跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.95.131.146) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/25 13:59
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:許芸瑄
研究生(外文):HSU, YUN-HSUAN
論文名稱:附加標示說服效果:產品知覺新穎性機制
論文名稱(外文):The persuasive power of additional labeling : Perceived newness as a mediator
指導教授:顧萱萱顧萱萱引用關係
指導教授(外文):KU, HSUAN-HSUAN
口試委員:林陽助陳綉里
口試委員(外文):LIN, YANG-CHUCHEN, HSIU-LI
口試日期:2021-05-24
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:東吳大學
系所名稱:國際經營與貿易學系
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:貿易學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2021
畢業學年度:109
語文別:中文
論文頁數:135
中文關鍵詞:產品附加標示產品新穎度產品吸引力
外文關鍵詞:Additional labelingProduct newnessProduct attractiveness
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:22
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:7
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
市面上民生用品琳瑯滿目,仔細觀察可以發現大部分的民生用品瓶身上皆會附有額外的附加標示,而這些附加標示的訊息內容和設計也相當多元,有的主張產品功效、標示諸多訴求,有的形狀具有設計感、黏貼位置突顯,這些現象顯示出各家廠商欲透過增加瓶身上的附加標示更突顯出自家產品,期望讓消費者感知到產品與過往不同、具有新穎性,進而提高消費者對產品的注意力。本研究旨在探討附加標示上的訊息內容以及附加標示的設計對於消費者產品新穎度的感知,進而對產品吸引力的影響。
本研究採實驗設計,分為四個實驗,逐一檢測附加標示之訊息內容和設計影響消費者對其產品新穎度與產品吸引力的差異。實驗1a操弄附加標示之論點品質;實驗1b操弄附加標示之訊息量;實驗2a操弄附加標示之形狀突顯性;實驗2b操弄附加標示之位置突顯性。
本研究發現當產品瓶身上擁有附加標示且附加標示主張為強論點、附加標示擁有瓶身訴求外之多元訴求、附加標示形狀突顯性高以及附加標示黏貼位置突顯性高時,消費者對其產品的新穎度與吸引力最高;當產品瓶身上擁有附加標示且附加標示主張為弱論點、附加標示與瓶身標示訊息量相同、附加標示形狀突顯性低以及附加標示黏貼位置突顯性低時,消費者對其產品的新穎度與吸引力次之,而當產品瓶身上無附加標示時消費者認為其產品最無新穎度與吸引力。

There is a wide variety of consumer products on the market, most of them have additional labeling on their bottles. The information content and design of the labeling are quite diverse. These phenomena show that manufacturers want to highlight their products by adding additional labeling on the bottles, hoping to make consumers feel that the products are different and novel from the past. This study aims to explore the impact of the information content and design of additional labeling on consumers' perception of product newness and product attractiveness.
Study 1a manipulated the argument quality of additional labeling; Study 1b manipulated the amount of additional labeling’s information; Study 2a manipulated the shape salience of additional labeling; Study 2b manipulated the positional salience of additional labeling.
