(3.226.72.118) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/13 08:35
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:陳旭屏
研究生(外文):Hsu-Ping Chen
論文名稱:消費者對有害性產品之廠商倫理評價-以消費者的產品知識與廠商的負面訊息揭露為干擾變數
論文名稱(外文):THE IMPACTS OF PRODUCT HARM ON FIRM'S ETHICAL EVALUATION-THE MODERATING EFFECTS OF PRODUCT KNOWLEDGE AND NEGATIVE INFORMATION DISCLOSURE
指導教授:孫碧娟孫碧娟引用關係
指導教授(外文):Pi-Chung Sun
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:大同大學
系所名稱:事業經營學系(所)
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:企業管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2008
畢業學年度:96
論文頁數:217
中文關鍵詞:負面訊息產品知識產品有害性倫理評價
外文關鍵詞:negative information disclosureproduct knowledgeproduct harmethical evaluation
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:207
  • 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:1
早期倫理道德行為的調查主要集中建立大眾對於法律、醫療、會計和行銷社群等專業之信心。但是,最近像Enron、Tyco和 Worldcom公司爆發企業的醜聞,開始負面地衝擊到大眾對自我規範專業能力的知覺。因此,對企業而言,建立一個倫理規範的標準架構是很重要的,充份瞭解消費者對企業行為的倫理評價也是重要的。早期的研究也發現不管產品種類為何,行銷有害產品是被認為不道德的 (Nwachukwu et al., 1997; Smith and Cooper-Martin, 1997)。其有害性的產品是被定義為:任何被認為對意圖用途是不安全或不合適的產品 (Smith and Cooper-Martin, 1997)。當消費者不能去辨認或誤認產品有害的程度或是消費者弱勢的程度,消費者可能甚至無法去確認道德的問題是存在的,導致一個無法連貫的倫理評之過程。過去國外學者在研究倫理議題上尚未考慮到消費者的產品知識與廠商的負面訊息揭露等影響因素。因此本研究將主要在探討加入產品知識、與負面訊息揭露作為干擾變數時,產品有害性是否對廠商倫理評價有顯著之影響。
本研究所採用3×2×2實驗設計模式為受測者間因子實驗設計,主要在衡量變數的個別主效果,及測量變數間的交互效果。並以問卷調查的方式,採用便利抽樣的方式來進行抽樣。主要以女性消費者為受測對象,共回收有效問卷387份,有效回收率86%。最後將所收集的問卷再以SPSS 14.0 軟體進行MANOVA分析與迴歸分析來做檢定,了解不同變數之間所造成之效果是否有明顯差異。
研究結論:
1.消費者對於較高產品有害性比起無、較少產品有害性有較低之倫理評價。
2.消費者主觀知識低、高會影響消費者對於廠商之倫理評價。但對產品有害性與
倫理評價之間的關係並無顯著影響。而客觀知識低、高皆沒有其影響效果。
3.在負面訊息無揭露下,消費者對廠商之倫理評價有較高的評價。在負面訊息有
揭露下,消費者對廠商之倫理評價有較低的評價。
4.當廠商之倫理評價為低時,消費者對於產品的購買意願會較低。
關鍵字:產品有害性、產品知識、負面訊息、倫理評價
Early examinations of ethical behavior largely focused on the need to establish public confidence in such profession as the legal, medical, accounting, and marketing communities. Yet, recent corporate scandals brought to light by the implosion of firms such as Enron, Tyco, and Worldcom have again negatively impacted public perceptions of a profession’s ability to self-regulate. A normative prescriptive framework for ethical conduct on the part of the business community is vital and an adequate understanding of ethical evaluation of corporate behaviors by consumer is imperative. Nwachukwu et al., Smith and Cooper-Martin indicated that earlier studies have implied that despite product category, the marketing of more harmful product to any group was generally considered to be unethical. Smith and Cooper-Martin argued that harmful products have been defined as any product that is known to be unsafe and/or unfit for its intended use. When the consumer is unable to identify or incorrectly identifies either the level of product harm or the degree of consumer vulnerability, the consumer may not even recognize that a moral issue is present, resulting in a flawed ethical evaluation process. There are few studies considered the effects of the product harm, product knowledge and negative information on firms’ ethical evaluation. For this reason, the main purpose of this study is to explore the effects of product knowledge and negative information, in addition to product harm, on firms’ ethical evaluation. Especially, the moderating effects of product knowledge and negative information on the relationship between product harm and firms’ ethical evaluation will be examined.
