臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

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