跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.231.230.177) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/28 14:16
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:蘇偉綱
研究生(外文):Wei-Gan Su
論文名稱:決策任務與產品本質對價格雙重角色之影響
論文名稱(外文):Examining the Impact of Decision Task and Product Nature on the Dual Role of Price
指導教授:張重昭張重昭引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chung-Chau Chang
口試委員:黃俊堯張愛華方文昌賴其勛
口試委員(外文):Chun-Yao Huang
口試日期:2015-07-31
學位類別:博士
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:2015
畢業學年度:103
語文別:英文
論文頁數:45
中文關鍵詞:品質貨幣犧牲選擇拒絕
外文關鍵詞:qualitymonetary sacrificeselectionrejection
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:139
  • 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:1
人們對價格會產生貨幣犧牲(monetary sacrifice)與品質兩種不同知覺,此為價格的雙重角色(dual role),然而價格的兩種角色在決策時之相對權重隨不同情境而改變。本研究認為決策任務不同(即選擇或拒絕任務)將影響這兩種角色的相對權重,對選擇任務而言,品質角色比貨幣犧牲角色重要;但對拒絕任務而言貨幣犧牲角色則較品質角色重要。此外、本研究也認為決策任務對價格知覺之效果隨產品本質而改變,對有形產品與服務而言,進行拒絕任務時貨幣犧牲角色皆較品質角色重要;然而在選擇任務上品質角色較貨幣犧牲角色重要之現象僅限於有形產品、而不會發生於服務上。本研究以兩個實驗驗證上述假定,並提出相關理論及實務應用。

People perceive price as a cue of monetary sacrifice, a quality signal, or both. However, this research proposed that the relative salience of these two roles varies with different decision tasks (i.e., selection and rejection). Furthermore, the effect of decision task type on price perception differs by product nature (i.e., tangible goods or services). Two experiments show that (1) the price–quality perception under the selection task is higher than that of rejection task for tangible goods but not for services, and (2) for goods and services, the sacrifice perception is greater in the rejection task than that in a selection task. These findings have important implications for formulating product assortment and marketing communications strategies.

1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDS 5
2.1. Dual Role of Price 5
2.2. Decision Task 7
2.3. The Effect of Decision Task on The Dual Role of Price 8
3. STUDY 1 10
3.1. Pretest 10
3.2. Design 11
3.3. Procedure 12
3.4. Measures 13
3.5. Results 14
4. STUDY 2 17
4.1. A Product Dependent Price-Quality Role 17
4.2. Price-Quality Perception of Service 17
4.3. Price-Sacrifice Perception of Service 18
4.4. Procedure 19
4.5. Results 20
5. GENERAL DISCUSSION 23
5.1. Conclusion 23
5.2. Theoretical Contribution and Marketing Implication 24
5.3. Limitation and Future Research 25
REFERENCE 27
APPENDIX 32
Appendix 1 Pretest Questionnaire 32
Appendix 2 Study1 Questionnaire 34
Appendix 2.1 Selection Task For Tangible Goods 34
Appendix 2.2 Rejection Task For Tangible Goods 37
Appendix 3 Study2 Questionnaire 40
Appendix 3.1 Selection Task For Service 40
Appendix 3.2 Rejection Task For Service 43


