跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.97.9.172) 您好!臺灣時間:2025/02/10 01:47
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:張琇清
研究生(外文):CHANG,HSIU-CHING
論文名稱:順序體驗產品的感官(非)相似性對購買意圖之影響─購買情境涉入程度與認知負荷調解效果的探討
論文名稱(外文):The Study of Sensory (Dis) similarity When Sequentially Sampling Products on Purchase Intention: The Moderating Effects of Purchase Situation Involvement and Cognitive load.
指導教授:關復勇關復勇引用關係
指導教授(外文):Kuan, Fu-Yung
口試委員:劉宜芬王貳瑞關復勇
口試委員(外文):Liu, Yi-FenWang, Earl-JueiKuan, Fu-Yung
口試日期:2019-06-26
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立高雄科技大學
系所名稱:行銷與流通管理系
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:行銷與流通學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2019
畢業學年度:107
語文別:中文
論文頁數:82
中文關鍵詞:感官線索順序效應購買情境涉入認知負荷購買意圖
外文關鍵詞:Sensory cuesOrder effectsPurchase situation involvementCognitive loadPurchase intention
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:394
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:115
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
舊愛新歡誰夠味?到底喜歡哪一個?為有效掌握消費者的心思,業者往往會提供試用品,增加感官體驗,而Biswas, Labrecque, Lehmann, & Markos (2014)研究指出。若為相似的感官線索,消費者喜歡順序第一的產品,即「初始效應」;當試用品具有不相似的感官線索時,消費者更喜歡順序最後一位的產品,即「近時效應」。 針對研究結果,為更周延檢視,更進一步的探討購物中消費者本身購買情境涉入及對資訊接收狀況是否會改變原先購買意圖?據此,採2(感官線索)x2(購買情境涉入)x2(認知負荷)三因子受試者組間設計,首先以感官線索,其次購買情境涉入,再者認知負荷探討順序效應對購買意圖之影響。進行3個實驗,14組實驗情境,每一情境至少30位受試者,合計共420名。
結果顯示實驗一遵循順序效應,實驗二探討表層「感官線索」與深層「涉入程度」交互影響,研究顯示在高購買情境涉入時,原先因初始效應對前顆購買意圖較高的消費者,因購買決策與本身攸關程度較高,花費較多時間選擇,轉而對後者有較高購買意圖;實驗三探討「感官線索」為表層,納入深層、正向「購買情境涉入」及深層、反向「認知負荷」的交互影響作用,研究顯示在低認知負荷時,感官線索不相似、低購買情境涉入,本因對前者購買意圖較高,但因大腦能負荷處理容量,故受試者會樂意接受更多訊息而改變偏好選擇,反而對後者有顯著較高的購買意圖。
據此,本研究建議業者應有效掌握消費者當下之購買目的,藉由欲使消費者購買之產品,透過其他因素(如廣告介紹、促銷文宣)改變消費者對該產品的資訊認知,促使業者能夠掌握顧客的購物意圖。

Which one do you like? In order to effectively grasp the minds of consumers, operators often provide test supplies and increase the sensory experience, as Biswas, Labrecque, Lehmann, & Markos (2014) pointed out. For similar sensory cues, consumers prefer the first product in the order, the “primary effect”; For dissimilar sensory cues, the consumer prefers the last product in the order, the “recency effect”.
The results of research, for a more comprehensive review, we will further explore whether the consumer's own purchase situation and the information reception status in shopping will change the original purchase intention. According to this, the 2 (sensory cues) x2 (purchase situation involvement) x2 (cognitive load) three-factor subject group design, first with sensory cues, followed by purchase situation involvement, and then cognitive load discussion order effect on purchase intentions. Three experiments were conducted, 14 experimental scenarios, and at least 30 subjects in each situation, a total of 420.
The results show that experiment 1 follows the sequence effect, and experiment 2 explores the interaction between the surface “sensory cues” and the deep “involvement degree”. The study shows that in the case of high purchase situation, the original purchase intention is higher for the former purchase intention. Because of the high degree of purchase decision and the high degree of purchase, it takes more time to choose, and instead has higher purchasing intentions for the latter; Experiment 3 explores the "sensory cues" as the surface layer, which is included in the deep and positive "purchase situational involvement" and The interaction between deep and reverse "cognitive load" shows that the sensory cues are not similar and the low purchase situation is involved in low cognitive load. The reason is that the former has a higher purchasing intention, but because the brain can handle the capacity, Subjects will be willing to accept more information and change their preferences, but have a significantly higher purchasing intention for the latter.
