臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究主要目的為探討消費者在購買奢侈品時，在取捨正版、仿冒與二手這三種類別的奢侈品，是否會受到情境效應的影響，而有選擇上的偏好，特別是剛接觸奢侈品的消費者。對奢侈品市場來說，消費者普遍重視的品質與價格屬性，在類別上已形成一種屬性上的相對分佈，即一種選擇的情境， 若消費者沒有特定的屬性偏好，相對較容易受到選擇情境產生的情境效應所影響。依據上述的論點，本研究首先探討，當消費者選擇正版、仿冒與二手奢侈品時，在取捨這三類商品的當下，是否會受到其中一種情境效應－折衷效應所影響，而對二手奢侈品有選擇上的偏好。從母體百分比差異性檢定的結果顯示，消費者選擇確實會受到折衷效應的影響，而偏好二手奢侈品。接著探討在奢侈品不同的行銷策略下，是否改變了消費者的知覺品質與知覺價格，而形成的不同選擇情境，調節折衷效應，並因知覺的改變，產生區間與分類效應，影響消費者的選擇。從百分比同質性檢定結果顯示，雖然調節折衷效應未顯著，但區間與分類效應顯著影響選擇。最後挑出限量的情況做進一步分析，探討是否因為消費者願意支付價格的提升，稀釋知覺價格改變，導致屬性分佈較不極端，而使折衷效應強化與減弱未如預期般顯著。從變異數分析結果顯示，限量的策略會顯著提升消費者願意支付價格。

The main purpose of this research is to study whether context effect influences the choice of consumers when they purchase luxury goods and choose among the three categories- original, counterfeit, and second-hand ones, especially for those consumers who just learn to know about luxury goods. In luxury market, product quality and price, the two attributes that are commonly deemed as important by the consumers, has formed the three categories mentioned above to a context distribution for choice. If the consumer does not hold a specific attribute preference, they are relatively easier to be influenced by the context effect caused by the choice context. According to the above reasoning, this study first discusses whether consumers are influenced by compromise effect - one of the context effect, when they are choosing among original, counterfeit, and second-hand luxury goods, and thus prefer second-hand ones. The result of population percentage difference test indicates that the consumers are influenced by compromise effect and prefer second-hand luxury. Then, the study discuss whether consumers' perceived quality and price are altered under different marketing strategies; whether the different choice context formed mediates compromise effect, and whether the altered perception induce range and category effect that influence the choice of the consumers. The result of percentage homogeneity test shows, although the mediation of compromise effect is not significant, the range and category effect do influence the choice significantly.

中文摘要 i
英文摘要 ii
誌謝 iii
目錄 iv
表目錄 vi
圖目錄 vii
一、　緒論 1
　　1.1 研究背景與動機 1
　　1.2 研究目的 4
　　1.3 研究對象 4
　　1.4 研究步驟與流程 5
二、　文獻回顧與評析 6
　　2.1 奢侈品市場 6
　 2.1.1正版奢侈品 6
2.1.2 仿冒奢侈品 7
2.1.3 二手奢侈品 8
　　2.2 知覺品質與知覺價格的改變 8
　　2.3 情境效應 9
2.3.1 折衷效應 9
2.3.2 區間效應 12
2.3.3分類效應 12
　　2.4 文獻評析 13
三、　研究假設與方法 15
　　3.1 研究架構 15
　　3.2 研究假設 15
3.2.1 折衷效應對選擇的影響 15
3.2.2行銷策略對選擇的影響 16
　　3.3 實驗設計 20
　　　 3.3.1商品選擇 20
3.3.2 前測 20
3.3.3 情境設計 21
　　3.4 資料收集與分析 22
　　　 3.4.1資料收集 22
3.4.2 資料分析 22
四、　研究結果 23
　　4.1 折衷效應對選擇的影響 23
　　4.2 行銷策略對選擇的影響 24
4.2.1 實證分析 24
4.2.2 延伸分析 28
五、　結論與建議 30
5.1研究結論 30
5.2 行銷實務意涵 33
5.3 研究限制 35
5.4 未來研究建議 36
參考文獻 37
附錄一：前測問卷設計（奢侈品選擇） 42
附錄二：正式問卷設計（奢侈品選擇） 45
附錄三：正式問卷設計（願意支付價格） 53

1. Amaldoss, Wilfred and Sanjay Jain (2008), “Trading Up: A Strategic Analysis of
Reference Group Effects,” Marketing Science, Vol. 27, pp. 932-942.
