跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.204.48.64) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/04 17:58
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:王千瑜
研究生(外文):Chien-Yu Wang
論文名稱:目標導向焦點、時間距離、產品屬性對消費者產品升級評估的影響:以手機與液晶電視為例
論文名稱(外文):Effect of Self-Regulatory Focus, Temporal Distance, and Product Attribute on Evaluation of Product Upgrades: Cases of Mobile Phones and LCD TVs
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:2008
畢業學年度:97
語文別:英文
論文頁數:82
中文關鍵詞:目標導向焦點促進焦點預防焦點時間距離歡樂性屬性功能性屬性集中性升級一般性升級線性升級非線性升級
外文關鍵詞:self-regulatory focuspromotion focusprevention focustemporal distancehedonic attributeutilitarian attributegeneral enhancementfocus enhancementalignable enhancementnonalignable enhancement
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:2
  • 點閱點閱:382
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
本研究旨於探討促進焦點與預防焦點兩種「目標導向焦點」、從現在的時間點到消費者購買或是使用產品之間「時間距離」與歡樂性及功能性兩種「產品屬性」對於消費者升級產品評價的影響。由於「目標導向焦點」、「時間距離」,以及「產品屬性」對於產品升級方案的影響在學術界尚屬新興議題,又此主題在實務界中新產品開發領域的重要性日益提升,因此本研究結合此四項主題,研究不同導向焦點的消費者,分別在長短期的購買決策時間點遇到歡樂性或功能性屬性的商品,會讓他們對於不同類型的產品升級方案間出現怎樣不同的評價。本研究目的有三:
一、 探討不同「目標導向焦點」的消費者,對評估不同「產品升級」類型所帶來的偏好及選擇
二、 探討消費者在不同的「時間距離」下,對評估不同「產品升級」類型所帶來的偏好及選擇
三、 探討消費者面對不同的「產品屬性」,對評估不同「產品升級」類型所帶來的偏好及選擇
本研究第一部分將探討消費者的目標導向焦點、時間距離與產品屬性對於選擇一般性升級(在產品升級的過程中,針對每一個舊有屬性進行等比例的升級)與集中性升級(在產品升級的過程中只針對舊有屬性中的某些特定屬性進行升級)的影響程度;第二部分則是探討對於一般性線性升級(在一般性升級的前提下,使升級前後產品擁有相同屬性,但新產品提供更新更好的屬性表現)與一般性非線性升級(在一般性升級的前提下,除了原有的舊產品屬性外,再加入更多新的屬性到新產品中)的影響程度;第三部分將重點放於集中性線性升級(在集中性升級的前提下,使升級前後產品擁有相同屬性,但新產品提供更新更好的屬性表現)與集中性非線性升級(在集中性升級的前提下,除了原有的舊產品屬性外,再加入更多新的屬性到新產品中)的探討。
而研究最後發現之結論為:
一、 促進焦點與預防焦點、時間距離為半年與兩年、歡樂性屬性產品與功能性屬性產品的實驗組,皆偏好且選擇「一般性升級方案」,但其偏好程度會因受測者面對的屬性產品為歡樂性而下降,再者,當促進焦點組別的受測者面對歡樂性屬性產品時,其偏好下降的程度更為明顯。
二、 以液晶電視為產品的實驗中,在促進焦點的情況下,受測者較偏好且願意選擇「一般性非線性升級方案」。
三、 以手機為實驗產品的組別,在促進焦點的情況下,較偏好「集中性的非線性升級」;以液晶電視為產品的組別分別在促進焦點與歡樂性屬性兩個情況下偏好且選擇「集中性非線性升級方案」。
The main goal of this study is to find out the effect of self-regulatory focus (promotion focus vs. prevention focus), temporal distance (the time gap between now and the timing when customer purchases this product), and product attribute (utilitarian attribute vs. hedonic attribute) on evaluation of product upgrades. Due to the fact that the influence of self-regulatory focus, temporal distance, and product attribute on product evaluation is a relative new issue in the academic area and the fact that this concept is very practical in the real business world, this study combines these four topics to discuss their effects on consumer’s preference and choice when confronting different ways of product upgrades.
The main goals of this research were as follows:
1. Discuss how the consumers with different types of “regulatory focus” prefer and make different choices on different ways of “product upgrades.”
2. Discuss how the consumers facing different “temporal distance” prefer and make different choices of “product upgrades.”
3. Discuss how the consumers facing different “product attribute “ prefer and make different choices of “product upgrades.
In the first part of the research, this paper discuss the effect of customers with different self-regulatory focus, different temporal distance, and different product attributes when they need to choose from general enhancement(to upgrade an ordinary product with similar ratio complied with every existing attributes) and focus enhancement(the way of upgrades focus certain attributes to promote). In the second part of this research, this paper discuss the effect of customers with different self-regulatory focus, different temporal distance, and different product attributes when they need to choose from other kinds of product upgrades : general alignable enhancement(the general upgrades which is similar to the ordinary one because both of them have exactly the same attributes) and general nonalignable enchancement(the general upgrades which adds new attributes to the old product and increases the level of dissimilarity between old and new products). Finally, in the last part of the research, this paper will focus on the effect of customers with different self-regulatory focus, different temporal distance, and different product attributes when they need to choose from focus alignable enhancement(the focus upgrades which is similar to the ordinary one because both of them have exactly the same attributes) and focus nonalignable enhancement(the focus upgrades which adds new attributes to the old product and increases the level of dissimilarity between old and new products).
