跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(34.204.180.223) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/05 16:51
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:顏承亭
研究生(外文):Cheng-TingYen
論文名稱:新奇產品類型之展示暴露程度對於產品偏好影響
論文名稱(外文):The Favorability of the Surprising Products and the Product Display Strategies
指導教授:馬敏元馬敏元引用關係
指導教授(外文):Min-Yuan Ma
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立成功大學
系所名稱:工業設計學系碩博士班
學門:設計學門
學類:產品設計學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2012
畢業學年度:100
語文別:中文
論文頁數:97
中文關鍵詞:新奇型產品展示暴露程度模糊容忍度視觸覺不一致
外文關鍵詞:surprising productsdisplay strategiestolerance of ambiguityvisual-tactual incongruities
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:530
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:154
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
視、觸覺感受對於消費者的產品經驗而言十分重要。而近年來,越來越多的設計師運用視觸覺感知不一致的設計手法使消費者產生「驚訝」的感受。Ludden 等人(2008)將其定義為「新奇型產品」並進行分類。而在其後續研究(2009)中證實:受測者對「新奇型產品」與「非新奇型產品」的偏好並無顯著差異。因此本研究著重在重新定義「新奇類型產品」的分類,並進而探討在不同的產品展示暴露程度(螢幕顯示、櫥窗展示、實體接觸)中,受測者的模糊容忍度對於產品偏好的影響。本研究希冀探討出不同新奇類型產品最合適的展示暴露方式;並以消費者的不同模糊容忍度作為消費族群的定位便於未來運用新型產品的展示銷售上。

本研究首先利用專家訪談所得「新奇型產品」之特質進行數量化三類分析。依據其結果將X 軸向推論為「觸覺新奇程度」,Y 軸為「視覺新奇程度」,再由此二軸交叉之對應關係衍生出四個象限產品之定義─「視觸覺新奇」、「僅視覺新奇」、「僅觸覺新奇」、以及「視觸不新奇」四類產品。本實驗邀請了32 位受測者,並依模糊容忍度區分為高、低兩群。實驗方式是讓受測者在「螢幕顯示」「櫥窗展示」「實體接觸」三個不同展示暴露階段中,分別對於這四類新奇型產品進行產品偏好的評價。其實驗結果根據ANOVA重複量測法分析所得以下結果:

一、受測者對於四類新奇型產品的偏好依序為「視觸不新奇」、「僅視覺新奇」、「視觸覺新奇」、「僅觸覺新奇」類產品。然而這四類新奇產品可再依據「觸感上是否新奇」歸納為兩大類型,與Ludden 之定義有所不同。
二、隨著展示暴露階段的推移,產品被暴露的資訊量越多,受測者的產品偏好也越高。
三、模糊容忍度高的受測者對於產品的偏好程度較高,他們較願意去接受喜愛新奇類型的產品並給予較高的評價。

The visual and haptic feelings are very important to the users’ product experience. In the recent years, there are more designers trying using visual-tactual incongruities as a product design strategy. According to a recent related study, it defined this kind of design method as “surprise products” and categorized them into two different types. However, in the following study, the result proved that there are no significant differences in the preference to the subjects between these two types of surprise product. Therefore, this research would focus on redefining the “surprising products”. Besides, based on the character of visual-tactual incongruities, we include the product display strategies as an independent variable into the experiment. Also, according to other studies, the users’ cognitive style is an important factor when they made the decisions. That means the users’ tolerance of ambiguity would affect their preference when they were stated in the environment which with different level of information.

The aim of this research is trying to figure out the optimal display strategies for the different surprising products. And through the personal character- tolerance of ambiguity to help sales know how to put across all attractive features of a product to their target users. Firstly, this research through the focus group method to get the characters of the surprising products, then based on the result, using Quantification Ⅲ method to divide the surprising products into four type: Visual Novelty, Double Novelty, Hidden Novelty, No Novelty.

