臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

　　面對消費者越來越多樣化的需求，廠商在各類商品的種類與功能上不斷推陳出新，以產品在各種屬性上的差異吸引不同需求的消費者。然而，太多的屬性資訊同時陳列在消費者面前，使得消費者在處理資訊時更加困難；另一方面，廠商對於商品資訊的揭露（disclosure）握有主控權，除非消費者本身對於商品已有評估參考點，否則只能由廠商所提供的各項資訊以作為選擇依據，而造成資訊不完全的情形。
　　消費者在選擇過程中面對產品的不同選擇方案，陳列著產品的各種屬性資訊，其中包括各項方案皆有揭露的共同屬性資訊，以及只有部份方案揭露的特殊屬性資訊。消費者在面對廠商所提供的不完全產品資訊時，傾向以產品間的共同屬性做為產品選擇標準，但過度提高共同屬性權重的結果，可能使消費者對某產品Ａ的偏好大於產品Ｂ（共同屬性之比較下，產品Ａ之共同屬性優於產品Ｂ），對產品Ｂ之偏好大於產品Ｃ，但對產品Ｃ之偏好又大於產品Ａ，因而導致「反遞移律」（intransitivity）的選擇偏好行為發生（Tversky, 1969）。
　　為了瞭解消費者的反遞移律選擇偏好行為，本研究主要探討：
1. 是否可以藉由選擇組合中屬性資訊揭露的操弄，誘使消費者作出「反遞移律」的選擇行為，增加個別產品的吸引力。
2. 消費者在進行選擇行為時，是否受到本身產品知識、認知需求（need for cognition）、屬性衡量難易度、以及資訊陳列方式的影響，改變其評估原則。
3. 消費者是否由於選擇原則的不同，而導致選擇困難度的差異。
　　由本研究之實驗設計結果得到結論如下：
1. 消費者在面對資訊不完全的選擇方案，傾向以共同屬性作為比較依據而表現出反遞移律選擇行為。
2. 產品特殊屬性之衡量難易度會影響消費者對該屬性之評估權重。產品選擇方案中，共同屬性表現較差的產品，若其特殊屬性是較不易衡量之屬性，則相較於較易衡量之特殊屬性，消費者反遞移律之選擇偏好情形更為明顯。
3. 消費者的產品知識高低會影響其產品評估之路徑及相關屬性之權重。低產品知識之消費者，相較於高產品知識之消費者，較容易產生反遞移律之選擇偏好。
4. 消費者的認知需求高低並不會影響其產品評估之路徑及相關屬性之權重。
5. 產品屬性資訊的揭露以表格陳述或文字條列方式對於消費者反遞移律選擇行為並無影響。
6. 消費者是否以共同屬性做為比較依據會影響其選擇決策時的困難度。選擇共同屬性表現較差的產品之消費者，相較於選擇共同屬性表現較優的產品之消費者，其選擇時的困難度較高。
　　以往研究認為消費者面對產品屬性資訊不完全時，可能會針對未知或遺漏的資訊進行推論，再根據這些推論結果來評估各個品牌或產品。而本研究對於行銷理論上的貢獻為：探討並驗證消費者在面對產品屬性資訊不完全時，傾向於比較各產品間的共同屬性，並放棄對含有遺失資訊的特殊屬性進行推論，因而導致非理性的反遞移律選擇偏好行為。本研究亦指出，影響消費者使用共同屬性做為判斷依據的因素包括：屬性衡量難易度與消費者產品知識。消費者在不同的產品屬性資訊下，表現出的反遞移律選擇偏好程度並不相同，若產品的特殊屬性為不易衡量屬性，則消費者可能降低該特殊屬性之重要性，反之，若產品的特殊屬性為易衡量屬性，則消費者可能增加該特殊屬性之重要性。在產品知識方面，高產品知識的消費者，在評估產品偏好時較仔細地考慮各種屬性；低產品知識的消費者傾向於簡單地以共同屬性來做為比較依據。
　　本研究在行銷實務上的建議如下：
1. 廠商之目標產品若在某項屬性上的表現較優，應將該屬性的資訊與競爭產品之該屬性資訊充份揭露；而目標產品若在某項屬性上的表現較差，則應儘量將該屬性的資訊隱藏，避免讓消費者取得。
2. 目標產品之某一重要屬性若不易衡量，廠商應「主動」宣傳該屬性之重要性，並教導消費者在該屬性上的知識，強調目標產品在該屬性上的表現，以免消費者忽略該屬性之權重，失去產品差異化的意義。
3. 建議廠商若需隱藏產品弱勢屬性資訊時，則以文字條列方式陳述產品屬性資訊。
4. 對於產品知識程度不同之消費者，廠商可使用不同的廣告方式來加以說服。面對高產品知識的消費者時，應儘量提供完整的產品屬性資訊；而面對產品知識較低的消費者時，則應選擇性地揭露產品屬性資訊。

Facing the variety of consumer’s demand nowadays, firms develop products in different categories and functions. The products attract consumers by differentiation on the value of attributes. Exposed to more and more attribute information, however, consumers consequently gain much difficulty dealing with the information. On the other hand, the firms get fully control over the disclosure of information on product attribute. Consumers can only choose product based on the information provided by the firms unless they have their own reference point, and it results in information asymmetry.
