臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

過去文獻將產品稀少性按照其產生的原因分為兩種：供給面和需求面所造成的稀少。而兩種稀少性訴求效果皆被證實有助於提升產品的購買意圖。本研究欲探討不同產品類別及需求和供給面之稀少性訴求效果對購買意圖的影響。本研究為3 (無稀少、供給性及需求性稀少) × 2 (功能性、享樂性產品)受試者間實驗設計，並採用二因子變異數分析作為分析工具。

本研究結果顯示，產品類別與稀少性類別之交互作用達顯著水準，並且於兩方面影響購買意圖。一、面對供給性稀少之享樂型產品時，消費者購買意圖增加；反之，面對需求性稀少之享樂型產品，消費者購買意圖減少。二、面對需求性稀少之功能型產品，消費者購買意圖增加；但面對供給性稀少之功能性產品，其購買意圖則減少。

Prior research has identified two kinds of product scarcity: supply and demand and has proven that both kinds of scarcity increase product desirability. This research examines the scarcity effect toward purchase intention while adopting product type as moderators. The author intended to know how purchase intent varied under different types of scarcity information across product type. A 3 (no scarcity, scarcity due to insufficient supply, scarcity due to excess demand) ×2 (hedonic, utilitarian product) between-subject research designed was used. Two-way ANOVA was used for further analysis.

The significant interaction effect between product type and scarcity type has proven the moderating role of product type, and the interactions effect on purchase intent can be demonstrate in two ways. First, purchase intention toward hedonic product increases as a result of scarcity due to insufficient supply, but decrease as a result of scarcity due to excess demand. Second, purchase intention toward utilitarian product increase as a result of scarcity due to excess demand, but increase as a result of scarcity due to insufficient supply. These findings can be used for academic development and marketing implications.

Chinese Abstract i
English Abstract ii
Acknowledgement iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
Chapter I Introduction 1
1.1 Research Motivation 1
1.2 Research Purpose 2
Chapter II Literature Review 3
2.1 Product Scarcity 3
2.2 Product Type 6
Chapter III Research Method 9
3.1 Hypothesis Development 9
3.2 Research Framework 12

3.3 Research Design and Methodology 13
3.3.1 Pretest 14
3.3.2 Stimuli 19
3.3.3 Parcipants 19
3.3.4 Procedures 20
3.3.5 Measures 20
3.3.6 Manipulation check items 21
Chapter IV Results 23
4.1 Manipulation checks 23
4.1.1 Perceived scarcity 23
4.1.2 Product type 24
4.2 Hypothesis Testing 26
4.2.1 Descriptive statistics 26
4.2.2 Purchase intent towards scarcity and product type 26
Chapter V General Discussion 30
5.1 Summary findings 28
5.2 Marketing implication 31
5.3 Research limitation 33
References 35
Appendix 40
Appendix 1 pretest questionnaire 40
Appendix 2 Main Test 43

