請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21370完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 陳瑀屏(Yu-Ping Chen) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Hsin-Yu Chen | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 陳欣妤 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T03:32:16Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2019-08-15 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2019-08-10 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | [1] A. A. Aarts et al. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716–aac4716.
[2] Arie W. Kruglanski, E. Tory Higgins, and Myilibrary. (2007). Social Psychology : Handbook of Basic Principles (2nd Eds.). Guilford Publications, 353-354 . [3] Arnold, S. J., Oum, T. H., & Tigert, D. J. (1983). Determinant attributes in retail patronage: seasonal, temporal, regional, and international comparisons. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(2), 149e157. [4] Boatwright, P., and Nunes, J.C. (2001). Reducing Assortment: An Attribute-Based Approach. Journal of Marketing, 65 (3), 50-63. [5] Bohannon, J. (2015). Many psychology papers fail replication test. Science., 349(6251), 910–911. [6] Bollen, D., Knijnenburg, B. P., Willemsen, M. C., & Graus, M. (2010). Understanding choice overload in recommender systems. 4th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys 2010) - Barcelona, Spain [7] Brown, N. J., Read, D., & Summers, B. (2003). The lure of choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(4), 297e308. [8] Chernev, Alexnder (2003a). Product Assortment and Individual Decision Processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 85 (1), 151–62. [9] Chernev, Alexnder (2003b). When More Is Less and Less Is More: The Role of Ideal Point Availability and Assortment in Consumer Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (2), 170–83. [10] Chernev, Alexnder (2006). Decision Focus and Consumer Choice among Assortments. Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (June), 50–59. [11] Chernev, A., Böckenholt, U., & Goodman, J. (2015). Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 333-358. [12] Craig, C. S., Ghosh, A., & McLafferty, S. (1984). Models of the retail location process: a review. Journal of Retailing, 60(1), 5e36. [13] Day, George S., Allan D. Shocker, and Rajendra K. Srivastava (1979). Customer-Oriented Approaches to Identifying Product-Markets. Journal of Marketing, 43 (Fall), 8–19. [14] Diehl, K., & Poynor, C. (2010). Great expectations?! Assortment size, expectations, and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2), 312e322. [15] Fujita, Kent, Tal Eyal, Shelly Chaiken, Yaakov Trope, and Nira Liberman (2008). Influencing Attitudes toward Near andDistant Objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,227 (21), 9044–62. [16] Fujita, K., Henderson, M. D., Eng, J., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychological Science, 17(4), 278-282. [17] Goodman, Joseph K. and Malkoc, Selin A.(2012). Choosing Here and Now vs. There and Later: The Moderating Role of Psychological Distance on Assortment Size Preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 39, No. 4 (December 2012), pp. 751-768. [18] Hauser, J. R., & Wernerfelt, B. (1990). An evaluation cost model of consideration sets. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 393-408. [19] Haynes, G. A. (2009). Testing the boundaries of the choice overload phenomenon: The effect of number of options and time pressure on decision difficulty and satisfaction. Psychology and Marketing, 26(3), 204–212. [20] Hutchinson, J. (2005). Is more choice always desirable? Evidence and arguments from leks, food selection, and environmental enrichment. Biological Reviews, 80(1), 73e92. [21] Iyengar, S.S., and Kamenica , E. (2010). Choice proliferation, simplicity seeking, and asset allocation. Journal of Public Economics, 94 (2010) 530–539. [22] Iyengar, S., & Lepper, M. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 995-1006. [23] Iyengar, S. S., Wells, R. E., & Schwartz, B. (2006). Doing better but feeling worse. Psychological Science, 17(2), 143e153. [24] Jessup, R. K., Veinott, E. S., Todd, P. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2009). Leaving the store empty-handed: testing explanations for the too-much-choice effect using decision field theory. Psychology and Marketing, 26(3), 299e320. [25] Kardes, F. R., Cronley, M. L., & Kim, J. (2006). Construal-level effects on preference stability, preference-behavior correspondence, and the suppression of competing brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(2), 135-144. [26] Liberman, Nira, and Yaakov Trope (1998). The Role of Feasibility and Desirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Decisions: A Test of Temporal Construal Theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (1), 5–18. [27] Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal level theory and consumerbehavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 113-117. [28] Liviatan, Ido, Yaacov Trope, and Nira Liberman (2008). Interpersonal Similarity as a Social Distance Dimension: Implications for Perception of Others’ Actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44 (5), 1256–69. [29] Mogilner, C., Rudnick, T., & Iyengar, S. S. (2008). The mere categorization effect: how the presence of categories increases choosers’ perceptions of assortment variety and outcome satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 202e215. [30] Monya Baker (2016). Is There A Reproducibility Crisis?. Nature,Vol 533,26 May 2016,452-454. [31] Payne, J. (1982). Contingent decision behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 382-402. [32] Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 534-552. [33] Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. [34] Park, J.