During the process of choice, consumers face several choices along with information of attributes, including “common attribute” which all choices disclose the value and “unique attribute” which only part of choices disclose the value. It is shown that consumers tend to put more emphasis on common attributes between choices than on unique attributes. By the overweighing the common attributes, consumers may show intransitive preference and display irrational behavior. For example, in the three choices combination, choice A will be preferred to choice B, B will be preferred to C, but C will be preferred to A.
The main goal of this research is to improve our understanding of consumer choice under incomplete information. Under the influences of product knowledge, need for cognition, information presentation form, and attribute evaluation difficulty, we come to following conclusion about consumer’s intransitive preference behavior:
1.Consumers are more likely to use an attribute as a reason for choice when that attribute is common rather than unique, and lead to intransitive consumer preferences.
2.The evaluation difficulty in unique attribute will affect the evaluation weight of that attribute. Consumers will show more intransitive preference if the unique attribute of a choice which is inferior on the common attribute is more difficult to evaluate rather than easier to evaluate.
3.The product knowledge level of consumer will affect the route of evaluation and the weight of attribute. A consumer with lower product knowledge shows more intransitive preference than one with higher product knowledge.
4.Need for Cognition of consumers have no effect on the route of evaluation and the weight of attribute.
5.The presentation format of product attribute information doesn’t affect the intransitive preference of consumers.
6.Whether consumer uses the common attribute as a reason for choice or not affects the difficulty during choosing process. Consumers will rate a choice as more difficult after selecting the option that is inferior on the common attribute.
Although some researchers have suggested that consumers form inferences about missing values under incomplete information, whereas others find little evidence for such inferences. The main contribution of this research is to suggest and testify consumers’ tendency to use common attribute as a reason for choice rather than inference about missing value. Moreover, this research founds that the difficulty of attribute and consumer’s product knowledge also have influence on the degree of intransitive behavior. Due to the conclusions above, we provide following suggestions for marketing strategies:
1.A firm should fully disclose the information of an attribute if the objective product is superior on that attribute, and hide the information of an attribute if the objective product is inferior on that attribute.
2.If an important attribute of the objective product is hard to evaluate, the firm should propagate the information of that attribute “actively” in order to educate consumers’ knowledge on that attribute. Stressing the performance of objective product on that attribute in order to prevent consumers from ignore the importance on that attribute.
3.We suggest that when hiding the information of inferior attribute, the firm use sentence format to disclose the information to consumers.
4.A firm should persuade consumers of different product knowledge levels into objective products in different ways. It should provide fully information of product attributes when facing higher product knowledge level consumers while provide part of information when facing lower product knowledge level consumers.