There are 32 subjects participated in this research whom were divide into two groups by their scores of tolerance of ambiguity test. All of them have to judge the four different types of surprising products in three kinds of display ways. Repeated measure ANOVA, and LSD Multiple Comparisons would be used to the research data. The research results show: (1) People like “No Novelty ”product most, then “ Visual Novelty”, “Double Novelty”, and the last is “Double Novelty”, which means they don’t like the surprise on the haptic sense. (2) The more information the products reveal the preference get higher.(3) People who have high-level tolerance of ambiguity will be willing to accept the surprising product and give the higher evaluation.

摘要 i
Abstract ii
誌謝 iii
目錄 iv
表目錄 vii
圖目錄 viii

第一章、緒論 1
1-1 研究背景與動機 1
1-2 研究目的 3
1-3 研究範圍 4
1-4 研究流程架構 5

第二章、文獻探討 6
2-1 產品經驗 6
2-1.1 視覺 6
2-1.2 觸覺 8
2-1.3 視覺與觸覺的不協調性 9
2-2 新奇型產品 10
2-2.1 何謂「新奇」型產品 10
2-2.2 新奇型產品的類型 12
2-2.3 新奇型產品與情感反應 14
2-3 產品展示暴露程度 15
2-3.1 消費者情感與認知 15
2-3.2 消費者環境與行為 17
2-4 消費者認知風格 18
2-4.1 認知風格 18
2-4.2 模糊容忍度 19
2-5 產品偏好的量測 20
2-6 結語 20

第三章、實驗架構與步驟 21
3-1 實驗架構 21
3-2 實驗規劃 22
3-2.1 實驗變項定義與量測 22
3-2.2 實驗準備 24

第四章、不同類型之新奇型產品樣本挑選 27
4-1 新奇型餐具所具特質 27
4-1.1 實驗樣本初步篩選:焦點訪談法(FocusGroup Interview) 27
4-1.2 新奇型餐具之特質 28
4-2 新奇型產品分類 29
4-2.1 新奇型餐具特質核定 29
4-2.2 資料分析:數量化三類 30
4-2.3 分析結果與討論 30
4-3 新奇型產品之分類準則驗證 35
4-3.1 集群分析法 35
4-3.2 分析結果與討論 36

第五章、新奇產品類型與展示暴露程度之實驗 39
5-1 受測者分群 39
5-2 實驗內容 40
5-2.1 第一階段:螢幕顯示 40
5-2.2 第二階段:櫥窗展示 41
5-2.3 第三階段:實體接觸 42
5-3 實驗分析方法:重複測量變異數ANOVA 43
5-4 實驗結果 44
5-4.1 實驗因子定義 44
5-4.2 敘述性統計結果 45
5-4.3 新奇產品類型與展示暴露程度的檢定結果 48
5-4.4 模糊容忍度的檢定結果 50
5-4.5 小結 50
5-5 新奇產品類型、展示暴露程度與模糊容忍度對於產品偏好分析 51
5-5.1 新奇產品類型與產品偏好 52
5-5.2 新奇類型產品與展示暴露程度對於產品偏好影響 56
5-5.3 展示暴露程度與產品偏好影響 59
5-5.4 模糊容忍度與展示暴露程度對於產品偏好影響 61
5-5.5 模糊容忍度與產品偏好影響 63
5-5.6 小結 65

第六章、結論與建議 66
6-1 研究成果 67
6-1.1 四象限之新奇型產品特質圖 67
6-1.2 新奇產品類型對於產品偏好程度之影響 67
6-1.3 展示暴露程度對於產品偏好程度之影響 68
6-1.4 模糊容忍度對於產品偏好程度之影響 69
6-2 後續研究建議 69

參考文獻 70
外文文獻 70
中文文獻 74
附錄一 新奇型餐具樣本與特質對應表 75
附錄二 初步篩選之74 組實驗樣本之項目得點 77
附錄三 實驗紀錄表 81
附錄四 依模糊容忍度將受測者分群之結果 86
附錄五 實驗訪談紀錄 87
外文文獻