The study found that consumers have the highest newness and attractiveness of the products when they have additional labeling with strong arguments, multiple claims besides bottle body claim, high salience of additional labeling shape and high salience of additional labeling sticking position; When the products have additional labeling with weak arguments, the same amount of information as the bottle body, low salience of additional labeling shape and low salience of additional labeling sticking position, the newness and attractiveness of the products are second highest; When the products have no additional labeling, the newness and attractiveness of the products are the lowest.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 5
第二章 文獻探討 6
第一節 產品標示 (Product Labeling) 6
第二節 論點品質 (Argument quality) 10
第三節 標籤設計 (Label design) 12
第四節 產品新穎度 (Product newness) 14
第五節 產品吸引力 (Product attractiveness) 17
第三章 研究方法 19
第一節 研究分徑 19
第二節 研究假設 20
第三節 操作性定義與衡量 24
第四節 資料分析方法 42
第四章 研究結果 43
第一節 實驗1a 43
第二節 實驗1b 51
第三節 實驗2a 59
第四節 實驗2b 67
第五章 研究結論與建議 75
第一節 研究結論 75
第二節 研究貢獻與建議 78
第三節 研究限制與未來方向 80
參考文獻 81
附錄一 前測問卷 87
附錄二 正式問卷 92


中文部分
1.王韋堯、周穆謙(2010),包裝可尋性及其設計差異區辨要素探索,設計學報,第15卷第3期,頁21-47。
2.吳全峰、林勤富(2018),食品標示規範之檢討-以美國法之發展為例,收於:食品安全的法律對策與法治實踐,頁239-326,台北,中央研究院法律學研究所。
3.李家瑩、李淑美、黃偉珉(2015),以推敲可能模式探討消費者創新與新產品採用之影響:以智慧型手機應用程式為例,資訊管理學報,第22卷第1期,頁1-30。
4.周穆謙、李宛諭、張淑佾(2013),Vodka酒瓶造形與標籤設計之喜好度研究,商業設計學報,第17卷,頁57-75。
5.林建煌(2000),行銷管理,智勝文化事業有限公司。
6.莊淑惠、林鴻南、吳政霈(2014),線上產品評論對消費者購買意圖之影響: 認知需求與產品知識調節效果之探討,管理評論,第33卷第4期,頁45-65+。
7.陳明志(2015),產品標示訊息、品牌形象、價格意識與知覺價格對購買意願影響之研究-以化妝保養品為例,國立高雄應用科技大學財富與稅務管理系碩士班碩士論文。
8.楊政達、許景淳、黃揚名、蔡宜成(2013),探討知覺突顯性對於喜好度判斷的影響,中華心理學刊,第55卷第1期,頁139-158。
9.詹美純(2007),化妝品標示資訊對消費者購買意願影響效果之研究,靜宜大學管理碩士在職專班碩士論文。
10.謝宗霖、羅新興(2009),網頁訊息對瀏覽者回憶與消費意願的影響–以探討涉入的干擾效果,中華管理評論,第12卷第4期,頁1-20。

英文部分
1.Achrol, R. S., & Kotler, P. (2012). Frontiers of the marketing paradigm in the third millennium. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 35-52.
2.Armstrong, G., & Kotler, P. (2003). Marketing: An introduction, (маркетинг: Введение).
3.Atkinson, L., & Rosenthal, S. (2014). Signaling the green sell: The influence of eco-label source, argument specificity, and product involvement on consumer trust. Journal of Advertising, 43(1), 33-45.
4.Berkowitz, M. (1987). Product shape as a design innovation strategy. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4(4), 274-283.
5.Bhattacherjee, A., & Sanford, C. (2006). Influence processes for information technology acceptance: An elaboration likelihood model. MIS quarterly, 30(4), 805-825.
6.Blythe, J. (1999). Innovativeness and newness in high‐tech consumer durables. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 8(5), 415-429.
7.Borgmeier, I., & Westenhoefer, J. (2009). Impact of different food label formats on healthiness evaluation and food choice of consumers: A randomized-controlled study. BMC public health, 9(1), 1-12.
8.Cabrera, M., Machín, L., Arrúa, A., Antúnez, L., Curutchet, M. R., Giménez, A., & Ares, G. (2017). Nutrition warnings as front-of-pack labels: influence of design features on healthfulness perception and attentional capture. Public Health Nutrition, 20(18), 3360-3371.
9.Cochran, D. J., Riley, M. W., & Douglass, E. I. (1981). An investigation of shapes for warning labels. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting.
10.Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 25(6), 547-577.
11.de Mello, L., & Pires Gonçalves, R. (2008). Message on a bottle: Colours and shapes in wine labels. American Association of Wine Economists(42), 1-15.
12.Dimara, E., & Skuras, D. (2005). Consumer demand for informative labeling of quality food and drink products: A european union case study. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(2/3), 90-100.
13.Eckman, M., & Wagner, J. (1994). Judging the attractiveness of product design: the effect of visual attributes and consumer characteristics. ACR North American Advances, 21, 560-564.
14.Eurobarometer, F. (2009). Europeans’ attitudes towards the issue of sustainable consumption and production, analytical report. The Gallup Organisation at the request of the EU DGEnvironment, Flash EB Series# 256, Hungary.