Bijmolt, T. H., Van Heerde, H. J., & Pieters, R. G. (2005). New empirical generalizations on the determinants of price elasticity. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2), 141-156.
Bornemann, T., & Homburg, C. (2011). Psychological Distance and the Dual Role of Price. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(3), 490-504.
Chang, C.-J. (2013). Price or quality? The influence of fluency on the dual role of price. Marketing Letters, 24(4), 1-12.
Chen, I. J., Gupta, A., & Rom, W. (1994). A Study of Price and Quality in Service Operations. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5(2), 23-33.
Chernev, A. (2009). Choosing versus Rejecting: The Impact of Goal-Task Compatibility on Decision Confidence. Social Cognition, 27(2), 249-260.
Cronley, M. L., Posavac, S. S., Meyer, T., Kardes, F. R., & Kellaris, J. J. (2005). A selective hypothesis testing perspective on price-quality inference and inference-based choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(2), 159-169.
Curry, D. J., & Riesz, P. C. (1988). Prices and Price/Quality Relationships: A Longitudinal Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 52(1), 36-51.
Deval, H., Mantel, S. P., Kardes, F. R., & Posavac, S. S. (2013). How Naive Theories Drive Opposing Inferences from the Same Information. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6), 1185-1201.
Dhar, R., & Kim, E. Y. (2007). Seeing the forest or the trees: Implications of construal level theory for consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 96-100.
Ding, M., Ross Jr, W. T., & Rao, V. R. (2010). Price as an indicator of quality: implications for utility and demand functions. Journal of Retailing, 86(1), 69-84.
Gerstner, E. (1985). Do Higher Prices Signal Higher Quality? Journal of Marketing Research, 22(2), 209-215.
Heller, D., Levin, I. P., & Goransson, M. (2002). Selection of strategies for narrowing choice options: Antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(2), 1194-1213.
Kim, Y. J., Park, J., & Wyer Jr, R. S. (2009). Effects of temporal distance and memory on consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(4), 634-645.
Laran, J., & Wilcox, K. (2011). Choice, Rejection, and Elaboration on Preference-Inconsistent Alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 229-241.
Levin, I. P., Huneke, M. E., & Jasper, J. D. (2000). Information Processing at Successive Stages of Decision Making: Need for Cognition and Inclusion–Exclusion Effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(2), 171-193.
Lichtenstein, D. R., & Burton, S. (1989). The relationship between perceived and objective price-quality. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(4), 429-443.
Meloy, M. G., & Russo, E. J. (2004). Binary choice under instructions to select versus reject. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93(2), 114-128.
Murray, K. B., & Schlacter, J. L. (1990). The impact of services versus goods on consumers’ assessment of perceived risk and variability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18(1), 51-65.
Nagpal, A., & Krishnamurthy, P. (2008). Attribute Conflict in Consumer Decision Making: The Role of Task Compatibility. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(5), 696-705.
Ordóñez, L. D., Benson III, L., & Beach, L. R. (1999). Testing the Compatibility Test: How Instructions, Accountability, and Anticipated Regret Affect Prechoice Screening of Options. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(1), 63-80.
Park, C. W., Jun, S. Y., & MacInnis, D. J. (2000). Choosing What I Want versus Rejecting What I Do Not Want: An Application of Decision Framing to Product Option Choice Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 187-202.
Shafir, E. (1993). Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory & Cognition, 21(4), 546-556.
Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49(1–2), 11-36.
Suri, R., Kohli, C., & Monroe, K. B. (2007). The effects of perceived scarcity on consumers’ processing of price information. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 89-100.
Suri, R., & Monroe, K. B. (2003). The Effects of Time Constraints on Consumers’ Judgments of Prices and Products. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 92-104.
Tsai, C. I., & McGill, A. L. (2011). No Pain, No Gain? How Fluency and Construal Level Affect Consumer Confidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 807-821.
Völckner, F., & Hofmann, J. (2007). The price-perceived quality relationship: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its determinants. Marketing Letters, 18(3), 181-196.
White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Dahl, D. W. (2011). It''s the Mind-Set That Matters: The Role of Construal Level and Message Framing in Influencing Consumer Efficacy and Conservation Behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 472-485.
Yaniv, I., & Schul, Y. (1997). Elimination and inclusion procedures in judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10(3), 211-220.


QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 杜志成:《孫子兵法藝術與修辭研究》,新竹:玄奘大學,中國語文研究所碩士論
2. 林建煌:<孫子的策略形成與執行思想探討>,《中國行政》第五五期,1994年
3. 吳守璞:<出奇制勝--孫子兵法的管理謀略>,《現代管理月刊》第11六期,
4. 李啟明:<對孫子兵法之研析>,《中華戰略學刊》,1993年12月,頁52~75。
5. 卓名翹:<孫子的兵學史觀>,《黃埔月刊》第三0八期,1977年12月,頁19
6. 卓名翹: <孫子兵法的目的論>,《黃埔月刊》第312~315期,1978年4~7
7. 孫建功:<孫子兵法之研究>,《軍事雜誌》第四八卷四期,1980年1月,頁18
8. 莊萬壽:<道家流變史論>,《臺灣師大學報》,第36期,1990年。
9. 陳榮捷:<戰國道家>,《中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊》,第44本,1972
10. 陳壽恆:<國人必讀的寶典-孫子兵法>,《光復大陸》第156期,1979年,頁
11. 張素貞:<韓非子術治說與國防論>,《幼獅學誌》,第9卷第1期,1970年9
12. 黃忠天:<孫武兵法思想源起於老子之比較研究>,《高雄工專學報》第20期,
13. 黃文典:<談孫子兵法並論其校釋>,《建設》第29卷1期,1980年6月,頁
14. 劉少翁:<孫子兵法的時代精神>,《黃埔月刊》第三一0期,1978年2月,頁
15. 劉少翁:<孫子兵法的藝術化思想>,《黃埔月刊》第303期,1977年7月,頁 28
 
無相關點閱論文