(3.235.41.241) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/15 04:13
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:董宥辰
研究生(外文):Yu-Chen Tung
論文名稱(外文):A Study on Compromise, Similarity, and Market-Average Effects
指導教授:張重昭張重昭引用關係
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:55
中文關鍵詞:市場平均效果折衷效果吸引效果相似性假設
外文關鍵詞:market-average effectattraction effectsimilarity hypothesiscompromise effect
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:117
  • 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
Abstract
This research focuses on consumers’ choosing behavior in two-attribute choice set. In previous research, it is found that consumers’ evaluation is affected not only by characteristics of alternative but also by other alternatives. To explain the choosing behavior, scholars proposed the compromise effect which demonstrates middle option is viewed as the least extreme, compromise option. However, another viewpoint formed in last year. This is the concept of attribute-balance effect. Attribute-balance effect proposes that an option with equal attribute rating will be perceived as the compromise even if it is not the middle option.
In this article, another effect that might influence consumers’ choice behavior is proposed. The effect is called market average effect. It demonstrates if market average information is presented, alternative adjacent to market average will be more compromise.
There are two experiments in the research. One verifies compromise effect and similarity hypothesis in 100-point rating scale information and the other examines the market average effect. Theoretical implications of the findings are discussed.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………I
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………II

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………1
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REIVIEW……………………………………4
2-1 Similarity Hypothesis and Attraction Effect………5
2-2 Compromise Effect and Extremeness Aversion……… 8
2-3 Attribute-Balance Effect………………………………11
2-4 Market Average Effect………………………………… 13
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES…………………………………15
CHAPTER 4 Research Design………………………………………25
4-1 Pre-test……………………………………………………25
4-2 Experiment 1………………………………………………26
4-3 Experiment 2………………………………………………32
CHAPTER 5 GENERAL DISCUSSION………………………………… 40
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………43
APPENDIX………………………………………………………………46
REFERENCES
Birnbaum, Michael H. (1974), “Using Contextual Effects to Derive Psychological Scales”, Perceptions and Performance 12, 445-454
Chernev, A. (2004a), “ Extremeness Aversion and Attribute-Balance Effects in Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (September), 249-63.
Chervev,A.(2004b), “Goal Orientation and Consumer Preference for the Status Quo,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (September), 557-65
Dana-Nicoleta Lascu, George Zinkhan (1999), “Consumer conformity: Review and applications for marketing theory and practice,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7, 1-12
Dhar, Ravi, Stephen M. Nowlis, and Steven J. Sherman (2000), “Trying Hard or Hardly Trying: An Analysis of Context Effects in Choice,” Journal of Consume Psychology, 9, 189-200
Farley, John U., Katz, Jerrold, Lehmann, Donald R. (1978), “Impact of Different Comparison Sets on Evaluation of a New Subcompact Car Brand” Journal of Consumer Research, 5(September), 138-42
Green, Donald, Jacowitz, Karen E, Kahneman, Daniel, McFadden, Daniel (1998), “Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods,” 20 (Jun), 85
Hsee, C. K., and F. Leclerc (1998), “Will Product Look More Attractive When Presented Separately or Together?” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (September), 175-86
Huber, Joel, John W. Payne, and Christopher Puto (1982), “Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis”, Journal of consume research, 9(June), 90-98
Huber, Joel, Christopher Puto, (1983), “Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects,” Journal of Marketing Research; 10 (June); 31-44
Jacowitz, K. R., & D. Kahneman (1995), “Measures of anchoring in Estimation Tasks,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1161-6
Kahneman, D., J. Knetsch, and R. H. Thaler (1991), “Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5 (winter), 193-206.
Luce, R. Ducan. (1959), Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis, New York: Wiley
Lynch, John G., Jr., Chakravarti, Dipankar, Mitra, Anusree (1991), “Contrast Effects in Consumer Judgments: Changes in Mental Representations or in the Anchoring of Rating Scales?” Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 284-97
Payne, J. W., J. R. Bettman, and E. J. Johnson (1988), “Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 14 (3), 534-52.
Ran Kivetz, Oded Netzer, V Srinivasan (2004), “Extending Compromise Effect Models to Complex Buying Situations and Other Context Effects,” Journal of Marketing Research, 41(Aug), 262
Samuelson, William and Richard Zeckhauser (1988), “Status Quo Bias in Decision Making” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(March), 7-59
Shibin Sheng, Andrew M. Parker, Kent Nakamoto (2005), “Understanding the mechanism and determinants of compromise effects” Psychology & Marketing, 22, 591-609
Shugan, S. M. (1980), “ The Cost of Thinking,” Journal of Consumer Research, 7, September 99-111
Simonson, I. (1989), ‘”Choice based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research (September), 158-73.
Simonson, I., and A. Tversky (1992), “Choice in Context: Trade off Contrast and Extremeness Aversion,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (August), 281-95.
Tversky, A. & D. Kahneman (1991), “Loss Aversion and Riskless Choice: A Reference Dependent Model,” Quarterly Journal of Economics
Tversky, A. (1977), “Features of Similarity,” Psychological Review, 84, 327-52
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D (1974), Judgments under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Bias,” Science, 185, 1124-31
Tversky, A. (1972), “Elimination by Aspect: A Theory of Choice”, Psychological Review, 89, 281-299
Wedell, Douglas H. and Jonathan C. Pettibone (1996), "Using Judgements to Understand Decoy Effects in Choice," Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(September), 326-344
Wernerfelt, Birger (1995), “A Rational Reconstruction of the Compromise Effect: Using Market Data to Infer Utilities,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21(March), 627-33
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 胡夢鯨(2004)。學習社會發展指標與理想指數之建構及其對教育決策的啟示。教育研究集刊,50(2),85-118。
2. 王政彥(1999)。終身教育的理論基礎與建構。教育資料集刊,24,21-44。
3. 胡夢鯨(1995)。英國成人學習的一項主流:開放學習。成人教育,27,10-17。
4. 武文瑛(2004)。我國回流教育政策實施之評析。成人及終身教育,2,14-24。
5. 武文瑛(2002)。由帶薪教育制度的訂定看勞工的終身學習。勞工之友,600,11-14。
6. 林清江(1998c)。邁向新世紀的教育政策。教育資料文摘,42(2),9-16。
7. 林清江(1998a)。藉教育改革締造另一次台灣經驗。教師天地,97,4-9。
8. 林東泰、林振春、黃明月、邱天助(1997)。社會教育指標研究。社會教育學刊,26,15-40。
9. 林慧貞(1996)。繼續高等教育校外學習制之探討。成人教育,31,29-35。
10. 林清江(1995)。學習社會的教育改革。成人教育,27,2-9。
11. 吳明烈(1998)。推動回流教育,邁向學習社會。成人教育,41,19-25。
12. 吳明烈(1996)。學習社會的展望:意義、特質與功能之分析。載於中華民國成人教育學會主編,終生學習與教育改革(頁51-81)。台北:師大書苑。
13. 江雪齡(1998)。美國終身學習的推展。成人教育,44,48-53。
14. 張鈿富(1996)。台灣地區教育指標建構之研究。教育研究資訊,4(3),18-40。
15. 陳麗珠、吳政穎(1999)。層級分析法(AHP)應用於國民教育補助政策公平效果評估之研究。教育政策論壇,2(2),1-37。
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