(18.204.227.34) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/19 08:57
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:趙婉筑
研究生(外文):CHAO, WAN-CHU
論文名稱:如何喚起消費者價值知覺?價格呈現方式對購買意願之影響
論文名稱(外文):How to Arouse Customers' Perceived Value and Purchase Intention? The Effects of Price Presentation on Processing Fluency
指導教授:丁姵如丁姵如引用關係
指導教授(外文):TING, PEI-JU
口試委員:張重昭沈永正方文昌丁姵如
口試委員(外文):CHANG, CHUNG-CHAUSHEN, YUNG-CHENGFANG, WEN-CHANGTING, PEI-JU
口試日期:2017-06-06
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺北大學
系所名稱:企業管理學系
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:企業管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2017
畢業學年度:105
語文別:英文
論文頁數:45
中文關鍵詞:價格呈現方式促銷框架促銷價展示位置處理流暢度價值知覺
外文關鍵詞:Price presentationPromotion framingDisplay location of sale priceProcessing fluencyValue perception
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:164
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:18
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
定價策略近年來為行銷研究的重要議題;實務上,多數零售業者採用價格促銷作為吸引消費者及增加其購買意願的方法,然而折扣資訊的呈現方式與處理流暢度之交互作用,對於消費者價值知覺影響之相關研究相對不足;故本研究採用實驗法之量化研究,建構出二個實驗設計,欲探討高價及低價商品,透過促銷框架及促銷價展示位置之調節效果,在不同價格呈現方式下,對於消費者價值知覺及購買意願之影響。
本研究以處理流暢度為理論基礎,設計2 (商品價格:高價/低價) × 2 (促銷框架:省幾元/打幾折) × 2 (促銷價相對於原價之展示位置:上方/下方)之三因子實驗,以處理流暢度作為中介變數,價值知覺及購買意願作為應變數;根據過去研究,實驗選擇以巧克力及牛奶作為低價商品的實驗標的,以紅酒及橄欖油作為高價商品的實驗標的,並採用便利取樣方式蒐集樣本資料,最後以變異數分析(ANOVA)及PROCESS (Hayes 2012)中介效果模型分析,得出以下研究結論:
1.零售業者使用省幾元作為高價商品之促銷框架,而使用打幾折作為低價商品之促銷框架,故能提高消費者之價值知覺。
2.當消費者價值知覺提高時,能進而增加購買意願;反之,當消費者的價值知覺減少時,購買意願也會減少。
3.處理流暢度對高低價商品與促銷框架及促銷價相對原價之展示位置的交互作用具中介效果。處理流暢度促使高價商品使用省幾元、低價商品使用打幾折作為標價方式時,能產生消費者之價值知覺。
4.由於處理流暢度之中介效果,當促銷價置於原價下方時,無論高價或低價商品,皆建議零售業者使用省幾元作為促銷框架;而促銷價置於原價上方時,高價商品則使用省幾元、低價商品使用打幾折作為折扣資訊之呈現,方能提高價值知覺,進而提高消費者購買意願。
This research explores the influence of promotion framing on customers’ value perceptions and purchase intentions. We begin with the basic prediction that customers prefer amount-off promotion framing on high-priced products but prefer percentage-off promotion framing on low-priced products when customers are reading discount information; then, the preference results in higher value perceptions and purchase intentions. Two studies are designed to support this prediction, then, we conduct ANOVA and PROCESS bootstrap model to test our hypotheses. In Study 1, we verify the interaction of product price (high-priced vs. low-priced) and promotion framing (amount-off vs. percentage-off) on value perception. In study 2, we investigate the effect between subtraction principle and display location of sale price. Our research find processing fluency plays a key role of mediator. The effect of product price, promotion framing and display location of sale price on value perception is mediated by processing fluency, and then arouse customers’ purchase intention. The findings in this research provide valuable insights into what kind of price presentation drive customers’ purchase intention and conclude with a discussion and directions for further research.
1. Introduction
1.1 Research Background and Motivation
1.2 Research Questions and Purposes
2. Literature Review
2.1 Promotion Framing
2.2 Processing Fluency
2.3 Display Location of Sale Price
3. Methodology and Analysis
3.1 Conceptual framework
3.2 Study 1
3.3 Study 2
4. Conclusions
4.1 Findings
4.2 General Discussion
4.3 Limitations and Further Research Directions
Acknowledgement
Reference
Appendix A One Situation of Study 1
Appendix B One Situation of Study 2
Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2006). Predicting short-term stock fluctuations by using processing fluency. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(24), 9369-9372.
Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Easy on the mind, easy on the wallet: The roles of familiarity and processing fluency in valuation judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(5), 985-990.