In this study a 3×2×2 between-subject design with three level of product harm (harmless, less harmful & more harmful), two level of product knowledge (low knowledge & high knowledge), and two treatments of negative information (disclosure & undisclosure) is used to test research hypotheses. The data is collected by convenient sampling from female consumers and there were 387 effective questionnaires with an effective response rate of 86 percent. This study adopted SPSS 14.0 for windows to testing hypothesis of this study.
The result of this study reveals that:
1. The level of product harm influences the firms’ ethical evaluation. Product harm will reduce the firms’ ethical evaluation.
2. The degree of subjective product knowledge influences the firms’ ethical evaluation, while it does not influence the relationship between the product harm and firms’ ethical evaluation. The degree of objective product knowledge does not influence the firms’ ethical evaluation.
3. The disclosure of negative information reduces ethical evaluation.
4. The level of firms’ ethical evaluation positively influences purchase intention.
Key words: Product Harm, Product Knowledge, Negative Information Disclosure, Ethical Evaluation
ABSTRACT IN ENGLISH ii
ABSTRACT IN CHINESEiii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v
CONTENTSvi
TABLESviii
ILLUSTRATIONS x
Chapter 11
INTRODUCTION1
1.1 Research Background and Motive1
1.2 Research Objectives3
1.3 Research Procedure4
Chapter 2 5
LITERATURE REVIEW5
2.1 Product Harm5
2.2 Product Knowledge7
2.3 Negative Information8
2.4 Ethical Evaluation10
2.5 Purchase Intention11
Chapter 313
RESEARCH METHODLOGY13
3.1 Research Framework13
3.2 Research Hypotheses14
3.3 Operational Definitions of Variables and Measurement18
3.4 Experiment Design20
3.5 Questionnaire Design and Data Collection21
3.6 Prestest Process and Results22
3.7 Statistic Analysis Method25
Chapter 4 26
DATA ANALYSIS AND INITERPRETATION26
4.1 Data Description26
4.2 Reliability Analysis and Validity Analysis31
4.3 Hypothesis Tests35
Chapter 5 76
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS76
5.1 Conclusions78
5.2 Managerial Implication79
5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research79
BIBLIOGRAPHY81
APPENDIX.84
Alba, J. W. and W. Hutchinson. “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise.” Journal of Consumer Research 13, (1987): 411-454.
Anderson, J. C. and B. W. Gerbing. “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach.” Psychological Bulletin l, no.103 (1988): 411-423.
Andreasen, A. R. and J. Manning. “The Dissatisfaction And Complaining Behavior of Vulnerable Consumers.” Journal of Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior 3, (1990):12–20.
Alford, B. L. and A. Biswas. “The Effects of Discount Level, Price Consciousness and Sale Proneness on Consumers’ Price Perception and Behavioral Intention.” Journal of Business 55, no.9 ( 2002): 775-783.
Beatty, S. E. and S. M. Smith. “External Search Effort: An Investigation Across Several Product Categories.” Journal of Consumer Research 14, no.1 (1987): 83-95.
Brucks, M. “The Effect of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior.” Journal of Consumer Research 12, no.1 (1985): 1-16.
Broniarczyk, S. M. and D. G. Andrew. ”The Reciprocal Effects of Brand Equity and Trivial Attributes.” Journal of Marketing Research 11, (2003):161-175.
Braunsberger, K., L. A. Lucas, and D. Roach. “The Effectiveness of Credit-Card Regulation for Vulnerable Consumers.” The Journal of Services Marketing 18, (2004):358–370.
Carpenter, G. S., G. Rashi, and K. Nakamoto.”Meaningful Brands from Meaningless Differentiation.” Journal of Marketing Research 31, (1994):339-350.
Dodds, W. B., K. Monroe, and D. Grewal. “Effect of Price, Brand and Store Information on Buyers’ Product Evaluations.” Journal of Marketing Research 28, no.3 (1991): 307-319.
Fiske, S. T. “Attention and Weight in Person Perception: The Impact of Negative and Extreme Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38, no.6 (1980): 889-906.
Fortney, A. P. “Fair Lending Law Developments,” The Business Lawyer 55, no.3 (2000): 1309–1325.
Flory, S. M. and T. J. Phillips. “A Multidimensional Analysis of Selected Ethical Issues in Accounting.” Accounting Review 67, (1992):284–303.