15.Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H. N., & Hekkert, P. (2010). Shifts in sensory dominance between various stages of user–product interactions. Applied Ergonomics, 41(1), 34-40.
16.Fort-Rioche, L., & Ackermann, C.-L. (2013). Consumer innovativeness, perceived innovation and attitude towards "neo-retro"-product design. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16(4), 495-516.
17.Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., & Van Wieringen, P. C. (2003). ‘Most advanced, yet acceptable’: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British journal of Psychology, 94(1), 111-124.
18.Hellier, E., Edworthy, J., Derbyshire, N., & Costello, A. (2006). Considering the impact of medicine label design characteristics on patient safety. Ergonomics, 49(5-6), 617-630.
19.Hultén, B. (2013). Sensory cues as in-store innovations: Their impact on shopper approaches and touch behavior. Journal of Innovation Management, 1(1), 17-37.
20.Husen, S. (2017). The Mediating Role of Product Positioning Quality and Product Attractiveness Advantage. International Journal of Business & Management Science, 7(1), 1-10.
21.Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2012). Product labelling in the market for organic food: Consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos. Food Quality and Preference, 25(1), 9-22.
22.Jayakrishnan, S. (2013). Creating brand identity using human senses. Asia Pacific Journal of Research, 2(8), 223-228.
23.Johnson, M. D., & Fornell, C. (1991). A framework for comparing customer satisfaction across individuals and product categories. Journal of economic psychology, 12(2), 267-286.
24.Kotler, P., & Lindstrom, M. (2005). Brand Sense: Build Powerful Brands through Touch, Taste, Smell, Sight, and Sound. The Free Press, New York.
25.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.
26.Kristensen, K., Martensen, A., & Gronholdt, L. (2000). Customer satisfaction measurement at post denmark: Results of application of the european customer satisfaction index methodology. Total Quality Management, 11(7), 1007-1015.
27.Ku, H.-H., Huang, C.-Y., & Shen, Z.-R. (2019). Problem versus benefit focus: phrasing questions to enhance self-referencing and persuasion. Journal of Marketing Management, 35(17-18), 1689-1709.
28.Landwehr, J. R., Wentzel, D., & Herrmann, A. (2013). Product design for the long run: Consumer responses to typical and atypical designs at different stages of exposure. Journal of Marketing, 77(5), 92-107.
29.Lee, Y., Ho, F. N., & Wu, M.-C. (2018). How do form and functional newness affect adoption preference? The moderating role of consumer need for uniqueness. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 35(1), 79-90.
30.Lejeune, J., & Shanley, J. (2013, Jan 2013). Labels: Adding value to packaging. Print + Promo, 51(1), 34-36.
31.Loken, B., & Ward, J. (1990). Alternative approaches to understanding the determinants of typicality. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 111-126.
32.Lombo, V. E. P., & Tielung, M. V. (2014). The impact of celebrity endorsement to youth consumer purchase decision on Adidas apparel product. Jurnal EMBA: Jurnal Riset Ekonomi, Manajemen, Bisnis dan Akuntansi, 2(3).
33.Mugge, R., & Schoormans, J. P. (2012). Newer is better! The influence of a novel appearance on the perceived performance quality of products. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(6), 469-484.
34.Newman, C. L., Burton, S., Andrews, J. C., Netemeyer, R. G., & Kees, J. (2018). Marketers’ use of alternative front-of-package nutrition symbols: An examination of effects on product evaluations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(3), 453-476.
35.Newman, C. L., Howlett, E., & Burton, S. (2014). Shopper response to front-of-package nutrition labeling programs: Potential consumer and retail store benefits. Journal of Retailing, 90(1), 13-26.
36.Orth, U. R., & Malkewitz, K. (2008). Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 64-81.
37.Park, D.-H., Lee, J., & Han, I. (2007a). The effect of on-line consumer reviews on consumer purchasing intention: The moderating role of involvement. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11(4), 125-148.
38.Park, H. S., Levine, T. R., Kingsley Westerman, C. Y., Orfgen, T., & Foregger, S. (2007b). The effects of argument quality and involvement type on attitude formation and attitude change: A test of dual-process and social judgment predictions. Human Communication Research, 33(1), 81-102.