2. Amaldoss, Wilfred and Sanjay Jain (2009), “Reference Groups and Product Line Decisions An Experimental Investigation of Limited Editions and Product Proliferation,” Working paper.
3. Balachander, S. and A. Stock. 2009. “An empirical analysis of theories of scarcity effects in the automobile industry,” Working paper, Krannert School of Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
4. Birnbaum, Michael H. (1974), “Using Contextual Effects to Derive Psychological Scales,” Perceptions and Psychophysics, Vol. 15, pp. 89-96.
5. Brown, S. (2001), “Torment your customers (they will love it),” Harvard Bus, Rev. 79(9), pp. 82–88.
6. Chernev, Alexander (2004), “Extremeness Aversion and Attribute Balance Effects in Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31, pp. 249–263.
7. Chernev, Alexander (2005), “Context Effects without a Context: Attribute Balance as a Reason for Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32, pp. 213–223.
8. Cohen, Joel B. and Kunal Basu (1987), “Alternative Models of Categorization: Toward a Contingent Processing Framework,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10, pp. 83-95.
9. Cole, Catherine A. (1989), “Deterrence and Consumer Fraud,” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 65, pp. 107-120.
10. DeGraba, P. (1995), “Buying frenzies and seller-induced excess demand,” RAND J. Econom. Vol. 26, pp. 331–342.
11. Dember, Willaim N. and Joel S. Warm (1979), Psychology of Perception, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
12. DeSarbo, Wayne S., Ajay K. Manrai and Raymond R. Burke (1990), “A Nonspatial Methodology for the Analysis of Two-Way Proxomity Data Incorporating the Distance-Density Hypothesis,” Psychometrika, Vol. 55, pp. 229-253.
13. DeSarbo, Wayne S. and Ajay K. Manrai (1992), “A New Multidimensional Scaling Methodology for the Analysis of Asymmetric Proximity Data in Marketing Research,” Marketing Science, Vol. 11, pp. 1-20.
14. Dhar, Ravi and Itamar Simonson(1992), “The Effect of the Focus of Comparison on Consumer Preferences,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29, pp. 430-440.
15. Dodds, William B., Kent B. Monroe, and Dhruv Grewal (1991), “Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers’ Product Evaluations,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, pp.307-319.
16. Dubois, Bernard, Sandor Czellar, and Gilles Laurent, “Consumer Segments Based on Attitudes Toward Luxury: Empirical Evidence from Twenty Countries,” Marketing Letters, Vol. 16, pp. 115-128.
17. Farley, John U., Jerold Katz, and Donald R. Lehmann (1978), “Impact of Different Comparison Sets on Evaluation of a New Subcompact Car Brand,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 5, pp. 138-142.
18. Grossman, C. J., and Shapiro, C. (1988), “Foreign Counterfeiting of Status Goods,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 103, pp. 79-100.
19. Hamilton, Ryan, Jiewen Hong, and Alexander Chernev (2007), “Perceptual Focus Effects in Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 34, pp. 187-199.
20. Hamlyn, David W. (1983), Perception, Learning and the Self, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
21. Helson, Harry (1964), Adaption-Level Theory, New Yourk: Harper & Row.
22. Hustak, A. (1990), “Ritzy Rip-offs,” The Gazette, August, p. 31.
23. Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1979), “Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk,” Econometrica, Vol. 47, pp. 263-291.
24. Kahneman, Daniel, Jack L. Knetsch, and Richard Thaler (1991), “The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and the Status Quo Bias,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5, pp. 193-206.
25. Kapferer, JN (1997), “Managing Luxury Brands,” Journal of Brand Management.
26. Krumhansl, Carol L. (1982), “Density versus Feature Weights as Predictors of Visual Identification: Comment on Appelman and Mayzner,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, ” Vol. 85, pp. 445-463.
27. Lai, Kay Ka-Yuk and Judith Lynne Zaichkowsky (1999), “Brand Imitation: Do the Chinese Have Different Views,” Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 16, pp. 179-192.
28. Lehmann, Donald R. and Yigang Pan (1994), “Context Effects, New Brand Entry, and Consideration Sets,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, pp. 364-374.
29. Luce, R. Duncan (1959), Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis, New York: Wiley.
30. Monroe, Kent B. (1977), “Objective and Subjective Contextual Influences on Price Perceptions,” Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior, New York: North-Holland, pp. 276-286.