Accordingly, this study suggests that the industry should effectively grasp the consumer's current purchase purpose, and use the other factors (advertising introduction, promotion) to change the consumer's information perception of the product through the products that consumers want to purchase, and promote the industry. Ability to grasp the customer's shopping intentions.

目錄
摘要 i
ABSTRACT ii
誌謝 iii
目錄 iv
表目錄 vi
圖目錄 vii
第壹章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 4
第三節 研究流程 5
第貳章 文獻探討 5
第一節 感官線索 6
第二節 順序效應 8
第三節 涉入程度 10
第四節 認知負荷 11
第五節 購買意圖 13
第參章 研究方法 15
第一節 研究架構 15
第二節 研究假說 16
第三節 實驗一 19
第四節 實驗二 24
第五節 實驗三 27
第肆章 研究結果與假設驗證 31
第一節 實驗一:感官線索對購買意圖之差異性檢定分析 31
第二節 實驗二:感官線索與購買情境涉入對購買意圖之差異性檢定分析 32
第三節 實驗三:感官相似性、購買情境涉入和認知負荷對購買意圖之差異性檢定分析 35
第伍章 結論與建議 40
第一節 研究結果彙整 40
第二節 研究貢獻與管理意涵 43
第三節 研究限制與未來建議 45
參考文獻 47
附錄 56



中文文獻
1.丁學勤. (2007). 溝通與信任對更換夥伴, 未來繼續合作與策略性整合的影響. 顧客滿意學刊, 3(2), 31-56.
2.江亭璇. (2015). 虛實口碑揭露焦點與享樂性產品體驗順序對多樣搜尋行為之影響。國立高雄第一科技大學行銷與流通管理研究所碩士論文,高雄市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/q7y648.
3.宋曜廷. (1999). 先前知識文章結構和多媒體呈現對文章學習的影響。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文,台北市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/53q88r. 1-272.
4.李君皓. (2017). 順序體驗產品的感官(非)相似性對偏好選擇之影響-涉入程度調節效果的探討。國立高雄第一科技大學行銷與流通管理系碩士班碩士論文,高雄市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/fb33m8.
5.林佳嬅. (2016). 語文揭露與利益焦點對說服效果影響之研究-「賣點亮點」訊息涉入調節效果的探討。國立高雄第一科技大學行銷與流通管理研究所碩士論文,高雄市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/5657ex.
6.邱貞妮. (2017). 順序體驗產品的感官(非)相似性對購買意圖之影響-心情促發與多樣搜尋特質調節效果的探討。國立高雄第一科技大學行銷與流通管理系碩士班碩士論文,高雄市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/y967e8.
7.侯嘉政, & 傅柏霖. (2008). 產品涉入與品牌涉入對品牌忠誠度之影響-以數位相機為例. 行銷評論, 5(1), 27-56.
8.柯菀倪. (2012). 產品特性、購買決策涉入及消費者衝動性特質對衝動性購買行為之影響:消費捷思觀點的探討。國立高雄第一科技大學國際管理碩士學位學程碩士論文,高雄市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/fejbp.
9.徐孟維. (2011). 產品涉入、贊助式推薦文態度與購買意願關係之研究。國立中正大學企業管理研究所碩士論文,嘉義縣。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/82pd9k.
10.許士軍. (1987). 新加坡消費者對不同來源地產品之知覺及態度. 管理評論, 6, 5-23.
11.郭璟諭. (2003). 媒體組合方式與認知型態對學習成效與認知負荷之影響。國立中央大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文,桃園縣。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/2afz27.
12.陳志維. (2013). 品牌形象、網路口碑與購買意願之研究。中國文化大學國際企業管理學系碩士論文,台北市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/g5y6ru.
13.鄭明松, & 王世澤. (2004). 創造體驗與體驗價值的時代. Excellence Monthly, 168-170.
14.謝致慧. (2016). 產品評價的感官心理模擬過程研究. 中山管理評論, 24(1), 115-151.
15.蘇宗雄. (2000). 感性抬頭, 進入大體驗時代. 設計雜誌, 5-8.
英文文獻
1.Allport, G. W. (1943). The productive paradoxes of William James. Psychological Review, 50(1), 95-120.