目錄I
表次II
圖次III
第一章　緒論1
第一節　研究背景與動機1
第二節　研究目的3
第三節　研究貢獻3
第四節　本研究與過去研究不同之處4
第二章　文獻探討與本研究之觀念性架構6
第一節　反遞移律選擇偏好6
第二節　推敲可能性模式（ELM）9
第三節　產品知識12
第四節　認知需求17
第五節　易衡量屬性及不易衡量屬性20
第六節　本研究之觀念性架構23
第七節　研究假設23
第三章　研究方法30
第一節　研究架構30
第二節　變數之定義31
第三節　研究設計32
第四章　研究結果分析43
第一節　一致性衡量43
第二節　消費者反遞移律偏好決策行為之假設檢定44
第三節　屬性衡量難易度對反遞移律決策行為之影響47
第四節　資訊陳列方式對反遞移律決策行為之影響48
第五節　產品知識對反遞移律決策行為之影響49
第六節　認知需求對反遞移律決策行為之影響50
第七節　反遞移律決策行為對選擇困難度之影響52
第五章　結論與建議54
第一節　研究結論54
第二節　行銷理論意涵55
第三節　行銷實務意涵56
第四節　研究限制59
第五節　未來研究建議59
參考文獻61
附錄一：前測問卷67
附錄二：正式問卷69

1.王志剛、謝文崔譯，消費者行為，台北：華泰書局，民國84年11月。
2.洪華偉，比較性廣告對品牌態度及購買意願之影響，國立成功大企業管理研究所碩士論文，民國八十六年六月。
3.高泉豐，認知需求的概念與測量，中華心理學刊，36卷1期，民國83年，pp.1-20。
4.張凱雲，產品特殊屬性與共同屬性對消費者選擇之影響，國立台灣大學商學研究所碩士論文，民國八十九年六月。
5.康凱雯，產品屬性、消費者評估參考點與評估情境對購買評價之影響，國立台灣大學商學研究所碩士論文，民國八十九年六月。
6.曾慈惠，產品微關屬性、產品知識對消費者行為影響之實研究，實踐大學企業管理研究所碩士論文，民國八十八年六月。
7.顏月珠，商用統計學，第八版，三民書局，民國八十二年八月。
Alba, Joseph W. and Howard Marmorstein (1987), “The Effects of Frequency Knowledge on Consumer Decision Making.,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14(June), pp.14-25.
Alba, Joseph W. and J Wesley Hutchinson (1987), “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13(March), pp.411-454.
Assar, Amardeep and Dipankar Chakravarti (1984), "Attribute Range Knowledge: Effects on Consumers'''' Evaluation of BrandAttribute Information and Search Patterns in Choice," in Scientific Methods in Marketing, Russell W. Belk et al., eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, pp.62-67.
Biehal, Gabriel J. and Dipankar Chakravarti (1986), "Consumers'''' Use of Memory and External Information in Choice: Macro and Micro Processing Perspectives," Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (4), 382-405.
Bruck, T.C. and Sharon Shavitt (1983), “Cognitive Response Analysis in Advertising,” in Advertising and Consumer Psychology, eds. Larry Percy and Arch Woodside, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, pp.91-116.
Broniarczyk, Susan M. and Joseph W. Alba(1996), “The Role of Consumers’ Initiations in Inference Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.21, 3(December), pp.393-407.
Cacioppo, J. T., R. E. Petty and K. Morris(1983), “Effect of Need for Cognition on Message Evaluation, Recall and Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(July), pp.805-818.
Cacioppo, John T. and Richard E. Petty (1982), “The Need for Cognition,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, pp.116-131.
Cohen, A., E. Stotland, and D. Wolfe (1955), “An Experimental Investigation of Need for Cognition,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, pp.291-294.
Dhar, Ravi (1997), "Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option," Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (September), pp.215-31.
Dhar, Ravi and Steven J. Sherman (1996), “The Effect of Common and Unique Features in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research 23, December, pp.193-203.
Dick, Alan, Dipankar Chakravarti, and Gabriel Biehal (1990), "Memory-Based Inferences During Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (June), pp.82-93.
Drolet, Aimee, Itamar Simonson, and Amos Tversky (2000), "Indifference Curves that Travel with the Choice Set," Marketing Letters, 11 (3), pp.199-209.
Hsee, France Leclerc (1998), “Will Product Look More Attractive When Presented Separately or Together?,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25, pp.175-186.
Jeffrey A. Feinstein, and W. Blair G. Jarvis (1996), "Dispositional Differences in Cognitive Motivation: The Life and Times of Individuals Varying in Need For Cognition," Psychological Bulletin, 119 (2), pp.197-253.
Johnson, Richard D. and Irwin P. Levin (1985), "More Than Meets the Eye: The Effect of Missing Information on Purchase Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (September), pp.74-81.
Kahneman, Daniel (1981), "The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice," Science, 211 (30), pp.453-58.
Kivetz, Ran and Itamar Simonson (2000), “The Effect of Incomplete Information on Consumer Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37, pp.427-448.
Kreps, David M. (1990), A Course in Microeconomic Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kruglanski, Arie W. (1990), "Motivations for Judging and Knowing: Implications for Causal Attribution," in The Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, Vol. 2, E.T. Higgins and R.M. Sorrentino, eds. New York: Guilford Press,
Kunda, Ziva (1990), "The Case for Motivated Reasoning," Psychological Bulletin, 108 (3), pp.480-98.