Ballesteros, S., Millar, S., & Reales, J.M. (1998). Symmetry in haptic and in visual shapeperception. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 389–404.
Baxter, M.(1995).Product Design: Practical metyhods for the systematic development of new products.CHAPMAN & HALL, ISBN 0 412 63230 6 Berlyne, D.(1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Appleton Century Crofts Press.
Blake,B. F.,Zenhausern R., PerloffR.,& Heslin,R. (1973).The effect of tolerance of ambiguity upon product perceptions.Journal of applied psychology.(Vol.58) No.2 239-243
Bloch, P.H. (1995)Seeking theideal form: product design andconsumer response. Journal ofMarketing(Vol. 59), 16–29
Bolanowski, S. J., Verrillo, R. T.,& McGlone F. (1999). Passive, active and intra-active(self) touch. Somatosens Mot Res;16:304–11.
Bont, C. J.P.M., Schoormans, J. P.L.,& Wessel, M. T.T. (1992). Consumer personality and the acceptance of product design. Design Studies(Vol. 13), Issue 2,200-208:Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd.
Budner,S. (1962).Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable.Journal of Personality (Vol.30)29-50
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J.& Clarkson,P. J.(2004).Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product designEngineering. Design StudiesVol. 25, No. 6. (Nov.), pp. 547-577 Elsevier Ltd.
Crozier, W.R. (1994)Manufacturedpleasures: psychological responseto design.ManchesterUniversity Press, Manchester,UK
Dermer, J. (1973). Cognitive characteristics and the perceived importance of information. Account. Rev., 3: 511–519.
Einhorn, H. J. &Hogarth, R. M.(1985). Ambiguity and Uncertainty inProbabilistic Inference. Psychological Review, 92 (4), 433-461.
Field, T. (2001). Touch. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frisch, D. & Baron, J.(1988). Ambiguity and rationality. Journal of Business Decision Making, 1, 149-157
Ghosh, D. & Ray, M. R. (1992). Risk Attitude, Ambiguity Intolerance and Decision Making: An Exploratory Investigation. Decision Sciences, 23: 431–444
Ghosh, D., & Ray, M. R. (1997). Risk, Ambiguity, and Decision Choice: Some Additional Evidence. Decision Sciences, 28: 81–104
Gepshtein, S.,& Banks, M. S. (2003).Viewing geometry determines how vision and hapticscombine in size perception.Current Biology 13 (6), p.483-488.
Grenier, S.,Barrette, A.M.,&Ladouceur, R. (2005). Intolerance of Uncertainty and Intolerance of Ambiguity: Similarities and difference. Personality and Individual Difference,593-600: Elsevier Ltd.
Groot, I. M. , Antonides, G., Read, D., &RaaijW.F.(2009).The effects of direct experience on consumer product evaluation,Socio-Economics 38 ,509–518: Elsevier Ltd.
Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., & Wieringen, P. C. W. (2003). Most advanced, yet acceptable: typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design?British Journal of Psychology, 94: 111-124
Heller, M. A. (1982). Visual and tactual texture perception: intersensory cooperation. Perception & Psychophysics, 31, 339-344
Hoch, S.J. &Loewenstein,G.F. (1991). TimeInconsistent Preferences and Consumer Self-Control.Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (March), 492–507.
Hong, W., Thong, J. Y. L., & TAM, K. Y. (2004-5) The Effects of Information Formatand Shopping Task on Consumers’Online Shopping Behavior: A Cognitive FitPerspective.Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(3), 149–184.
Huang, M.S.(1981). Category width and individual difference in information processing strategies.The Journal of Psychology.(Vol.108)73-79
Jiang, Z., & Benbasat, I. (2007). Investigating the Influence of the FunctionalMechanisms of Online Product Presentations.Information Systems Research, 18(4),454-470.
Jonassen, D.H. (2000).Toward a design theory of problem solving.Educational Technology Research and Development(Vol. 48), No.4, 63-85