2.Alpert, M. I., Alpert, J. I., & Maltz, E. N. (2005). Purchase occasion influence on the role of music in advertising. Journal of Business Research, 58(3), 369-376.
3.Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (1992). The Role of Optimum Stimulation Level in Exploratory Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 434-448.
4.Beatty, S. E., Homer, P., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). The involvement—commitment model: Theory and implications. Journal of Business Research, 16(2), 149-167.
5.Belk, R. W. (1975). Situational Variables and Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(3), 157-164.
6.Biswas, D., Biswas, A., & Chatterjee, S. (2009). Making judgments in a two-sequence cue environment: The effects of differential cue strengths, order sequence, and distraction. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(1), 88-97.
7.Biswas, D., Grewal, D., & Roggeveen, A. (2010). How the order of sampled experiential products affects choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(3), 508-519.
8.Biswas, D., Labrecque, L. I., Lehmann, D. R., & Markos, E. (2014). Making Choices While Smelling, Tasting, and Listening: The Role of Sensory (Dis)similarity When Sequentially Sampling Products. Journal of Marketing Research, 78(1), 112-126.
9.Brunel, F. F., & Nelson, M. R. (2003). Message Order Effects and Gender Differences in Advertising Persuasion. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(3), 330-341.
10.Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752.
11.Chen, Y. C., Shang, R. A., & Kao, C. Y. (2009). The effects of information overload on consumers’ subjective state towards buying decision in the internet shopping environment. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 8(1), 48-58.
12.Clarke, K., & Belk, R. W. (1979). The effects of product involvement and task definition on anticipated consumer effort. ACR North American Advances.
13.Conway, A. R., Cowan, N., & Bunting, M. F. (2001). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity. Psychonomic bulletin review, 8(2), 331-335.
14.Conway, A. R., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic bulletin review, 12(5), 769-786.
15.Dean, M. L. (1980). Presentation order effects in product taste tests. The Journal of psychology, 105(1), 107-110.
16.Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers’ Product Evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307-319.
17.Driver, J., & Noesselt, T. (2008). Multisensory interplay reveals crossmodal influences on ‘sensory-specific’brain regions, neural responses, and judgments. Neuron, 57(1), 11-23.
18.Drolet, A., Luce, M. F., & Simonson, I. (2008). When does choice reveal preference? Moderators of heuristic versus goal-based choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1), 137-147.
19.Elder, R. S., & Krishna, A. (2009). The effects of advertising copy on sensory thoughts and perceived taste. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 748-756.
20.Engel, T., & Andrieux, D. (2010). Forget before you remember: dynamic mechanism of memory decay and retrieval. Frontiers in neuroscience, 4.
21.Epstein, L. H., Temple, J. L., Roemmich, J. N., & Bouton, M. E. (2009). Habituation as a determinant of human food intake. Psychological Review, 116(2), 384.
22.Fandos, C., & Flavián, C. (2006). Intrinsic and extrinsic quality attributes, loyalty and buying intention: an analysis for a PDO product. British food journal, 108(8), 646-662.
23.Fedorikhin, A., & Shiv, B. (1999). Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 278-292.
24.Graziano, M., & Sigman, M. (2008). The dynamics of sensory buffers: Geometric, spatial, and experience-dependent shaping of iconic memory. Journal of Vision, 8(5), 9-9.
25.Gürhan-Canli, Z. (2003). The effect of expected variability of product quality and attribute uniqueness on family brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 105-114.
26.Hagtvedt, H., & Brasel, S. A. (2016). Cross-modal communication: sound frequency influences consumer responses to color lightness. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(4), 551-562.
27.Hagtvedt, H., & Patrick, V. M. (2008). Art infusion: The influence of visual art on the perception and evaluation of consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), 379-389.
28.Halim, W. Z. W., & Hamed, A. B. (2005). Consumer purchase intention at traditional restaurant and fast food restaurant. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy (ANZMAC) Conference, Australia.
29.Hall, E. (2013). How Courvoisier and Unilever Manipulate the Senses. Ad Age.
30.Hands, D. S. (1998). Mental processes in the evaluation of digitally-coded television pictures. University of Essex,
31.Hein, K. (2009). Sampling Inspires Repeat Purchase. Adweek.
32.Hinson, J. M., Jameson, T. L., & Whitney, P. (2003). Impulsive decision making and working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,Cognition, 29(2), 298.
