臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

由於思考模式迴異以致對同件事往往解讀不一，最常見如廠商每每推出價格促銷方案時，消費者不免會有價格便宜或昂貴的不同感受，究其因或在於採用了捷思(Heuristics)心理歷程所造成，如透過心理模擬以估算可能性(Kahneman and Tversky, 1982)，因此有必要基於「捷思」觀點探討之，期更有助於釐清，採以「過程折扣」、「終端折扣」兩種降價方式（組間因子）與10%、50%之折扣幅度（組內因子）之混和實驗設計，共計124位受試者，並以重複量數、共變量分析之，歸納結果為（1）如一般所知，當面對廠商促銷活動情境時，有可能援引消費者透過心理模擬中之過程折扣取向以解讀之，但不無可能也會採用終端折扣取向來權衡(Kahneman and Tversky, 1982)，而經本研究證實後確認有此現象存在，且發現捷思將干擾心理模擬對知覺價值之影響。（2）在折扣幅度高中之過程折扣取向下，引導消費者有最高程度的知覺價值，而最少出現折扣幅度低中之終端折扣取向。

Customers have different explanation because their thinking process. Give an example, customers have cheap or expensive feelings for the same price-promotions. Exploring the reason is that using the heuristics mental simulation. The mental simulation can be used as a heuristic for estimating probabilities or assessing causality. (Kahneman and Tversky, 1982) Hence, it is necessary to comprehend the concept of mental simulation clearly through the viewpoint of heuristics. Therefore, this study tries to understand the impact of mental simulation on perceived value by discounts and cuts(between-subject), with 10% and 50% discount rate (within-subject). There are 124 subjects. Using the repeated measures and covariates in this study. Generalizing the results of this study is that (1) In generally speaking, it will lead customers through the mental simulation’s process-based or outcome-based to explanation the price-promotions situation. This study proves that the heuristics moderating effect on perceived value. (2) The situation of high discount rate and price discounts produced highest perceived value, but the least perceived value is in low discount rate and price cuts.

摘要 I
ABSTRACT II
目錄 III
圖目錄 V
表目錄 VI
第壹章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景 1
第二節 研究動機 3
第三節 研究目的 4
第四節 研究流程 5
第貳章 文獻探討 6
第一節 心理模擬 6
一、心理模擬 6
二、心理模擬與捷思 7
三、心理模擬與促銷類型之關係 9
第二節 折扣幅度 12
一、折扣幅度 12
二、折扣幅度與促銷類型、心理模擬之關係 12
第三節 知覺價值 14
一、知覺價值 14
二、促銷類型、心理模擬與知覺價值之關係 17
三、折扣幅度與知覺價值之關係 17
第參章 研究方法 19
第一節 研究架構與假設 19
一、以捷思角度探討促銷類型與知覺價值之間的關係 19
二、以捷思角度探討折扣幅度與知覺價值之間的關係 20
三、促銷類型、折扣幅度與知覺價值之間的關係 20
第二節 變數定義與測量工具 22
一、變數操作型定義 22
三、測量工具發展 23
四、信度測量 25
第三節 實驗設計 27
一、實驗設計 27
二、目標施測產品 27
三、實驗情境操弄 30
第四節 實驗流程與操弄檢驗 32
一、實驗參與樣本 32
二、實驗流程 34
第五節 資料分析法 35
第四章 研究結果與假說驗證 36
第一節 操弄檢驗 36
第二節 研究結果 38
一、促銷類型與折扣幅度對知覺價值效果之檢定 38
二、促銷類型與折扣幅度對捷思之檢定 43
第三節 驗證假說 46
第五章 結論 47
第一節 討論與結論 47
一、促銷類型與折扣幅度對知覺價值的影響 47
二、促銷類型、折扣幅度的捷思思考模式 48
三、結論 50
第二節 研究限制 52
第三節 行銷意涵 54
第四節 未來研究建議 55
參考文獻 56
附錄一 焦點訪談題綱 61
附錄二 實驗量表（過程折扣情境） 62
附錄三 焦點團體訪談摘要稿 72

1.王佳凌，2002，促銷建構方式對消費者購買決策過程之影響，逢甲大學，企業管理研究所，碩士論文
2.田宇軒，2009，商品陳列及價格對消費捷思的影響，國立高雄第一科技大學，行銷與流通管理所，碩士論文
3.吳韋緻，2005，不同類型消費性產品之價格促銷透過知覺價值對購買意願影響之研究，南台科技大學，行銷與流通管理研究所，碩士論文
4.李秉倫，2001，折扣深度、產品屬性與促銷情境對品牌評價與購買意願，銘傳大學，管理科學研究所，碩士論文
5.蔡依達，2002，促銷方式、折扣幅度商店形象與心理帳面價值對消費者替換購買意願之影響－以行動電話為例，國立成功大學，交通管理研究所，碩士論文
6.蔡鴻文，2001，價格促銷頻率、幅度與外部參考價格對消費者行為的影響，國立台灣大學，商學研究所，碩士論文
7.鄭尹惠，2008，服務創新類型對消費者捷思影響之研究，國立雲林科技大學，企業管理所，博士論文

