」，東華書局，民國86年5月10版，第二章，頁29-53。4.商業週刊，第748期，民國91年。5.陳時奮，「品牌行銷的社會效益」，世界經理文摘，127期，民國86年3月，頁60-66。6.黃俊霖，民國90年，產品設計、美感價值與消費者反應階層模式間關係之研究，國立高雄第一科技大學。7.薛承甫，民國89年，消費性產品涉入程度與造形選擇關係之研究－以行動電話為例，國立成功大學，碩士論文。二、英文部分1.Ahtola, Olli T.(1985), “Hedonic and Utilitarian Aspects of Consumer Behavior: An Attitudinal Perspective,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, Ed. Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 7-10.2.Allen, M.W. (2000), "The attribute-mediation and product meaning approaches to the influences of human values on consumer choices", in Columbus, F. (Ed.), Advances in Psychology Research, Vol. 1, Nova Science Publishers, Huntington, NY, pp. 31-76.3.Allen, M.W. and Ng, S.H. (1999), "The direct and indirect influences of human values on product ownership", Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 5-39.4.Anne Dibley, Susan Baker (2001), "Uncovering the links between brand choice and personal values among young British and Spanish girls ", Journal of Consumer Behaviour, London, Jun,Vol. 1, pp.77-93.5.Baba Shiv,Alexander Fedorikhin, (1999) “Heart and mind in conflict: the interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making” in Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26, 278-2926.Babin, Barry J., William R. Darden and Mitch Griffin(1994), ”Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Valye,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20(March), 644-656.7.Baron, Jonathan and Ilana Ritov（1994), “Reference Points and Omission Bias.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 59（3）, 475-98.8.Batra,Rajeev and Olli T.Ahtola （1990）, “Measuring The Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of Consumer Attitudes,” Marketing Letters, 2（2）, 159-70.9.Belk,Russell W.(1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self ,”Journal of consumer research.15 (Sep) , 139-68.10.Bazeman,Max H.,Ann E.Tenbrunsel and Kimberly Wade-Benzoni (1998), “Negotiating with Yourself and Losing : Understanding and Managing Conflicting Internal Preference,”Academy of Management Review, 23 , 225-41. 11.Begggn, James K.(1992), “On the Social Nature of Nonsocial Perception:The Mere Ownership Effect,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,62 (Feb),229-37. 12.Craig J Thompson, Maura Troester (2002), "Consumer value systems in the age of postmodern fragmentation: The case of the natural health microculture ", Journal of Consumer Research, Gainesville, Mar, Vol.28, Iss.4, pp.550-571.13.Dhar, Ravi and Klaus Wertenbroch（2000）, “Consumer Choices Between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37（Feb）, 60-71.14.Dunegan,Kenneth J.(1993), “Framing, Cognitive Modes and Image Theory:Toward an Understanding of a Glass Half Full,” Journal of Applied Psychology,78(June),491-503.15.Eagel, Blackwell and Miniard(1990), Consumer Behavior, Sixth Edition, Hindsdale, IL:Dryden.16.Hawkins, Del, I., Roger Best, and Kenneth A. Coney(1986),Consumer Behavior: Implications for Marketing Strategy, Plano, TX: Business Publication INC.17.Hirschman, Elizabeth C. and Morris B. Holbrook (1982) , “Hedonic Consumption : Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (Summer), 92-101.18.Holbrook, Morris B. and Elizabeth C. Hirschman(1982), “The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9(September), 132-140.19.James M. Olson (1997), “Counterfactual Thinking : The Intersection of Affect and Function, ”in advances in Experimental Social Psychology,Vol.29,Mark P. Zanna ,ed. San Diego: Academic Press,1-59.20.John G. Myers (1998), “Donations to Charity as purchase Incentives : How Well they Work May Depend on What You are Trying to Sell, ” Journal of Consumer Research, 24（March）,434-46.21.Joffre Swait, Wiktor Adamowicz (2001), "The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: A latent class model of decision strategy switching ", Journal of Consumer Research, Gainesville, Jun, Vol. 28, Iss. 1, pp.135-14822.Kahneman, Daniel ,Jack L, Knetsch and Richard H Thaler (1990 ), “Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem, ” Journal of Political Economy, 98(6) , 1325-48. 23.Keller, Punam Anand and Ann L. McGill （1994), “Differences in the Relative Influence of Product Attributes Under Alternative Processing Conditions: Attribute Importance Versus Attribute Ease of Imagability,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3（1), 29-49.24.Kusum L. Ailawadi, Scott A. Neslin, & Karen Gedenk (2001), "Pursuing the Value-Conscious Consumer: Store Brands Versus National Brand Promotions ", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, pp.77-89. 25.Mary Frances Luce, James R Bettman, John W Payne (2001), "Antecedents of trade-off difficulty ", Journal of Consumer Research; Gainesville, Iss. 1, pp.36-89.26.Morris B. Holbrook(1996),”Typology of Customer Value,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 23, 139.27.Munson J. Michael and Edward F. Mcquarrie(1988), “Shortening the Rokeach Value Survey for Use in Consumer Research,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 115, Ed. Houston J. Michael, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 381-38628.Park, C.W, B.J Jaworski and D.J. Maclnnis (1986), “Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management.” Journal of Marketing ,50(Oct), 135-45. 29.Roese, Neal J.（1997）, “Counterfactual Thinking,” Psychological Bulletin, 121（1）, 133-48.30.Rokeach, M.(1973), The Nature of Human Values, New York, Free Press.31.Samuelson, William and Richard Zeckhauser (1988), “Status Quo Bias in Decision Making,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(August), 7-59.32.Sanna, Lawerence J.（1996), “Defensive Pessimism, Optimism, and Simulating Alternatives: Some Ups and Downs of Prefactual Thinking ,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71（5）, 1020-36.33.Schkade, David A and Daniel Kahneman （1998), “Does Living in California Make People Happy? A Focusing Illusion in Judgements of Life Satisfaction,” Psychological Science, 9（Sep), 340-46.34.Sen, Sankar and Eric J. Johnson （1997), “Mere-Possession Effects without Possession in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24（June）, 105-17.35.Sharon E. Beatty, Pamela M. Homer and Lynn R. Kahle(1988), “Problems With VALS in International Marketing Research: An Example From An Application of the Empirical Mirror Technique,” in Anvances in Consumer Research, Vol 15, Michael J. Houston(ed.), Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 375-38036.Strahilevitz, Michael A.and Georage F. Loewenstein （1998）, “The effect of ownership history on the valuation of objects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25（Dec）,276-89.37.Tybout, Allen M.and Nancy Artz （1994）, “Consumer Psychology,” Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 131-69.38.Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman (1991), “Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106（4）,1039-61.39.Vicki G..Morwitz （1996） , “Is it better to have loved and lost than never to loved at all? The effects of changes in product features over time, ” Marketing Letters, 7（3）,225-35.40.W. D. Bearden and M. J. Etzel(1982), “Reference Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase decision,” Journal of Consumer Research, September, 185.41.Zaichnowsky J. L.(1985), “Measuring of Involvement Construct” in Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12, 341-35242.Zhengyuan Wang and C.P. Rao(1995), “Personal Values and Shopping Behavior: A Structural Equation Test of the RVS in China,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22, 373-380