33.Hoegg, J., & Alba, J. W. (2006). Taste perception: More than meets the tongue. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 490-498.
34.Horovitz, B. (2011). New Sampling Machine Can Gauge Your Age and Sex,” USA Today, (December 4), (accessed October 4, 2013).
35.Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York, 63.
36.Howard, M. W., & Kahana, M. J. (1999). Contextual variability and serial position effects in free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,Cognition, 25(4), 923.
37.Hsiao, M.-H. (2009). Shopping mode choice: Physical store shopping versus e-shopping. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 45(1), 86-95.
38.Kardes, F. R., & Herr, P. M. (1990). Order Effects in Consumer Judgment, Choice, and Memory: The Role of Initial Processing Goals. Advances in Consumer Research, 17(1), 541-546.
39.Krishna, A. (2012). An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the senses to affect perception, judgment and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 332-351.
40.Krishna, A., & Morrin, M. (2007). Does touch affect taste? The perceptual transfer of product container haptic cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 807-818.
41.Krugman, H. E. (1965). The impact of television advertising: Learning without involvement. Public opinion quarterly, 29(3), 349-356.
42.Leahey, T. H., & Harris, R. J. (1989). Human learning: Prentice Hall.
43.Liebermann, Y., & Flint-Goor, A. (1996). Message strategy by product-class type: A matching model. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(3), 237-249.
44.Lindsay, P. H., & Norman, D. A. (2013). Human information processing: An introduction to psychology: Academic press.
45.Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(3), 361-367.
46.Mantonakis, A., Rodero, P., Lesschaeve, I., & Hastie, R. (2009). Order in Choice:Effects of Serial Position on Preferences. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1309-1312.
47.McCole, P. (2004). Refocusing marketing to reflect practice: The changing role of marketing for business. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 22(5), 531-539.
48.Mitchell, A. A. (1981). The dimensions of advertising involvement. ACR North American Advances.
49.Mittal, B. (1989). Measuring Purchase-decision involvement. Psychology & Marketing, 6(2), 147-162. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/mar.4220060206. doi:10.1002/mar.4220060206
50.Morewedge, C. K., Huh, Y. E., & Vosgerau, J. (2010). Thought for food: Imagined consumption reduces actual consumption. Science, 330(6010), 1530-1533.
51.Morrin, M., & Ratneshwar, S. (2000). The impact of ambient scent on evaluation, attention, and memory for familiar and unfamiliar brands. Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 157-165.
52.Morwitz, V. G., & Schmittlein, D. (1992). Using segmentation to improve sales forecasts based on purchase intent: Which “intenders” actually buy? Journal of Marketing Research, 29(4), 391-405.
53.Notte, J. (2011). Why Retailers Pay for Your Free Samples,” The Street, (February 15), (accessed October 4, 2013)[available at http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/story/11008255/1/why-retailers-pay-for-your-free-samples.html]. .
54.Nowlis, S. M., & Shiv, B. (2005). The influence of consumer distractions on the effectiveness of food-sampling programs. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2), 157-168.
55.O’Brien, E., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2012). Saving the last for best: A positivity bias for end experiences. Psychological Science, 23(2), 163-165.
56.Oberauer, K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2008). Forgetting in immediate serial recall: Decay, temporal distinctiveness, or interference? Psychological Review, 115(3), 544.
57.Paas, F. G., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of educational psychology, 86(1), 122.
58.Park, J., & Stoel, L. (2005). Effect of brand familiarity, experience and information on online apparel purchase. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 33(2), 148-160.
59.Pauwels, K., & Weiss, A. (2008). Moving from free to fee: How online firms market to change their business model successfully. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 14-31.
60.Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003). Individual Differences in Haptic Information Processing: The “Need for Touch” Scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 430-442.
61.Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2008). Effects of sensory factors on consumer behavior: If it tastes, smells, sounds, and feels like a duck, then it must be a. In Handbook of consumer psychology. (pp. 193-219). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
62.Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 847-855. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.847
63.Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard business review, 76, 97-105.
64.Reynolds, F. D., Crask, M. R., & Wells, W. D. (1977). The modern feminine life style. Journal of Marketing, 41(3), 38-45.
65.Santrock, J. W. (2003). Psychology: Essentials: McGraw-Hill Boston.