Kahn, B.E. & Sarin, R.K. (1988). Modeling ambiguity in decisions under uncertainty. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(Sept.), 265-272
Lederman, S. J., Thorne, G., & Jones, B. (1986).Perception of texture by vision and touch: Multidimensionality and intersensory integration. Journalof Experimental Psychology: Human Perception andPerformance, 12, 169–180.
Lee,S. H., Stappers P. J., &Harada, A. (2000).Kansei Appreciation of Observing 3D Objects.Proceedings of XVI Congress of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics 2000, pp.83-84
Ludden, G.D.S., Schifferstein, H.N.J., Hekkert, P. (2007) Surprising the senses. Senses & Society, 2, 353-359.
Ludden, G.D.S., Schifferstein, H.N.J.,& Hekkert, P. (2008). Surprise as a design strategy.Design Issues(Vol.24)28-38
Ludden, G.D.S., Schifferstein, H.N.J., &Hekkert P.(2009). Visual-tactual incongruities in products as sources of surprise. Empirical Studies of the Arts(Vol.27) Issue 1, 63-89: Baywood Publishing Co.,Inc
Martino, G., &Marks, L. E.(2000). Cross-modal interaction between vision and touch: the role of synesthetic correspondence. Perception 29(6) 745 – 754
Pinson, C. (1978). Consumer Cognitive Styles: Review and Implications for Marketers, in E. Topritzhofer (ed.) Marketing: Neue Ergenbnisse aus Forschung und Praxis. Wiesbaden: Gabler, 163-84
Plous, S.(1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. McGraw-Hill,NewYork.
Rock, I., & Victor, J. (1964). Vision and touch: An experimentallycreated conflict between the two senses. Science, 143, 594-596.
Schifferstein, H.N.J. (2006). The perceived importance of sensory modalities in product usage: A study of self-reports. Acta Psychologica, 121, 41-64.
Schifferstein, H.N.J. (2010).From salad to bowl: The role of sensory analysis in product experience research. Food Quality andPreferenceoi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.07.007Quality and Preference : Elsevier Ltd.
Schifferstein, H.N.J.,& Cleiren, M.P.H.D. (2005). Capturing product experiences: Asplit-modality approach. Acta Psychologica, 118, 293–318
Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Desmet, P.M.A. (2007). The effects of sensory impairments on product experience and personal well-being. Ergonomics, 50, 2026-2048.
Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Spence, C. (2008). Multisensory product experience. In H. N. J. Schifferstein & P. Hekkert (Eds.).Product Experience (Vol. 5): Elsevier Ltd.
Smith, G.E., &Nagle, T.T.( 1995). Frames of reference and buyers’ perception of price andvalue. California Management Review 38 (1), 98–116.
Smith, R. E., & Swinyard, W. R. (1983). Attitude-Behavior Consistency: The Impact of Product Trial Versus Advertising.Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (August), 257-267.
Spence, C. (2002). Multimodal attention and tactile information-processing.Behavioural Brain Research, 135, 57-64.
Su, H. J., Comer, L. B., & Lee S. (2008). The Effect of Expertise on Consumers’Satisfaction with the Use of Interactive Recommendation Agents.Psychology andMarketing, 25(9), 859–880.
Thaler, R.H.(1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice.Journal of EconomicBehavior and Organization 1, 39–60.
Vanhamme, J.,& Snelders, D. (2001).The role of surprise in satisfaction judgment.Journal of consumer satisfaction,Dissatisfaction,and Complaining Behavior14:27-44

中文文獻

李瑾玲編譯(2005),消費者行為:第十版,台北:美商麥格羅‧希爾(譯自J. Paul Peter,Jerry C. Olsonj[2005]Consumer Behavio & Marketing Strategy,7e)
洪光宗等人編譯(2008),消費者行為:第十版,台北:美商麥格羅‧希爾(譯自Delbert I. Hawkins,David L. Mothersbaugh,Roger J. Best[2007]Consumer Behavior :Building Marketing Strategy,10e)
李美華等人編譯(2004),社會科學研究方法,台北:時英(譯自Babbie,E.[2001].The Practice of Social Research. Wadsorth)
張春興(1989),張氏心理學辭典,台北:東華書局。
蔡芸欣翻譯(2009),為什麼設計,台北:木馬文化(譯自原研哉、阿部雅世[2007]なぜデザインなのか)
陳耀茂編著(1999),多變量分析方法與應用,台北:五南圖書出版股份有限公司
陳耀茂編譯(2001),多變量分析入門(譯自永田靖、棟近雅彥)
邱皓政著(2011) 量化研究與統計分析SPSS(PASW)資料分析範例解析,台北:五南圖書出版股份有限公司


連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top