Herr, P. M., F. R. Kardes, and J. Kim. “Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product-Attribute Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility Perspective.” Journal of Consumer Research 17, (1991): 454-462.
Hunt S. D., and S. Vitell. “A General Theory of Marketing Ethics’.” Journal of Macromarketing 6, (1986):16–24.
Hofstede, G. “The Cultural Relativity of Organizational Practices and Theories.” Journal of International Business Studies 28, (1983):75–89.
Jones, J. L., and L. M. Karen. ”Ethical Decision-Making by Consumers: The Roles of Product Harm and Consumer Vulnerability.” Journal of Business Ethics 70, (2007):247–264.
Johnson, E. J. and J. E. Russo. “Product Familiarity and Learning New Information.” Journal of Consumer Research 11, no.1 (1984): 542-550.
Lichtenstein, D. R., N. M. Ridgway, and R. G. Netemeyer. ”Price Perceptions and Consumer Shopping Behavior: A Field Study.” Journal of Marketing Research 30, no.2 (1993):234-245.
Maheswarna, D. and J. M. Levy. ”The Influence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement.” Journal of Marketing Reserch 27, (1990):361-367.
Monroe, K. B. and A. Y. Lee. “Remembering Versus Knowing: Issues in Buyers’ Processing of Price Information.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27, no.2 (1999): 207–225.
Martin, L. L. “Set/Reset: Use and Disuse of concepts in Impression Formation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, (1986): 493–504.
Nwachukwu, S. L. S., S. J. Vitell, F. W. Gilbert, and J. H. Barnes. “Ethics and Social Responsibility in Marketing: An Examination of the Ethical Evaluation of Advertising Strategies.” Journal of Business Ethics 39, (1997):107–118.
Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric Theory , New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
Park, C. W. and V. P. Lessig. “Familiarity and its Impacts on Consumer Decision Biases and Heuristics.” Journal of Consumer Research 8, (1981): 223-230.
Park C. W., L. Feick and D. L. Mothersbaugh. “Consumer Knowledge Assessment – How Product Experience and Knowledge of Brands, Attributes, and Features Affects What We Think We Know.” Advances in Consumer Research 19, (1992): 193-198.
Paolillo, J. and S. Vitell. “An Empirical Investigation of the Influence of Selected Personal, Organizational, and Moral Intensity Factors on Ethical Decision Making.” Journal of Business Ethics 35, (2002): 65–74.
Quester, P. G. and J. Smart. “The Influence of Consumption Situation and Product Involvement over Consumers’ Use of Product Attribute.” The Journal of Consumer Marketing 15, no.3 (1998): 220-238.
Reidenbach, R. E, and D. P. Robin. “Toward the Development of a Multidimensional Scale for Improving Evaluations of Business Ethics.” Journal of Business Ethics 9, (1990):639-653.
Reidenbach, R. E., D. P. Robin, and L. Dawson. “An Application and Extension of a Multidimensional thics Scale to Selected Marketing Practices and arketing Groups.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing cience 19, (1991):83–92.
Robin D. P., E. W. King, and R. R. Eric. “The Effect of Attorneys’ Perceived Duty to Client on Their Ethical Decision Making Process.” American Business Law Journal 34, no.2 (1996): 277–299.
Rao, A. R. and K. B. Monroe, “The Moderating Effect of Prior Knowledge on Cue Utilization in Product Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research 15, (1988): 53-264.
Rudell, F. Consumer Food Selection and Nutrition Information, New York: Praeger, 1979.
Smith, N. C. and E. C. Martin. “Ethics and Target Marketing: The Role of Product Harm and Consumer Vulnerability.” Journal of Marketing 61, (1997): 1–20.
Skowronski, J. J., and D. E. Carlston. “Negativity and Extremity in Impression Formaiton: A Review of Explanations.” Psychological Bulletin 105, (1989):131-142.
Sultan F. “Consumer Preferences for Forthcoming Innovations: the Case of High Definition Television.” The Journal of Consumer Marketing 16, no.1 (1999): 24-41.
Wright, P. “The Harassed Decision Maker: Time Pressures, Distractions and the Use of Evidence.” Journal of Applied Psychology 59, (1974):555-561.
Zeithaml, V. A. “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence.” Journal of Marketing 52, no.3 (1988): 2-22.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