1.Aaker, D. A. , 1973 , “Toward A Normative Model of Promotional Decision Making” , Management Science , Vol.19 , No.6 , pp.593-603.
2.Aimee, D. ; Mary, F. ; Luce , and Itamar, S. , 2009 , “Mental Shortcuts: New Study Examines Consumer Choice Process” , Journal of Consumer Research , Vol.26 ,Jan.
3.Alba, J. W.; Mela, C. F.; Shimp, T. A. and Urbany, J. E. , 1999, “The Effect of Discount Frequency and Depth on Consumer Price Judgments ,” Journal of Consumer Research , Vol.26, pp.99-114.
4.Berkowitz, E. N. and Walton, J. R. , 1980, “Contextual Inference on Consumer Price Response: An Experimental Analysis , ” Journal of Consumer Research , Vol.17, pp.349-358.
5.Biswas, A. and Blair, E. A. , 1991 , “Contextual Effect of Reference Price in Retail Advertisements ,” Journal of Marketing, Vol.55 No.3 , pp.1-12.
6.Burton, S.; Karson, E. J. and Lichtenstein, D. R., 1991 , “The Effect of Semantic Cues on Consumer Perceptions of Reference Price Advertisements”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18, Dec., pp.155-173.
7.Campbell, L. and Diamond, W. D., 1990 , “Framing and Sales Promotion：The Characteristic of a Good Deal” , Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.7, No.4, pp.25-31.
8.Chaiken, S. and Eagly, A. H., 1983 , “Communication Modality as a Determinant of Persuasion: The Role of Communicator Salience”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , Vol.45, pp.241-256.
9.Chaiken, S., 1980, “Heuristic versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus Message Cues in Persuasion”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 39 , No.5 , pp.752-766.
10.Chaiken, S., 1987, “The Heuristic Model of Persuasion”, Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11.Chang, T. Z. and Albert, R. W. , 1994, “Price, Product Information, and Purchase Intertion: An Empirical Study,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 22, No.1, pp.16-27.
12.Chen, S. F. S., Lou, Y. C. and Monroe, K. B., 1998, “The Effects of Framing Price Promotion Messages on Consumer’ Perception and Choice Decisions” , Journal of Retailing , Vol.74, No.3, pp.353-372.
13.Christensen, B. T. and Christian, D. S. ,2009 , “The Role and Impact of Mental Simulation in Design” , Applied Cognitive Psychology , Vol.23 , pp.327-344.
14.Das, P. R. , 1992 , “Semantic Cues and Buyer Evaluation of Promotion Communication” , Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing Association, Chicago, IL,pp.12-17.
15.Della, B.; Albert, J.; Kent, B.; Monroe and John M. M. , 1981 , “Consumer Perceptions of Parative Price Advertisements” , Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.18 , Nov. , pp. 416-427.
16.Devon, D. , Krishnan, H. S. and Daniel, C. S. , 2007, “Cents or Percent? The Effects of Promotion Framing on Price Expectations and Choice” , Journal of Marketing , Vol. 71 , pp. 158-170.
17.Dodds, W. B. ; Monroe, K. and Grewal, D. , 1991 , “Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers’ Product Evaluations,” Journal of Marketing Research , Vol.28, pp.307-319.
18.Dodds, W. B. and Monroe, K. B. , 1985 , “The Effects of Brand and Price Information on Subjective Product Evaluations,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp.85-90.
19.Edward, R. H. ; Frank, R. K. and Keith, D. M. , 2004 , Activating a mental simulation mind-set through generation of alternatives: Implications for debiasing in related and unrelated domains , Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , Vol.40 , pp.374-383.
20.Folkes, V. and Rita, D. W. , 1995 , “Consumers'' Price Perceptions of Promoted Products,” Journal of Retailing, Vol.71 , Fall , pp.317-328.
21.Garvin, D. A., 1983 , “Quality on the Line,” Harvard Business Review , Vol.61 , pp.65-73.
22.Grewal ; Dhruv; Krishnan, R.; Baker, J. and Borin, N. , 1998 , “The Effect of Store Name, Brand Name and Price Discounts on Consumers'' Evaluations and Purchase Intentions” , Journal of Retailing, Vol.74 Fall , pp.331-352.
23.Grewal, D.; Marmorstein, H. and Sharma, A. , 1996 , “Communicating Price Information through Semantic Cues:the Moderating Effects of Situation and Discount Size” , Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 23, Sept., pp.148-155.
24.Gupta, S. and Lee G. C. , 1992 , “The Discounting of Discounts and Promotion Thresholds” , Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.19 , Dec , pp.401-411.
25.Jennifer, E. E. and Mary, F. L. , 2003 , “Process Versus Outcome Thought Focus and Advertising” Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol.13 ,No.3 , pp.246-254
26.Jennifer, E. E. and Mary, F. L. , 2003 , “Whatcha Thinking? Mental Simulation in Consumer Contexts” , Advances in Consumer Research , Vol.30 , pp.213-215.