The conclusions of this study are as follows:
1. Whether the consumers with “promotion focus” or “prevention focus “, whether they face “half year ”or “two years” temporal distance, “utilitarian attribute ”or “hedonic attribute”, they prefer and are more willing to choose “general enhancement ”. However, the level of preference will decrease as customers face a product with hedonic attributes. In addition, when the customer with promotion focus face a product with hedonic attributes, the level of decrease is more obvious.
2. In the study with LCD TVs as the experimental product , the consumers with promotion focus prefer and are more willing to choose “general nonalignable enhancement”
3. In the study with mobile phones as the experimental product, the consumers with promotion focus prefer and are more willing to choose “focus nonalignable enhancement.” In the study with LCD TVs as the experimental product, the customers prefer and are more willing to choose “focus nonalignable enhancement “when they are with promotion focus or when they face an LCD TV with hedonic attributes.
TABLE OF CONTENT
謝 詞 ii
摘 要 iii
Abstract v
CHATER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 4
2.1 Upgrades of general and focus enhancement 4
2.2 Upgrades of nonalignable and alignable enhancement 5
2.3 Regulatory Focus Theory 6
2.4 Temporal Distance 7
2.4 Product Attribute 7
2.6 Compromise Effect, Extremeness Aversion and Attribute-Balance effect 8
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS 10
3.1 Research Hypothesis 10
CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTS 17
4.1 Pre-test 17
4.2 EXPERIMENT 1 19
1. Method 19
2. Manipulation Check 21
3. Results 21
4.3 EXPERIMENT 2 26
1. Method 26
2. Manipulation Check 28
3. Results 28
4.4 EXPERIMENT 3 31
1. Method 31
2. Manipulation Check 33
3. Results 33
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONLUSIONS 36
5.1 Conclusions 36
5.2 Implication 40
5.3 Research Limitation 43

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2.1 GENERAL ENHANCEMENT AND FOCUS ENHANCEMENT 4
FIGURE 2-2 ATTRIBUTE-BALANCE EFFECT AND COMPROMISE EFFECT 9
Babin, Barry J., Willian R. Darden and Mitch Griffin (1994), “Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 644-656.
Berlyne, D. E. (1970), “Novelty, Complexity, and Hedonic Value,” Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 279-286.
Betra, Rajeev and Olli T. Ahtola (1990), ”Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of Consumer Attitudes,” Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159-170.
Boone, Derrick S., Katherine N. Lemon and Richard Staelin (2001),
“The Impact of Firm Introductory Strategies on Consumers’ Perceptions of Future Product Introductions and Purchase Decisions,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(2),96–109.
Chang,Chung-Chau and Chou Yu-Jen (2008),”Goal Orientation and Comparative Valence in Persuation,” Journal of Advertising, 37(1),73-87
Chernev, Alexander (2004), “Extremeness Aversion and Attribute-Balance Effects in Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 249-263.
Chernev, Alexander (2004), “Goal-Attribute Compatibility in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1), 141-158.
Chernev, Alexander (2005), “Context Effects without a Context: Attribute Balance as a Reason for Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 213-223.
Crowe, Ellen and E. Tory Higgins (1997),”Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations: Promotion and Prevention in Decision Making,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 117-32.
Higgins, E.Tory (1997), ”Beyond Pleasure and Pain,” American Psychologist, 52(12),1280-1300.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C. and Morris B. Holbrook (1982), “Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions,” Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92-101.
Huber, Joel, John W. Payne and Christopher Puto (1982), "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 90-98.
Johnson, Michael D. (1984), ”Consumer Choice Strategies for Comparing Noncomparable Alternatives,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 741-753.
Johnson, Michael D. (1989), ”The Differential Processing of Product Category and Noncomparable Choice Alternatives,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 300-309.
Malkoc, Selin A., Gal Zauberman and Canan Ulu (2005), ”Consuming Now or Later? The Interactive Effect of Timing and Attribute Alignability,” Psychology Science,16 ,411-416
Medin, Douglas L., Robert L Goldstone and Arthur B. Markman (1995), “Comparison and Choice: Relations between Similarity Processing and Decision Processing,” Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2(1), 1-19.
Okada, Erica M. (2006),”Upgrades and New Purchases,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (4), 92-102.
Park, C. Whan, Bernard J. Jaworski and Deborah J. Maclnnis (1986),” Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management,” Journal of Marketing, 50, 135-45.
Chitturi, Ravindra, Rajagopal Raghunathan and Vijay Mahajan (2008),” Delight by Design: The Role of Hedonic Versus Utilitarian Benefits,” Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 48-63.
Simonson, Itamar (1989), “Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158-174.
Simon, Itamar and Amos Tversky (1992).”Choice in Context : Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion,” Journal of Marjeting Research (JMR), 29 (3), 281-295.
Trope, Yaacov and Nira Liberman (2003),” Temporal Construal,” Psychological Review, 110, 403-421.
Yeo, Junsang and Jongwon Park (2006), “Effects of Parent-Extension Similarity and Self Regulatory Focus on Evaluation of Brand Extensions”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(3), 272-282.
Zhang, Shi and Arthur B. Markman (2001), “Processing Product Unique Features: Alignability and Involvement in Preference Construction”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(1), 13-27
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