臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究探討產品類型在結構比較模型上的效果。消費者在評價不同的產品類型(享樂品與實用品)對於可比較差異與不可比較差異有不對稱性的重視程度。消費者選購實用品的時候，對屬性類型的重視程度是有跡可循的－遵循著結構比較理論的結論。然而在選購享樂品時，卻逆轉結構比較的結論，注重難以處理的不可比較差異。但以上的效果只有在屬性值為量化形式上成立(實驗一A、B)。過去文獻上分類享樂品與實用品的方式有兩種－以整體性質偏向或以主要屬性特質分門別類，但這兩種方式並不是互斥的關係。我們進行一個更嚴格的檢測，以產品整體偏向分類實驗產品，並變化產品的可比較屬性與不可比較屬性之屬性享樂、實用特質，結果鞏固了我們的假說並顯示出穩健性(實驗二)。最後，我們找出了產品類型在結構比較模型上的邊界條件。評價享樂品時對不可比較差異的重視程度被緩解，而評價實用品對可比較屬性重視依舊強烈(實驗三)。

This article examined the effect of product category on structural alignment model. Consumers apply differential weighting of alignable and nonalignable attributes in the evaluation of hedonic product and utilitarian product. People are likely to focus more on nonalignable attributes when evaluating hedonic product, while they are likely to focus more on alignable attributes when evaluating utilitarian product. And this effect only holds on quantitative attributes (study 1a and study1b). Prior research showed consumers characterize some products as primarily hedonic and others as primarily utilitarian. But a product can possess both hedonic attributes and utilitarian attributes. For this reason, we conducted a more strict examination: characterize product as primarily hedonic or utilitarian, and vary the characteristics of attributes in the assignment of attribute across brands. The result demonstrated the robustness of our hypothesis (study 2). In the final study, we found the boundary condition for the effect of product category on attribute alignability. Consumer’s reliance on nonalignable attributes would be mitigated when evaluating hedonic product, while their greater reliance on alignable attributes remained strongly when evaluating utilitarian product (study 3).

目錄
摘要 I
Abstract II
誌謝 III
目錄 IV
圖表目錄 VI
第一章 緒論 1
第二章 文獻回顧 2
第一節 屬性可比較性(Attribute Alignability) 2
第二節 產品類型(Hedonic versus Utilitarian) 3
第三節 解釋水平理論(Construal Level Theory) 4
第四節 意象化(Imagery) 5
第三章 實驗一(A)：產品類型對屬性類型重視程度的影響 6
第一節 前測 6
第二節 實驗流程 7
第三節 實驗結果 8
第四節 結論 10
第四章 實驗一(B)：類別屬性 10
第一節 前測 11
第二節 實驗流程 11
第三節 實驗結果 12
第四節 討論 13
第五章 實驗二：產品類型、屬性類型與屬性比較性 14
第一節 前測 14
第二節 實驗流程 16
第三節 實驗結果 16
第四節 討論 19
第六章 實驗三：自由選擇作為邊界條件 21
第一節 前測 21
第二節 實驗流程 21
第三節 實驗結果 22
第四節 討論 24
第七章 結論與建議 24
第一節 研究貢獻 24
第二節 管理意涵 25
第三節 研究限制與未來研究之建議 26
附錄 27
參考文獻 31

圖1-1實驗一(A):產品類型與品牌對購買可能性的影響 9
圖1-2實驗一(A):產品類型與品牌對想法數量的影響 10
圖1-3實驗一(B):產品類型與品牌對想法數量的影響 13
圖2-1實驗二：版本與品牌在購買可能性上的效果 18
圖2-2實驗二：版本與屬性差異在想法數量上的效果 19
圖3-1實驗三:產品類型與品牌對購買可能性的影響 23
圖3-2實驗三:產品類型與品牌在想法數量上的效果 24
表 1實驗二：選用屬性之重要性與享樂指數 15