Lord, C., Mark R. Lepper, and Lee Ross (1979), "Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (11), 2098-110.
Luce, R. Duncan (1956), "Semiorders and a Theory of Utility Discrimination," Econometrica, 24, pp.178-91.
March, James G. (1978), "Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice," The Bell Journal of Economics, 9 (2), pp.587-608.
Meyer, Robert J. (1981), "A Model of Multiattribute Judgments Under Attribute Uncertainty and Informational Constraints," Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (November), pp.428-41.
Montgomery, Henry (1983), "Decision Rules and the Search for a Dominance Structure: Towards a Process Model of Decision Making," in Analyzing and Aiding Decision Processes, P. Humphreys, 0. Svenson, and A. Vari, eds. Amsterdam: NorthHolland, pp.343-69.
Nowlis, Stephen M. and Itamar Simonson (1997), "Attribute-Task Compatibility as a Determinant of Consumer Preference Reversals," Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (May), pp.205-18.
Payne, John R., James R Bettman, and Eric J. Johnson (1992), "Behavioral Decision Research: A Constructive Processing Perspective," Annual Review of Psychology, 43, pp.87-131.
Petty, R. E. and J. T. Cacioppo (1986), Communication and Persuasion─Central and Peripheral Route to Attitude Change, New York: Springer-Verlag.
Petty, R. E., J. T. Cacioppo and D. Schumann (1983), “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10(December), pp.138-148.
Puto, Christopher P. (1987), “The Framing of Buying Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14, pp301-315.
Pyszczynski, T. and J. Greenberg (1987), "Toward an Integration of Cognitive and Motivational Perspectives on Social Inference: A Biased Hypothesis-Testing Model," in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 20, L. Berkowitz, ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp.297-340.
Ross, William T., Jr., and Elizabeth H. Creyer (1992), "Making Inferences About Missing Information: The Effects of Existing Information," Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (June), 14-25.
Russo, J. Edward, Victoria Husted Medvec, and Margaret G. Meloy (1996), "The Distortion of Information During Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66 (1), pp.102-10.
Sanbonmatsu, David M., Frank R. Kardes, Steven S. Posovac, and David C. Houghton (1997), "Contextual Influences on Judgment Based on Limited Information," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69 (3), 25 pp.14-64.
Shafir, B. Eldar, Daniel N. Osherson, and Edward E. Smith (1993), "The Advantage Model: A Comparative Theory of Evaluation and Choice Under Risk," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55 (3), pp.325-78.
Simmons, Carolyn J. and Daniel J. Leonard, “Inferences about Missing Attributes: Contingencies Affecting Use of Alternative Information Sources,” Advances in Consumer Research 17, Marvin Goldberg, Gerald Gorn, and Richard Pollay, eds., Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, 1990, pp.266-274.
Simmons, J. Carolyn and John G. Lynch Jr. (1991), "Inference Effects Without Inference Making? Effects of Missing Information on Discounting and Use of Presented Information," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (March), pp.477-91.
Simonson, Itamar (1989), “Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (March), pp.520-533.
Simonson, Itamar (1991), "The Effects of Buying Decisions on Consumers'''' Assessment of Their Tastes," Marketing Letters, 2 (1), pp.5-14.
Simonson, Itamar, Stephen M. Nowlis, and Yael Simonson (1993), “The Effect of Irrelevant Preference Arguments on Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2, pp.287-306.
Slovic, Paul and Douglas MacPhillamy (1974), "Dimensional Commensurability and Cue Utilization in Comparative Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11 (April), pp.179-94.
Smith, Stephen M. and Irwin P. Levin (1996), "Need for Cognition and Choice Framing Effects," Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9 (4), pp.283-90.
Tversky, Amos (1969), “Intransitivity of Preference,” Psychological Review 76, January, pp.31-48
Tversky, Amos (1972), “Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice,” Psychological Review, 79, pp.281-299.
Tversky, Amos (1977), “Features of Similarity,” Psychological Review 84, July, pp.327-352.
Tversky, Amos (1992), "Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion," Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (August), pp.281-95.
Wyer, Robert S. and Donald E. Carlston (1979), Social Cognition, Inference and Attribution, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Yates, J. Frank, Carolyn M. Jagacinski, and Mark D. Faber (1978), "Evaluations of Partially Described Multi-Attribute Options," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21 (April), 240-51.
Zhang, Shi and Arthur B. Markman (1998), "Overcoming the Early Entrant Advantage: The Role of Alignable and Nonalignable Differences," Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (November), 413-26.