66.Schiffman, L. G., & Kanuk, L. (2003). Consumer Behaviour, 8/e. In: Pearson Education, New Delhi.
67.Schiffman, L. G., & Kanuk, L. L. (2000). Consumer behavior. In: New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
68.Schmitt, B. (1999). Experiential marketing. Journal of marketing management, 15(1-3), 53-67.
69.Sergent, C., Wyart, V., Babo-Rebelo, M., Cohen, L., Naccache, L., & Tallon-Baudry, C. (2013). Cueing Attention after the Stimulus Is Gone Can Retrospectively Trigger Conscious Perception. Current Biology, 23(2), 150-155.
70.Sherif, M., & Cantril, H. (1947). The psychology of ego-involvements: Social attitudes and identifications. Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
71.Shiffrin, R. M. (1970). Memory search. Models of human memory, 375-447.
72.Shiv, B., & Nowlis, S. M. (2004). The Effect of Distractions While Tasting a Food Sample: The Interplay of Informational and Affective Components in Subsequent Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 599-608.
73.Slama, M. E., & Tashchian, A. (1985). Selected socioeconomic and demographic characteristics associated with purchasing involvement. Journal of Marketing, 49(1), 72-82.
74.Slåtten, T., Mehmetoglu, M., Svensson, G., & Sværi, S. (2009). Atmospheric experiences that emotionally touch customers: A case study from a winter park. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 19(6), 721-746.
75.Spence, M. T., & Shapiro, S. (2002). Factors Affecting Encoding, Retrieval, and Alignment of Sensory Attributes in a Memory-Based Brand Choice Task. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 603-617.
76.Srinivasan, S. R., & Srivastava, R. K. (2010). Creating the futuristic retail experience through experiential marketing: Is it possible? An exploratory study. Journal of Retail & Leisure Property, 9(3), 193-199.
77.Stecker, G. C., & Hafter, E. R. (2009). A recency effect in sound localization? , 125(6), 3914.
78.Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
79.Thau, B. (2012). “Behind the Spritz: What Really Goes into a Bottle of $100 Perfume,” DailyFinance, (May 22), (accessed October 4, 2013)[available at http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/05/22/celebrity-perfume-cost-breakdown]. .
80.Thompson, R., F. (2009). “Habituation: A History,” Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 92(2), 127–34.
81.Troye, S. V., & Supphellen, M. (2012). Consumer Participation in Coproduction: “I Made it Myself” Effects on Consumers’ Sensory Perceptions and Evaluations of Outcome and Input Product. Journal of Marketing, 76(2), 33-46.
82.Tuttle, B. (2011). “The Power of Freebies: Why Companies Pay to Give Free Samples to Supermarket Customers,” Time, (February 17), (accessed October 4, 2013),[available at http://business.time.com/2011/02/17/the-power-of-freebies-why-companies-pay-to-give-free-samples-to-supermarket-customers]. .
83.Wadhwa, M., Shiv, B., & Nowlis, S. M. (2008). A Bite to Whet the Reward Appetite: The Influence of Sampling on Reward-Seeking Behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(4), 403-413.
84.Whipple, T. W., & McManamon, M. K. (1992). Primacy order effects in the measurement of trade magazine receipt and readership. Journal of Advertising Research, 32(5), 24-29.
85.Wiley, C. G., Shaw, S. M., & Havitz, M. E. (2000). Mens and womens involvement in sports: An examination of the gendered aspects of leisure involvement. Leisure Sciences, 22(1), 19-31.
86.Wyrley-Birch, M. (2013). Experiential marketing: shaping the future face of retail. Marketing Week.
87.Yavas, U., & Babakus, E. (1995). Purchasing Involvement in Saudi Arabia. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 8(1), 23-42.
88.Yu, D., Ponomarev, A., & Davis, R. L. (2004). Altered Representation of the Spatial Code for Odors after Olfactory Classical Conditioning: Memory Trace Formation by Synaptic Recruitment. Neuron, 42(3), 437-449.
89.Yuan, Y.-H. E., & Wu, C. K. (2008). Relationships among experiential marketing, experiential value, and customer satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality Tourism Research, 32(3), 387-410.
90.Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the Involvement Construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341-352.
91.Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22.
92.Zylberberg, A., Dehaene, S., Mindlin, G., & Sigman, M. (2009). Neurophysiological bases of exponential sensory decay and top-down memory retrieval: a model. Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 3(4).
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