Botti, Simona and Ann L. McGill (2011), “The locus of choice: Personal causality and satisfaction with hedonic and utilitarian purchases,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37(April), 1065–1078.
Carpenter, Gregory S. and Kent Nakamoto (1989), “Consumer Preference Formation and Pioneering Advantage,” Journal ofMarketing Research, 26 (August), 285-298.
Chen, Tao, Ajay Kalra, and Baohong Sun (2009), “Why do consumers buy extended service contracts?” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (4), 611−623.
Cowley, Elizabeth and Andrew A. Mitchell (2003), “The Moderating Effect of Product Knowledge on the Learning and Organization of Product Information,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (3), 443-454.
Dhar, R. and K. Wertenbroch (2000), “Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing Research,37 (February): 60–71.
Dhar, Ravi and Itamar Simonson (2003), “The Effect of Forced Choice on Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (May), 146-60.
Estes, Zachary, and Hasson, Uri (2004), “The importance of being nonalignable: A critical test of the structural alignment theory of similarity,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30(5), 1082-1092.
Fodor, Jerry A. (1981), “Imagistic Representation,” in Imagery, ed. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press, 63-86.
Gentner, Dedre, and Arthur B. Markman (1997), “Structural Alignment in Analogy and Similarity,” American Psychologist, 52(1), 45–56.
Ha, Young-Won, Sehoon Park, and Hee-Kyung Ahn (2009), “The Influence of Categorical Attributes on Choice Context Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (3), 463-477.
Hamilton, Rebecca W. and Debora Viana Thompson (2007), “Is There a Substitute for Direct Experience? Comparing Consumers’ Preferences after Direct and Indirect Product Experiences,”Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (December), 546–555.
Kahn, Barbara and Donald Lehmann (1991), “Modeling Choice Among Assortments,” Journal of Retailing, 67 (Fall), 274-299.
Keller, Punam Anand and Ann L. McGill (1994), “Differences in the Relative Influence of Product Attributes Under Alternative Processing Conditions: Attribute Importance Versus Attribute Ease of Imagability,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3 (1), 29–49.
Khan, Uzma, Ravi Dhar, and Klaus Wertenbroch (2005), “A Behavioral Decision Theoretic Perspective on Hedonic and Utilitarian Choice,” in Inside Consumption: Frontiers of Research on Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires, ed. S. Ratneshwar and David Glen Mick, New York: Routledge, 144–165.
Khan, Uzma, Ravi Dhar, and Klaus Wertenbroch (2005), “Hedonic and Utilitarian Consumption,” in Inside Consumption: Frontiers of Research on Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desire, ed. S. Ratneshwar and David Glen Mick, London: Routledge, 144–165.
Kivetz, Ran, and Itamar Simonson (2000),“The Effects of Incomplete Information on Consumer Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (November), 427–448.
Liberman, N., &; Trope, Y. (1998), “The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (3), 5–18.
MacInnis, Deborah J. and Linda L. Price (1987), “The Role of Imagery in Information Processing: Review and Extensions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (4), 473-491.
Malkoc, Selin A., Gal Zauberman, and CananUlu (2005), “ConsumingNow or Later? The Interactive Effect of Timing andAttributeAlignability,” Psychological Science, 16 (5), 411–417.
Okada, Erica M. (2005), “Justification Effects on Consumer Choice of Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (1), 433–446.
Slovic, Paul and Douglas MacPhillamy (1974), “Dimensional Commensurability and Cue Utilization in Comparative Judgment,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11 (2), 172–194.
Smith, Eliot R. and Jamie DeCoster (2000), “Dual-Process Models in Social and Cognitive Psychology: Conceptual Integration and Links to Underlying Memory Systems,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4 (2), 108-131.
Strahilevitz, Michal A. and John G. Myers (1998), “Donations to Charity as Purchase Incentives: How Well They Work May Depend on What You Are Trying to Sell,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), 434–446.
Sun, Jin, Hean Tat Keh, and Angela Y. Lee (2012), “The Effect of Attribute Alignability on Service Evaluation: The Moderating Role of Uncertainty,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39(December), 831-847.
Tversky, Amos (1977), “Features of similarity,” Psychological Review, 84, 327–352.
Wakefield, Kirk L. and Jeffrey Inman (2003), “Situational Price Sensitivity: The Role of Consumption Occasion, Social Context and Income,” Journal of Retailing, 79 (4), 199-212.
Zhang, Shi and Gavan J. Fitzsimons (1999), “Choice-Process Satisfaction: The Influence of Attribute Alignability and Option Limitation,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77 (3), 192–214.
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.