31. Monroe, Kent B. and Susan M. Petroshius (1981), “Buyers’ Perception of Price: An Update of the Evidence,” Perspectives in Consumer Behavior, pp. 43-55.
32. Moore, William L. and Donald R. Lehman (1982), “Effects of Usage and Name on Perceptions of New Products,” Marketing Science, Vol. 1, pp. 351-370.
33. Nia, Arghavan and Judith Lynne Zaichkowsky (2000), “Do Counterfeits Devalue the Ownership of Luxury Brands,” Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 7, pp. 485-497.
34. Nyeck, Simon (2004), “Luxury Brands Online and Offline: The case of French Brands,” The European Retail Digest, Institute of Retail Management, pp. 20-24.
35. Olshavsky, R. W. (1985), “Perceived Quality in Consumer Decision Marking: An Integrated Theoretical Perspective in Perceived Quality,” Massachusetts: Lexington Books, Vol. 10, pp. 3-29.
36. Pan, Yigang and Donald R. Lehmann (1993), “The Inflence of New Brand Entry on Subjective Brand Judgments,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, pp. 76-86.
37. Parloff, Roger (2006), “Not Exactly Counterfeit,” Fortune, Vol. 153, pp. 108–112.
38. Parducci, Allen (1974), “Contextual Effects: A Range-Frequency Analysis,” in Handbook of Perception, Vol. 2, pp. 127-141.
39. Payne, J. (1982), “Contingent decision behavior,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 92, pp. 382-402.
40. Penz, Elfriede and Barbara Stottinger (2005), “Forget the Real Thing-Take the Copy! An Explanatory Model for the Volitional Purchase of Counterfeit Products,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 32, pp. 568-575.
41. Phau, I. and Prendergast, G (1998), “Conceptualizing the country of origin of brand,” ANZMAC98 Conference Proceedings, pp.1999-2000.
42. Phillips, Tim (2005), Knockoff: The Deadly Trade in Counterfeit Goods. Sterling, VA; Kogan Page.
43. Shafir, E., Simonson, I., and Tversky, A. (1993). “Reason-based choice,” Cognition, Vol. 49, pp. 11-36.
44. Sheng, Shibin, Parker, Andrew M., and Kent Nakamoto (2005), “Understanding the Mechanism and Determinants of Compromise Effects,” Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 22, pp. 591-609
45. Simonson, Itamar (1989), “Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16, pp. 158-165.
46. Simonson, Itamar and Amos Tversky (1992), “Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29, pp. 281-296.
47. Simonson, Itamar and Stephen M. Nowlis (2000), “The Role of Explanations and Need for Uniqueness in Consumer Decision Making: Unconventional Choices Based on Reasons,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27, pp. 49-68.
48. Stock, A. and S. Balachander (2005), “The Making of a Hot Product: A Signaling Explanation of Marketers’ Scarcity Strategy” Management Sci, Vol. 51, pp. 1181–1192.
49. Sujan, Mita and James R. Bettman (1989), “The Effects of Brand Positioning Strategies on Consumer’ Brand and Category Perceptions: Some Insights from Schema Research,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26, pp. 454-467.
50. Tversky, Amos (1977), “Features of Similarity,” Psychological Review, Vol. 84, pp. 327-352.
51. Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman (1991), “Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference Dependent Model,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 106, pp. 1040-1061.
52. Vigneron, F. and Johnson, L. W. (1999), “A Review and a Conceptual Framework of Prestige-Seeking Consumer Behavior,” Academy of Marketing Science Review.
53. Wee, Chow-Hou, Soo-Jiuan Tan and Kim-Hong Cheok (1995), “Non-price Determinants of Intention to Purchase Counterfeit Goods: An Exploratory Study,” International Marketing Review, Vol. 12, pp. 19-46.
54. Wilcox, Keith, Hyeong Min Kim, and Sankar Sen (2009), “Why Do Consumers Buy Counterfeit Luxury Brands,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 46, pp. 247-259.
55. Wu, Jian and Guogun Fu (2007), “Effects of Brand-Originating Counties and Product-Made Counties on a Consumer’s Product Evaluation and Purchase Intension,” Chinese Journal of Management, Vol. 4, pp. 593-601.
56. 劉剛、鞏曉波，民國96年，我國消費者奢侈品認知價值的分析框架初探，中國復旦大學管理學院。