(3.237.20.246) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/17 15:23
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:林孟蓉
研究生(外文):Meng-Jung Lin
論文名稱(外文):Numerical Anchoring Effects of Reference Prices: The Main Influence of Anchor Plausibility and the Moderating Effects of Price Knowledge and Brand Type
指導教授:簡怡雯簡怡雯引用關係
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:2005
畢業學年度:93
語文別:英文
論文頁數:70
中文關鍵詞:定錨效果
外文關鍵詞:anchoranchoring effectanchor plausibilityplausible range
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:308
  • 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:0
本研究將數字定錨效果的倒U型態(Wegener, Petty, Detweiler- Bedell & Jarvis, 2000)應用到產品參考售價的議題上。產品的參考售價扮演錨的角色,消費者對於此項產品價格的判斷會受到這個錨影響,隨著參考售價的昂貴度越極端,消費者對於產品價格的判斷會呈現一個倒U的分配。由於人們對於anchor plausibility的認知影響到定錨效果(Wegener, Petty, Detweiler- Bedell & Jarvis, 2000),因此消費者對於參考售價plausibility的認知主導了參考售價所產生的倒U定錨效果。當參考售價落在消費者認知的plausible price range內,越極端的價格可以有越大的定錨效果;但當參考售價落在plausible price range外,提高價格的極端性會降低定錨效果。
除此之外,本研究提出了兩個中介變數:(1)消費者對產品的價格知識:高價格知識或低價格知識、(2)品牌型態:新品牌或既有品牌。這兩個中介變數會影響消費者對於參考售價plausibility的認知,進而影響到定錨效果的型態。針對一個產品,價格知識高的人所認知的plausible price range比價格知識低的人小,因此,高知識人的定錨效果會在比較不極端的價格就開始下降,低知識人的定錨效果會在一個更極端的價格才開始下降。對於一個既有品牌的商品,當參考售價落在plausible price range內,越極端的價格有越大的定錨效果,但當參考售價落在plausible price range外,增加價格的極端性不會使定錨效果下降,而因為有品牌形象與價格定位的支撐,定錨效果會維持在最大的效果上。對於一個新品牌的商品,當參考售價落在plausible price range內,越極端的價格有越大的定錨效果,當參考售價落在plausible price range外,由於沒有品牌形象與價格定位的支撐,增加價格的極端性會使定錨效果下降。
The present research applies the inverted-U pattern of numerical anchoring effects (Wegener, Petty, Detweiler- Bedell & Jarvis, 2000) to reference prices. That is, reference prices of products play the role of anchors, and consumers’ perceived prices of target products are influenced by the anchors and show an inverted-U pattern with the increases of the extremity of reference prices.
Because the perceptions of anchor plausibility moderate the effects of anchors on target judgments (Wegener, Petty, Detweiler- Bedell & Jarvis, 2000), the factor to dominate the inverted-U anchoring effects of reference prices is consumers’ perceived plausibility of reference prices. Within consumers’ plausible price ranges, more extreme reference prices have larger anchoring effects. Once the reference prices are out of the plausible ranges and going to be extremely high, increases in anchor extremity will reduce the anchoring effects.
Besides, we also propose two moderating variables which influence the perceived plausibility of reference prices and, thus, affect the pattern of anchoring effects: (1) Consumers’ price knowledge, (2) Brand type: new or existing brand.
The plausible price ranges of high knowledge people are smaller than those of low knowledge people. Thus, with the increasing extremity of reference price, the anchoring effects of reference prices for high knowledge people decrease earlier than the anchoring effects for low knowledge people.
For an existing-brand product, when reference prices are within the plausible price range, increasing extremity of reference prices increases the anchoring effects. However, when reference prices are extremely high and out of the plausible price range, because of the existing of the brand image and a specific price range, the anchoring effects will keep at the highest anchoring effect. For a new-brand product, when reference prices are out of the plausible price range, without the support of brand image and specific price range, increasing extremity of reference prices reduces the anchoring effects. The anchoring effects will display an inverted-U pattern with the increasing extremity of reference prices.