Babin, Barry J., & Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 644-657.
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O.T. (1991). Mesuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2, 159-170.
Bazerman, M. H., Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Wade-Benzoni, K. (1998) Negotiating with yourself and losing: understanding and managing conflicting internal preferences. Academy of Management Review, 23, 225-241.
Becherer, R. C., & Richard, L. M. (1978). Self-monitoring as a moderating variable. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 159-163.
Brock, C., Greenwald, A.G. & Ostrom T. M. (1968). Implications of commodity theory for value change. Psychological foundations of attitudes. New York: Academic Press.
Chernev, A. (2004). Goal-attribute compatibility in consumer choice, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 141-150.
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan V. (2007). Form versus function: how the intensities of specific emotions evoked in functional versus hedonic trade-offs mediate product preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 702-714.
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan V. (2008). Delight by design: the role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. Journal of Marketing Research, 72, 48-63.
Cialdini, R. B. (1985). Influence: Science and practice. Glenview, IL: Scoot Foresman.
Darley, W. K., & Lim, J. S. (1992). The effect of consumers’ emotional reactions on behavioral intention: the moderating role of personal relevance and self-monitoring. Psychology & Marketing, 9, 329-346.
Dodds, W. B., & Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effect of price, brand, and store information on buyers’s product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 307-319.
Drorolet, A., Williams, P., Lau-Gesk, L (2007). Age-related differences in responses to affective vs. rational ads for hedonic vs. utilitarian products. Market Letters, 18, 211-221.
Debono, K. G. & Leavitt A. (1996). Proudct packaging and proudct evaulation: the role of self-monitoring. Philadelphia, PA: Eastern Psychological Association.
Debono, K.G., Leavitt, A. & Backus, J.N. (2003) Product packaging and product evaluation: an individual difference approach. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 513-521.
Debono, K. G. (2006). Self-monitoring and consumer psychology. Journal of Personality, 74, 715-737.
Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 60-71.
Eisend, M. (2008). Explaining the impact of scarcity appeals in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 37, 33-40.
Emerson, R.M. (1962). Power-dependence relations American Sociological Review, 27, 31-41.
Engle, J.F., Blackwell, R.D., & Miniard, P.W. (1993). Consumer behavior. Chicago: Dryden.
Elizabeth C. Hirschman & Morris B. Holbrook(1982). Hedonic Consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46, 92-101.
Gierl, H., & Plantsch, M., & Schweidler, J. (2008). Scarcity effects on scales volume in retail. The international review of retail, distrubution and consumer research, 18, 45-61.
Graeff, T. R. (1996). Image congruence effects on product evaluations: the role of self-monitoring and public/private consumption. Psychology & Marketin, 13, 481-499.
Herpen, E. V., Pieters, R. & Zeelenberg, M. (2005). How product scarcity impacts on choice: snob and bandwagon effects. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 623-624. ed. Olson, J. C. & Rao, A. R.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.
Hirschman, E.C., & Holbrook, M.B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46, 92-101.
Jung, J. M., & Kellaris, J. J. (2004). Cross-national differences in proneness to scarcity effects: the moderating roles of familiarity, uncertainty avoidance, and need for cognitive closure. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 739-753.
Laurent, G & Kapferer, J. N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 41-53.
Lynn, M. (1989). Scarcity effects on desirability: mediated by assumed expensiveness? Journal of economic psychology, 10, 257-274.
Lynn, M. (1991). Scarcity effects on value: a quantitative review of the commodity theory literature. Psychology and marketing, 8, 43-57.
Lynn, M. (1992 a). The psychology of unavailability: explaining scarcity and cost effects on value. Basic and applied social psychology, 13, 3-7.
Lynn, M. (1992 b). Scarcity’s enhancement of desirability: the role of naive economic theories. Basic and applied social psychology, 13, 67-78.
Nantel, J. A. & Strahle, W. (1986). The self-monitoring concept: a consumer behavior perspective. Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 83-87, ed. Richard J. Lutz.
Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 43-53.
Park, C. W., & Moom, B. J. (2003). The relationship between product involvement and product knowledge: Moderating roles of product type and product knowledge type. Psychology & Marketing, 20, 977-997.
Pham, M.T. (1998). Representativeness, relevance, and the use of feelings in decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 144-159.
Puccinelli, Nancy M,. & Deshpande, R., & Isen, Alice. M. (2007). Should I stay or should i go? Mood congruity, self-monitoring and retail context preference. Journal of business research, 60, 640-648.
Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 278-282.
Sloot, Laurens M., & Verhoef, Peter C., & Franses, Philip H. (2005). The impact of brand equity and the hedonic level of products on consumer stock-out reactions. Journal of retailing, 81, 15-34.
Sportt, D. E., & Shimp, T. A. (2004). Using product sampling to augment the perceived quality of store brands. Journal of Retailing, 80, 305–315.
Snyder, C.R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness-the human pursuit of difference. New York: Plenum Press.
Snyder, C.R. (1992). Product scarcity by need for uniqueness interaction: A consumer catch-22 carousel. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 9-24.
Vaughn, R. (1986). How advertising works: a planning model revisited. Journal of advertising research, 26, 57-66.
Veblen, T.A. (1965). The theory of the leisure class. New York: Kelly.
Verhallen, T. M. M., & Robben, H. S. J. (2004). Scarcity and preference: an experiment on unavailability and product evaluation. Department of Marketing and Marketing Research, Tilburg University.
Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 310-320.
Wakefield, K., & Inman, J. (2003). Situational price sensitivity: the role of consumption occasion, social context, and income. Journal of Retailing, 79, 199-212.
Ward, M.K. (2007). Developing a deeper understanding of scarcity: contextual and individual influences on demand scarcity. Advances in Consumer Research, 34, 384-385. ed. Fitzsiomns, G.J. & Morwirz, V. G.
Wills,T.A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245-271.
Worchel, S., & Lee, J,. & Adewole, A. (1975). Effects of supply and demand on ratings of object value. Journal of personality and social psychology, 32, 906-914.
Wu, C., & Hsing, San-San. (2006). Less is more: how scarcity influences consumers’ value perceptions and purchange intentions through mediating variables. The journal of American academy of business, 9, 125-132.
Yamauchi, K.T., & Templer, D.I. (1982). The development of a money attitude scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 522-528.