臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在台灣「好禮多選一」直接贈送禮品的促銷方式相當普遍可見，然而目前有關直接贈送免費禮品之促銷方式的文獻尚有不足，故本文欲針對「好禮多選一」該促銷方式做進一步地深入研究，試圖找出其適用情境以供國內廠商參考，並彌補贈品促銷領域之研究缺口。本研究共發展四個實驗設計，分別研究目的為，實驗一：探討好禮多選一之贈品選項多寡，如何影響消費者對贈品之預期滿意度以及對該促銷的知覺價值與購買意願。實驗二：探討消費者對好禮多選一之贈品偏好以及贈品選擇機會有無，將如何影響消費者之知覺價值與購買意願。實驗三：探討主產品與贈品之選擇性有無，如何影響消費者對促銷之知覺價值與購買意願。實驗四：探討好禮多選一是否會產生群組比較，進而造成贈品價值降低。依據上述四個實驗結果顯示：
一、當贈品選擇越多樣性時，消費者對該促銷會產生較高的知覺價值與購買意願，此外在過多贈品選項當中挑選贈品時，消費者對於選擇贈品之決策過程會感到較為困難。
二、當贈品吸引力高的情況下，消費者之知覺價值與購買意願比贈品吸引力低的情況下來的高。並且當贈品吸引力高的情況下，消費者之選擇偏好比贈品吸引力低的情況下高。
三、主產品選擇性與贈品選擇性之間是存有交互作用。當主產品提供多樣性選擇時，贈品多樣性不會讓消費者對該促銷之知覺價值與購買意願有顯著地提升；當主產品沒有選擇性時，贈品提供多樣性選擇則會使消費者對該促銷之知覺價值與購買意願有顯著地提升。
四、好禮多選一促銷方式是否會產生群組比較，其將視贈品同質性程度而定。當贈品同質性程度高時，消費者較容易在贈品間進行比較，進而會降低每一項贈品原有價值，故會有贈品在單獨出現時比出現群組內時更有可能被選上之現象出現。

The multiple-choice premiums promotion is quite common in Taiwan, but the literature about this field is insufficient at present. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to further investigate the promotion of multiple-choice premiums to attempt to find out some rule of using this promotion. This research contains four studies. The purpose of study 1 is to know the influence of limited versus extensive choice of multiple-choice premiums promotion on consumers’ perceived value and purchase intention. The purpose of study 2 is to discuss the influence of premium attractiveness and choice chance on consumers’ perceived value, purchase intention and the premium of anticipated satisfaction. The purpose of study 3 is to find out the influence of the option context of promoted products and premiums on consumers’ perceived value and purchase intention. Finally, the purpose of study 4 is to discuss whether the promotion of multiple-choice premiums would hurt the value of premium. According to the results of the four studies, we have some findings as follows:
1. Consumers who encountered the extensive-choice condition have higher perceived value and purchase intention than exposed to the limited-choice condition. Besides, consumers encountering extensive choices reported the decision-making process to be more difficult than consumers encountering limited choices.
2. Consumers in the more preferred condition have higher perceived value and purchase intention than consumers in the less preferred condition. Besides, consumers who encountered the more preferred condition have higher preference of choosing than exposed to the less preferred condition.
3. There is a significant interaction effect between the variety of promoted products and the variety of premiums. When the promoted products offer the diversified options, the variety of the premiums will not improve consumers’ perceived value and purchase intention; whereas in the promoted product without alternative, the variety of the premiums will be observably improved consumers’ perceived value and purchase intention.
4. Whether the promotion of multiple-choice premiums focuses within-group comparison, it depends on the homogeneity of premiums. When the homogeneity is higher, the consumers would focus on the promotion of multiple-choice premiums within-group comparison easily which hurts the value of premium. As a result, a premium is more likely to be chosen in the promotion of single premium than multiple-choice premiums.