Barone, M. J., Lyle, K. B., & Winterich, K. P. (2015). When deal depth doesn't matter: How handedness consistency influences consumer response to horizontal versus vertical price comparisons. Marketing Letters, 26(2), 213-223.
Biswas, A., Bhowmick, S., Guha, A., & Grewal, D. (2013). Consumer evaluations of sale prices: role of the subtraction principle. Journal of Marketing, 77(4), 49-66.
Blair, E. A., & Landon Jr, E. L. (1981). The effects of reference prices in retail advertisements. The Journal of Marketing, 61-69.
Chandrashekaran, R., & Grewal, D. (2006). Anchoring effects of advertised reference price and sale price: The moderating role of saving presentation format. Journal of Business Research, 59(10), 1063-1071.
Chen, H., Marmorstein, H., Tsiros, M., & Rao, A. R. (2012). When more is less: The impact of base value neglect on consumer preferences for bonus packs over price discounts. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 64-77.
Choi, P., & Coulter, K. S. (2012). It's not all relative: the effects of mental and physical positioning of comparative prices on absolute versus relative discount assessment. Journal of Retailing, 88(4), 512-527.
Clore, G. L. (1992). Cognitive phenomenology: Feelings and the construction of judgment. The construction of social judgments, 10, 133-163.
Compeau, L. D., & Grewal, D. (1998). Comparative price advertising: an integrative review. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 257-273.
Compeau, L. D., Grewal, D., & Chandrashekaran, R. (2002). Comparative price advertising: Believe it or not. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 36(2), 284-294.
Coulter, K. S., & Norberg, P. A. (2009). The effects of physical distance between regular and sale prices on numerical difference perceptions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(2), 144-157.
Coulter, K. S., & Roggeveen, A. L. (2014). Price number relationships and deal processing fluency: The effects of approximation sequences and number multiples. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(1), 69-82.
Creusen, M. E., Veryzer, R. W., & Schoormans, J. P. (2010). Product value importance and consumer preference for visual complexity and symmetry. European Journal of Marketing, 44(9/10), 1437-1452.
Deng, X., & Kahn, B. E. (2009). Is your product on the right side? The “location effect” on perceived product heaviness and package evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 725-738.
Della Bitta, A. J., Monroe, K. B., & McGinnis, J. M. (1981). Consumer perceptions of comparative price advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 416-427.
Devon DelVecchio, H. S. K., & Daniel C. Smith. (2007). Cents or Percent? The Effects of Promotion Framing on Price Expectations and Choice. Journal of Marketing, 71.
Diemand-Yauman, C., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Vaughan, E. B. (2011). Fortune favors the (): Effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition, 118(1), 111-115.
Duncan, J., & Humphreys, G. (1992). Beyond the search surface: visual search and attentional engagement.
Estelami, H. (2003). The effect of price presentation tactics on consumer evaluation effort of multi-dimensional prices. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 11(2), 1-16.
Geissler, G. L., Zinkhan, G. M., & Watson, R. T. (2006). The influence of home page complexity on consumer attention, attitudes, and purchase intent. Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 69-80.
González, E. M., Esteva, E., Roggeveen, A. L., & Grewal, D. (2016). Amount off versus percentage off—when does it matter? Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 1022-1027.
Grewal, D., Marmorstein, H., & Sharma, A. (1996). Communicating price information through semantic cues: the moderating effects of situation and discount size. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(2), 148-155.
Hagtvedt, H. (2011). The impact of incomplete typeface logos on perceptions of the firm. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 86-93.
Hamann, S. B. (1990). Level-of-processing effects in conceptually driven implicit tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(6), 970.
Hawkins, S. A., & Hoch, S. J. (1992). Low-involvement learning: Memory without evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 212-225.
Hoch, S. J., Bradlow, E. T., & Wansink, B. (1999). The variety of an assortment. Marketing Science, 18(4), 527-546.
Im, H., Lennon, S. J., & Stoel, L. (2010). The perceptual fluency effect on pleasurable online shopping experience. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 4(4), 280-295.
Ito, Y., & Hatta, T. (2004). Spatial structure of quantitative representation of numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Memory & Cognition, 32(4), 662-673.
Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110(3), 306.
Janiszewski, C., & Meyvis, T. (2001). Effects of brand logo complexity, repetition, and spacing on processing fluency and judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 18-32.
Kent, R. J., & Allen, C. T. (1994). Competitive interference effects in consumer memory for advertising: the role of brand familiarity. The Journal of Marketing, 97-105.
Koriat, A. (1993). How do we know that we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing. Psychological review, 100(4), 609.
Krishna, A., Briesch, R., Lehmann, D. R., & Yuan, H. (2002). A meta-analysis of the impact of price presentation on perceived savings. Journal of Retailing, 78(2), 101-118.