39.Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 668-672.
40.Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances In Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 122-205.
41.Pieters, R., & Warlop, L. (1999). Visual attention during brand choice: The impact of time pressure and task motivation. International Journal of research in Marketing, 16(1), 1-16.
42.Radford, S. K. (2007). Have you seen the new model? Visual design and product newness. (Ph.D.). University of Missouri - Columbia, Ann Arbor. (3353514)
43.Radford, S. K., & Bloch, P. H. (2011). Linking innovation to design: Consumer responses to visual product newness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(s1), 208-220.
44.Raptis, D., Bruun, A., Kjeldskov, J., & Skov, M. B. (2017). Converging coolness and investigating its relation to user experience. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(4), 333-350.
45.Robertson, K. R., & Marshall, R. (1987). Amount of label information effects on perceived product quality. International Journal of Advertising, 6(3), 199-205.
46.Rocchi, B., & Stefani, G. (2006). Consumers' perception of wine packaging: A case study. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 18(1), 33-44.
47.Rodriguez, M. A. (1991). What makes a warning label salient? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the human factors society annual meeting.
48.Runco, M. A., & Charles, R. E. (1993). Judgments of originality and appropriateness as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 15(5), 537-546.
49.Sütterlin, B., Brunner, T. A., & Opwis, K. (2008). Eye-tracking the cancellation and focus model for preference judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 904-911.
50.Scammon, D. L. (1977). “Information load” and consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(3), 148-155.
51.Schoormans, J. P., & Robben, H. S. (1997). The effect of new package design on product attention, categorization and evaluation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18(2-3), 271-287.
52.Shabgou, M., & Daryani, S. M. (2014). Towards the sensory marketing: stimulating the five senses (sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste) and its impact on consumer behavior. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 4(S1), 573-581.
53.Snelders, D., & Hekkert, P. (1999). Association measures as predictors of product originality. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 588-592.
54.Swasy, J. L., & Munch, J. M. (1985). Examining the target of receiver elaborations: Rhetorical question effects on source processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 877-886.
55.Talati, Z., Pettigrew, S., Dixon, H., Neal, B., Ball, K., & Hughes, C. (2016). Do health claims and front-of-pack labels lead to a positivity bias in unhealthy foods? Nutrients, 8(12), 1-18.
56.Talke, K., Salomo, S., Wieringa, J. E., & Lutz, A. (2009). What about design newness? Investigating the relevance of a neglected dimension of product innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(6), 601-615.
57.Tarabella, A., & Voinea, L. (2013). Advantages and limitations of the front-of-package (fop) labeling systems in guiding the consumers' healthy food choice. Amfiteatru Economic, 15(33), 198-209.
58.Theeuwes, J. (2004). Top-down search strategies cannot override attentional capture. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(1), 65-70.
59.Theeuwes, J. (2010). Top–down and bottom–up control of visual selection. Acta Psychologica, 135(2), 77-99.
60.Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 97-136.
61.van Trijp, H. C., & van Kleef, E. (2008). Newness, value and new product performance. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19(11), 562-573.
62.Wang, H.-C., & Doong, H.-S. (2010). Argument form and spokesperson type: The recommendation strategy of virtual salespersons. International Journal of Information Management, 30(6), 493-501.
63.Watts, S. A., & Zhang, W. (2008). Capitalizing on content: Information adoption in two online communities. Journal of The Association for Information Systems, 9(2), 73-94.
64.Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables: McGraw-Hill.
65.Wood, W., Kallgren, C. A., & Preisler, R. M. (1985). Access to attitude-relevant information in memory as a determinant of persuasion: The role of message attributes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21(1), 73-85.
66.Yuwono, M. A. B. (2016). Impact of coffee product packaging and labeling on purchase intentions with mediating of brand image. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 15, 150-154.
67.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.
68.Zhong, K., Wang, H., & Zhang, C. (2018). Brand elongation effect: The impact of logo shape on assessment of products' temporal property and brand evaluation. Nankai Business Review International, 9(1), 59-77.


QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top