目 錄
第壹章 緒 論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1
第二節 研究流程 4
第貳章 文獻探討 5
第一節 贈品 5
一、定義 5
二、贈品分類 5
第二節 贈品促銷之相關研究 7
一、以社會交換理論的觀點解釋贈品 7
二、贈品對銷售量的影響 7
三、影響消費者促銷反應之變數 8
四、贈品特徵之交互關係 9
五、免費贈品之價值折扣假設 9
第三節 研究假設之推論 10
一、贈品選擇多寡的影響 10
二、贈品吸引力的影響 13
三、主產品選擇性的影響 15
四、群組比較的影響 18
第四節 假設整理 20
第參章 研究方法 23
第一節 實驗一 23
一、前測 23
二、實驗設計 26
三、依變數 27
四、操弄性檢定 29
第二節 實驗二 29
一、實驗設計 29
二、依變數 30
三、操弄性檢定 32
第三節 實驗三 32
一、實驗設計 32
二、依變數 34
三、操弄性檢定 35
第四節 實驗四 35
一、實驗設計 35
二、依變數 38
第肆章 資料分析 39
第一節 實驗一 39
一、樣本回收狀況 39
二、信度分析 39
三、操弄性檢驗 39
四、檢驗「有限贈品選擇組」不同版本的影響 40
五、假設檢定 41
第二節 實驗二 43
一、樣本回收狀況 43
二、信度分析 44
三、操弄性檢驗 45
四、假設檢定 45
第三節 實驗三 49
一、樣本回收狀況 49
二、信度分析 49
三、操弄性檢驗 49
第四節 實驗四 54
一、樣本回收狀況 54
二、假設檢定 54
第五節 研究假設結果之彙整 58
第伍章 結論與建議 61
第一節 研究結論 61
一、贈品選擇多寡 61
二、贈品吸引力 61
三、主產品選擇性 61
四、群組比較 62
第二節 學術研究之貢獻 62
一、贈品選擇多寡 62
二、贈品吸引力 63
三、主產品選擇性 63
四、群組比較 63
第三節 行銷實務之貢獻 63
一、考量消費者選擇過程之困難度 63
二、提供選擇性可彌補贈品不具吸引力之缺失 64
三、檢視主產品是否具有選擇性 64
四、好禮多選一促銷形式會降低贈品價值 65
五、小結 65
第四節 研究限制與後續研究之建議 66
一、贈品選擇多寡 66
二、贈品吸引力 66
三、主產品選擇性 66
四、群組比較 67
五、其他研究方向 67
參考文獻 69
附錄一、前測問卷 77
附錄二、實驗一問卷 79
附錄三、實驗二問卷 89
附錄四、實驗三問卷 95
附錄五、實驗四問卷 103

參考文獻
中文部份
1.朱家賢(2000)。促銷性廣告、產品品牌聯想形象、消費者屬性對廣告效果影響之研究。東吳大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文，台北市。
2.林怡君(2002)。贈品-主產品利益一致性與品牌權益對促銷效果影響之研究。國立台灣大學商學研究所未出版碩士論文，台北市。
3.林詩晃(2003)。紅利積點活動設計與積點贈品偏好之關係－探討「顧客忠誠度」之干擾效果。國立交通大學經營管理研究所未出版碩士論文，新竹市。
4.邱錦嵐(2002)。贈品促銷對消費者購買行為的影響—以機車為例。國立台灣科技大學管理研究所未出版碩士論文，台北市。
5.夏心華(1997)。促銷活動與產品涉入對品牌權益影響之研究。東吳大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文，台北市。
6.徐心怡(2000)。消費者促銷知覺價值與促銷偏好程度之研究—產品類別干擾效果之討論。元智大學管理研究所未出版碩士論文，桃園縣。
7.張重昭、李鴻業(1998)。「產品選擇情境對消費者多樣行為之影響」。企業管理學報，43，1-36。
8.黃麗霞(2002)。贈品促銷型式對消費者的知覺價值與購買意願之影響。國立台灣大學商學研所未出版博士論文，台北市。
9.蔡偉文(2000)。品牌名稱、促銷活動與產品認知性態度對消費者認知價值與購買意願影響之研究—以品牌個人電腦為例。銘傳大學國際企業研究所未出版碩士論文，台北市。
英文部份
1.Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity, New York: McGraw Hill.
2.Bertrand, K. (1998). Premiums prime the market. Advertising Age’s Business Marketing, 83(5), S-6.
3.Botti, S., & Iyengar, S. S. (2004). The psychological pleasure and pain of choosing: When people prefer choosing at the cost of subsequent outcome satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 312-326.
4.Brenner, L., Rottenstreich Y., & Sood S. (1999).Comparison, grouping, and preference. Psychological Science, 10(3), 225-229.
5.Chen, S. S., Monroe, K. B., & Lou, Y. C. (1998). The effects of framing price promotion messages on consumers’ perceptions and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 353-372.
6.Dhar, R. (1997). Consumer preference for a no-choice option. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(September), 215-231.
7.d’Astous, A. & Jacob, I. (2002). Understanding consumer reactions to premium-based promotional offers. European Journal of Marketing, 64(4), 65-81.
8.d’Astous, A. & Landreville, V. (2003). An experimental investigation of factors affecting consumers’ perceptions of sales promotions. European Journal of Marketing, 37(11/12), 1746-1761.
9.Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). The effect of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(August), 307-319.
10.Driver, M. J. & Streufert, S. (1965). The ‘General Incongruity Adaptation Level’ (GIAL) hypothesis: An analysis and integration of cognitive approaches to motivation. (Paper No. 114), West Lafayette, IN: Institute for Research in the Behavioral, Economic, and Management, Purdue University.
11.Faison, E. W. J. (1977). The neglected variety drive: A useful concept for consumer behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 4(December), 172-175.
12.Fiske, D. W., & Maddi, S. R. (1961). Functions of varied experience, Homewood: Dorsey Press.