中文摘要 I
ABSTRACT II
TABLE OF CONTENTS III
LIST OF FIGURES V
LIST OF TABLES VI

CHAPTER 1 STUDY PURPOSE 1
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 3
2.1 “ANCHOR– AND– ADJUST“ PROCESS 3
2.2 SELECTIVE ACCESSIBILITY 4
2.3 ATTITUDE CHANGE THEORIES FOR NUMERICAL ANCHORING 5
2.4 PRICE ACCEPTABILITY FUNCTIONS 8
2.5 PRICE PRIMING 10
CHAPTER 3 PROPOSED THEORY AND HYPOTHESES 13
3.1 PROPOSED THEORY 13
3.2 HYPOTHESES 18
3.3 UNIQUENESS OF THE PRESENT STUDY 21
CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENT 22
4.1 STUDY 1 22
4.1.1 Pretest 22
Pretest purpose 22
Pretest method and design 23
Pretest result 24
4.1.2 Main experiment 25
Design and participants 25
Procedure 26
Independent variables (manipulations) 27
Dependent variables 27
4.1.3 Result 28
Knowledge classification 28
Dependent measures 28
4.2 STUDY 2 34
4.2.1 Pretest 34
Pretest purpose 34
Pretest method and design 35
Pretest result 36
4.2.2 Main experiment 37
Design and participants 37
Procedure 38
Independent variables (manipulations) 39
Dependent variables 39
4.2.3 Result 40
Manipulation check 40
Dependent measures 40
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 46
5.1 CONCLUSION 46
5.2 LIMITATION 49
5.3 IMPLICATION 49
5.4 FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTION 52
REFERENCE 53
APPENDIX 55
Aronson, E., Turner, J., & Carlsmith, M. (1963). Communicator credibility and communicator discrepancy as determinants of opinion change. Journal of abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 31-36.
Bochner, S., & Insko, C. A. (1966). Communicator discrepancy, source credibility, and opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 614-621.
Brock, T. C. (1967). Communication discrepancy and intent to persuade as determinants of counterargument production. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 296-309.
Chapman, G.. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1994). The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 223-242.
Edwards, K., & Smith, E. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 5-24.
Greenwald, A. G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 147-170). New York: Academic Press.
Helson, Harry (1964). Adaptation –Level Theory, New York: Harper & Row.
Herr, Paul M., Sherman, Steven J., & Fazio, Russell H. (1983). On the consequences of priming: Assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 323-340.
Herr, Paul M. (1989). Priming price: Prior knowledge and context effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 1, 67-75.
Insko, C. A., Murashima, F., & Saiyadain, M. (1966). Communicator discrepancy, stimulus ambiguity, and influence. Journal of Personality, 34, 262-274.
Jacowitz, K. E., & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1161-1166.
Janis, I. L., & King B. T. (1954). The influence of role playing on opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 211-218.
Monroe, Kent B.(1973). Buyers subjective perceptions of price. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 70-80.
Monroe, Kent B.(1990). Pricing: Making profitable decisions (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill
Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 136-164.
Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000). Numeric judgments under uncertainty: The role of knowledge in anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 495-518.
Northcraft, G., & Neale, M. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 84-97.
Ofir, Chezy (2004). Reexamining latitude of price acceptability and price thresholds: Predicting basic consumer reaction to price. Journal of Consumer Research. 30, 4, 612-621.
Quattrone, G. A., Lawrence, C. P., Finkel, S. E., & Andrus, D. C. (1984). Explorations in anchoring: The effects of prior range, anchor extremity, and suggestive hints. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R. E. (1965). Attitude and attitude change: The social judgment-involvement approach. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.
Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 437-446.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1130.
Wegener, Duane T., Petty, Richard E., Detweiler-Bedell, Brian T., & Jarvis, W. Blair G. (2001). Implications of attitude change theories for numerical anchoring: Anchor plausibility and the limits of anchor effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 62-69.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關論文
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