Kwong, J. Y., & Wong, K. F. E. (2006). The role of ratio differences in the framing of numerical information. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(4), 385-394.
Labroo, A. A., Dhar, R., & Schwarz, N. (2008). Of frog wines and frowning watches: Semantic priming, perceptual fluency, and brand evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 819-831.
Larson, R. B. (2014). Psychological pricing principles for organizations with market power. The Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 16(1), 11.
Lee, A. Y., & Labroo, A. A. (2004). The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(2), 151-165.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Burton, S., & Karson, E. J. (1991). The effect of semantic cues on consumer perceptions of reference price ads. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(3), 380-391.
Lin, H.-F., & Shen, F. (2012). Regulatory focus and attribute framing: Evidence of compatibility effects in advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 31(1), 169-188.
Lu, J., & Itti, L. (2005). Perceptual consequences of feature-based attention. Journal of Vision, 5(7), 2-2.
Menon, G., & Raghubir, P. (2003). Ease-of-retrieval as an automatic input in judgments: a mere-accessibility framework? Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 230-243.
Motyka, S., Suri, R., Grewal, D., & Kohli, C. (2016). Disfluent vs. fluent price offers: paradoxical role of processing disfluency. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(5), 627-638.
Nadal, M., Munar, E., Marty, G., & Cela-Conde, C. J. (2010). Visual complexity and beauty appreciation: explaining the divergence of results. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28(2), 173-191.
Nasar, J. L. (1987). The effect of sign complexity and coherence on the perceived quality of retail scenes. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53(4), 499-509.
Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2009). On southbound ease and northbound fees: Literal consequences of the metaphoric link between vertical position and cardinal direction. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 715-724.
Novemsky, N., Dhar, R., Schwarz, N., & Simonson, I. (2007). Preference fluency in choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 347-356.
Orth, U. R., & Wirtz, J. (2014). Consumer processing of interior service environments: The interplay among visual complexity, processing fluency, and attractiveness. Journal of Service Research, 17(3), 296-309.
Pieters, R., Wedel, M., & Batra, R. (2010). The stopping power of advertising: Measures and effects of visual complexity. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 48-60.
Puccinelli, N. M., Chandrashekaran, R., Grewal, D., & Suri, R. (2013). Are men seduced by red? The effect of red versus black prices on price perceptions. Journal of Retailing, 89(2), 115-125.
Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological science, 9(1), 45-48.
Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and cognition, 8(3), 338-342.
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and social psychology review, 8(4), 364-382.
Schmitter-Edgecombe, M. (1999). Effects of divided attention on perceptual and conceptual memory tests: An analysis using a process-dissociation approach. Memory & Cognition, 27(3), 512-525.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(3), 513.
Seamon, J. G., Williams, P. C., Crowley, M. J., Kim, I. J., Langer, S. A., Orne, P. J., & Wishengrad, D. L. (1995). The mere exposure effect is based on implicit memory: Effects of stimulus type, encoding conditions, and number of exposures on recognition and affect judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(3), 711.
Shah, A. K., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Heuristics made easy: an effort-reduction framework. Psychological bulletin, 134(2), 207.
Shapiro, S. (1999). When an ad's influence is beyond our conscious control: Perceptual and conceptual fluency effects caused by incidental ad exposure. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(1), 16-36.
Sharifi, S. S., & Aghazadeh, H. (2016). Discount reference moderates customers' reactions to discount frames after online service failure. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4074-4080.
Shen, H., Jiang, Y., & Adaval, R. (2010). Contrast and assimilation effects of processing fluency. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 876-889.
Stamps III, A. E. (2002). Entropy, visual diversity, and preference. The Journal of general psychology, 129(3), 300-320.
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.
Thomas, M., & Morwitz, V. G. (2009). The ease-of-computation effect: The interplay of metacognitive experiences and naive theories in judgments of price differences. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 81-91.
Tulving, E., & Schacter, D. L. (1990). Priming and human memory systems. Science, 247(4940), 301.
Valenzuela, A., & Raghubir, P. (2015). Are consumers aware of top–bottom but not of left–right inferences? Implications for shelf space positions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21(3), 224.
Wang, J.-C., & Chang, C.-H. (2013). How online social ties and product-related risks influence purchase intentions: A Facebook experiment. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12(5), 337-346.
Whittlesea, B. W., & Dorken, M. D. (1993). Incidentally, things in general are particularly determined: An episodic-processing account of implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 122, 227-227.
Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(6), 989.
Yin, W., & Dubinsky, A. J. (2004). Framing effects of coupon face value on coupon redemption: A literature review with propositions. Journal of Marketing Management, 20(7-8), 877-896.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of personality and social psychology, 9(2p2), 1.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關論文
 
無相關期刊
 
無相關點閱論文