13.Greenleaf, E. A., & Lehmann, D. R. (1995). Reasons for substantial delay in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (September), 186-199.
14.Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effect of price comparison advertising on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value, and behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing, 62(April), 46-59.
15.Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J., & Borin, N. (1998). The effect of store name, brand name and price discount on consumers’ evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 331-352.
16.Hebb, D. (1955). Drives and the C.N.S. (conceptual nervous system), Psychological Review, 62(July), 243-254.
17.Huffman, C., & Kahn, B. E. (1998). Variety for sale: Mass customization or mass confusion. Journal of Retailing, 74(4), 491-513.
18.Hunt, J. McV. (1963). “Motivation inherent in information processing and action.” In O. J. Harvey (ed.), Motivation and Social Interaction: Cognitive Determinants (pp.35-94). New York: Ronald Press.
19.ISP. (2000). Institute of Sales Promotion.http://www.isp.uk/
20.Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995-1006.
21.Jacoby, J., Speller, D. E., & Kohn C. A. (1974). Brand choice behavior as a function of information load. Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (February), 63-69.
22.Kahn, B. E. (1995). Consumer variety seeking among goods and services: An integrative review. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 2(July), 139-148.
23.Kahn, B. E., & Lehmann, D. R. (1991).Modeling choice among assortments. Journal of Retailing, 67(3), 274-299.
24.Karni, E., & Schwartz, A. (1977). Search theory: The case of search with uncertain recall. Journal of Economic Theory, 16(1), 38-52.
25.Kotler, P., & Turner, R. E. (1998). Marketing management (9th ed.). Canada: Prentice Hall.
26.Lancaster, K. (1990). The economics of product variety: A survey. Marketing Science, 9(3), 189-206.
27.Lepper, M. R., Henderlong, J., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 184–196
28.Lepper, M. R., Sethi, S., Dialdin, D., & Drake, M. (1996). “Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A developmental perspective.” In S. Luthar, J. Burack, D. Cicchetti, & J. Weisz (ed.), Developmental psychopathology: Perspectives on Adjustments (pp. 23–50). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
29.Leuba, C. (1955). Toward some integration of learning theories: The concept of optimal stimulation. Psychological Reports, (1), 27-33.
30.Malhotra, N. K. (1982). Information load and consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(March), 419–430.
31.March, J. G. (1978). Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2), 587-608.
32.McAlister, L. (1982). A dynamic attribute satiation model of variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 141-151.
33.Mendenhall, W., Beaver, R. J., & Beaver, B. (2001). A brief course in business statistics (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Thomson Learning.
34.Menon, S., & Kahn, B. E. (1995). The impact of context on variety seeking in product choices. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(December), 285-295.
35.Ong, B. S. (1999). Determinants of purchase intentions and stock-piling tendency of bonus packs. American Business Review, (January), 57-64.
36.Pessemier, E. A. (1978). Stochastic properties of changing preferences. American Economic Review, 68(2), 380-385.
37.Preston, R. H., Dwyer, F., & Rodelius, W. (1978). The effectiveness of bank premiums. Journal of Marketing, 42(3), 96-101.
38.Raghubir, P. (2004). Free gift with purchase: Promoting or discounting the brand. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1&2), 181-186.
39.Rossiter, J. R., & Percy, L. (1997). Advertising, communication and promotion management (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
40. Rothschild, M. L, & Gaidis, W. C. (1981). Behavioral learning theory: Its relevance to marketing and promotions. Journal of Research in Marketing, 45(Spring), 70-78.
41.Ratner, R. K., Kahn, B. E., & Kahneman, D. (1999). Choosing less-preferred experiences for the sake of variety. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(June), 1-15.
42.Scammon, D. L. (1977). Information load and consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(March), 148-155.
43.Seipel, C. M. (1971). Premiums-forgotten by theory. Journal of Marketing, 35, 26-34.
44.Shugan, S. M. (1980). The cost of thinking. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(September), 99-111.
45.Simonson, I. (1990). The effect of purchase quantity and timing on variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(May), 150–162.
46.Simonson, I. (1999). The effect of product assortment on buyer preferences. Journal of Retailing, 75(3), 347-370.
47.Simonson, I., Carmon, Z. & O’Curry, S. (1994). Experimental evidence on the negative effect of product features and sales promotions on brand choice. Marketing Science, 12(1), 23-40.
48.Sood, S., Rottenstreich, Y., & Brenner, L. (2004).On decisions that to decisions: Direct and derived evaluations of preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(June), 17-25.
49.Venkatesan, M. (1973). “Cognitive consistency and novelty seeking.” In Scott Ward & Thomas S. Robertson (ed.), Consumer Behavior: Theoretical Sources (pp.355-384). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
50.Walsh, J. W. (1995). Flexibility in consumer purchasing for uncertain future tastes. Marketing Science, 14(2), 148-165.
51.Zeithmal, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(July), 2-22.