27.Julie, B.; Michael, L. and Dhruv, G. , 1992, “An Experimental Approach to Making Retail Store Environmental Decision”, Journal of Retailing, Vol.68, pp.445-461.
28.Kahneman, D. and Miller, D. T. , 1986 , “Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives” , Psychological Review, Vol.93, pp.126-153.
29.Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. , 1972, “Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness”, Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 3, pp.430-454.
30.Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. ,1982 , “The simulation heuristic” ; “Judgment under uncer-tainty: Heuristics and biases” , New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.Krishnamurthy, Parthasarathy, and Sujan, Mita. , 1999, “Retrospection versus anticipation: The role of the ad under retrospective and anticipatory self-referencing” , Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.26,pp. 55-69.
32.Leavitt, H. J. , 1954 , “A Note on Some Experimental Findings about the Meaning of Price” , Journal of Business, Vol.27, July, pp.205-210.
33.Leigh, J. H. and Varadarajan, R., 1991 , “Consumers’Behavioral Responses to Alternative Coupon Price Promotions：A Field Study in a Fast Food Retailing” , Symposium on Patronage Behavior and Retail Strategy , pp.133-145.
34.Lien B. P. and Taylor, S. E. ,1999 , “From Thought to Action: Effects of Process- Versus Outcome-Based Mental Simulations on Performance” , Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2,pp. 250-260.
35.Mandrik, C. A., 1996, “Consumer heuristics: the tradeoff between processing effort and brand value choice” , Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.23, pp.301-309.
36.Marion, F. M. , 1987 , “A Delphi Analysis of a Definition of Sales Promotion, Dectoral Dissertation” , Memphis State University.
37.Markus, V. and Geoff, E. , 2009 , “Intuitive managerial thinking; the use of mental simulations in the industrial marketing context” Industrial Marketing Management , pp.1-12.
38.Mazumdar, T. and Monroe, K. B., 1992, “Effects of Inter-Store and In-Store Price Comparisons on Price Recall Accuracy and Confidence”, Journal of Retailing, Vol.68, pp.66–89.
39.Monroe, and Krishnan, R. , 1985 , “The Effect of Price on Subjective Product Evaluation” In Perceived Quality: How Consumers View Stores and Merchandise, Lexington.MA: Lexington Books, pp.209-232,.
40.Monroe, K. B. , 1973 , “Buyers’Subjective Perceptions of Price” , Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.10, Feb. , pp.70-80.
41.Monroe, K. B. , 1984 , “Theoretical and Methodological Developments in Pricing” , Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.11 , pp.636-637.
42.Monroe, K. B., 1990 , “Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions,” 2nd Ed., New York,McGraw- Hill.
43.Olson, J. C. and J. Jacoby , 1977 , “Consumer Response to Price: An Attitudinal, Information Processing Perspective,” pp.73-86 in Yoram Wind and Marshall G. Grenberg（eds.）, Moving Ahead With Attitude Research, Chicago:American Marketing Association.
44.Parasuraman, A. and D. Grewal, 2000 , “The Impact of Technology on the Quality-Value-Loyalty Chain: A Research Agenda” , Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.28 , No.1 , pp.168-74.
45.Saini, R. and Monga, A. , 2008 , “How I Decide Depends on What I Spend : Use of Heuristics Is Greater for Time than for Money” , Journal of Consumer Research , Vol.34 , Apr. , pp.914-922.
46.Sanna, L. J. , 2000 , “Mental Simulation, Affect, and Personality: A Conceptual Framework” , Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan , pp.168-173.
47.Simon, H. A., 1990, “Invariants of Human Behavior”, Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 41, pp.1–19.
48.Taylor, J. G. , 2009 , “Cognitive Computation” , Cogn Comput , pp4-16.
49.Taylor, S. E. and Sherry, K. S. , 1989 , “Coping and the Simulation of Events” , Social Cognition, Vol.7 , No.2 , pp.174–94.
50.Thaler, R. , 1985 , “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice” , Marketing Science, Vol.4, Sum. , pp.199-214.
51.Thompson, D. V. ; Hamition, R. W. and Petrova, P. K. , 2009 , “When Mental Simulation Hinders Behavior : The Effects of Process-Oriented Thinking on Decision Difficulty and Performance” Journal of Consumer Research , Vol.36 , Dec. , pp.526-574.
52.Urbany, J. E.; Bearden, W. O. and Weilbaker, D. C. , 1988 , “The Effects of Plausible and Exaggerated Reference Prices on Consumer Perceptions and Price Search,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.15, pp.95-110.
53.Yeung, C. W. M. and Soman, D. , 2007 , “The Duration Heuristic” , Journal of Consumer Research , Vol.34 , Oct. , pp.315-326.
54.Zeithaml, V. A. , 1988 , “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value：A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.52 , Jul. ,pp.2-22.