-Y., & Jang, S. (Shawn). (2013). Confused by too many choices? Choice overload in tourism. Tourism Management, 35, 1–12. [35] Ratneshwar, S., and Allan D. Shocker (1991). Substitution in Use and the Role of Usage Context in Product Category Structures. Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (August), 281–95. [36] Reutskaja, E. & Hogarth, R. Satisfaction in choice as a function of the number of alternatives: When “goods satiate”. Psychology and Marketing, 26(3):197–203, 2009. [37] Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General & Applied, 80(1), 1e28. [38] Sagi, A., & Friedland, N. (2007). The cost of richness: The effect of the size and diversity of decision sets on post-decision regret. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 515–524. [39] Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., & Todd, P. M. (2009). What moderates the too- much-choice effect. Psychology and Marketing, 26(3), 229e253. [40] Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., & Todd, P. M. (2010). Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 409–425. [41] Peirce, J. W., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M. R., Höchenberger, R., Sogo, H., Kastman, E., Lindeløv, J. (2019). PsychoPy2: experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 10.3758/s13428-018- 01193-y [42] Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New York: Ecco. [43] Schwartz, B. (2004). The tyranny of choice. Scientific American Mind, pages 70–75, 2004. [44] Taylor, S. E. (1989). Positive illusions: Creative self-deception and the healthy mind. New York: Basic Books. [45] Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193e210. [46] Timmermans, D. (1993). The impact of task complexity on information use in multi-attribute decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 6, 95-111. [47] Todorov, Alexander, Amir Goren, and Yaacov Trope (2007). Probability as a Psychological Distance: Construal and Preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43 (3), 473–82. [48] Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83-95. [49] Trope, Yaakov, and Nira Liberman. (2003). Temporal Construal. Psychological Review, 110 (3), 403–21. [50] Trope, Yaakov, and Nira Liberman. (2010). Construal Level Theory and Psychological Distance. Psychological Review, 117 (2), 440–63. [51] Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., Twenge, J. M., Nelson, N. M., & Tice, D. M. (2008). Making choices impairs subsequent self- control: A limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 883–898. [52] Wright, P. (1975). Consumer choice strategies: Simplifying vs. optimizing. Journal of Marketing Research, 12, 60-67. [53] Wakslak, C. J., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Alony, R. (2006). Seeing the forest when entry is unlikely: Probability and the mental representation of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(4), 641. [54] 吳玲玲 (2004), 應用心理研究,22期 (2004 / 06 / 01) ,P47 - 66 [55] 周軒逸;練乃華 (2010), 旅遊廣告圖文比例的廣告效果研究：時間和空間距離 之干擾, 戶外遊憩研究, 23(1), 2010, 27-52 [56] 張愛華 (2013), 社會責任類型、社會距離與消費者之調節焦點對於企業社會責任形象之影響, 取自http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/115047 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21370 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 鑑於現代商品所呈現之豐富變化的多樣性，消費者選擇的數量逐漸增加，選擇雖然方便了我們的生活，卻也造成一部分消費者的糾結心理，「選擇障礙」亦成為現代的新詞彙之一，這種違反直覺的現象被稱為選擇超載。本研究以台灣群眾為目標研究對象，來探討消費者在不同選擇標的之決策上，是否會因心理距離（時間或空間）的不同，以及理想性/可行性權衡訊息顯著與否之變因，進而影響消費者對於商品種類多樣性的偏好程度，以及是如何影響？並嘗試重現Goodman et al. 2012先前研究之實驗成果。首先，本研究實驗以PsychoPy 3.1.2軟體分別設計3個實驗，再透過SPSS package version 25 分析樣本數據，使用二元無母數分析 - 麥內瑪關聯樣本檢定 (McNemar’s test)、二元邏輯式迴歸 (Binary logistic regression)和t檢定來剖析受試者在不同的心理距離下對於餐廳、冰淇淋店、電器行或巧克力店選擇的關聯性。由研究結果發現，當理想性與可行性之權衡顯著時，增加心理距離將增加消費者對選擇多樣性的偏好；然而，當理想性與可行性之權衡不顯著時，並無統計上的證據支持心理距離的增加會降低消費者對於商品種類多樣性的偏好程度。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | With the considerable diversity in products nowadays, the variety of choices in consumer’s daily life has gradually increased. As number of varieties grew, making decisions becomes overwhelming for consumers, and this phenomenon is called “choice overload.” This research focuses on the Taiwanese masses as subjects and attempts to reproduce the experimental results of Goodman et al. 2012, aiming to explore whether consumers' decision-making on different selection criteria may be affected due to differences in psychological distance (temporal distance or spatial distance), whether the desirability/feasibility trade-off is salient, and procced to explore how it affects consumers' preference by the different number of variety.
Foremost, the research is designed with PsychoPy 3.1.2, performing three experiments. Next, the sample data is analyzed through SPSS package version 25, using binary non-parametric analysis—McNemar's test, binary logistic regression, and t-test to analyze the decisions of the subjects prior to different assortment size in restaurants, ice cream shops, electrical appliances or chocolate shops. The findings indicated that when the desirability/feasibility trade-off is salient, increasing psychological distance will increase consumers' preference for choice diversity; however, when the desirability/feasibility trade-off is not salient, there is no statistical evidence supporting that increase in psychological distance decreases the consumer's preference for the variety of goods. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T03:32:16Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-108-R06724010-1.pdf: 1302501 bytes, checksum: 213955d0b3938feec58d75d4b78d450e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 誌謝 i
中文摘要 ii ABSTRACT iii 目錄 iv 圖目錄 v 表目錄 vi 第一章、緒論 1 1.1研究背景 1 1.2研究動機與目的 3 1.3研究流程 5 第二章、文獻探討 6 2.1選擇超載 6 2.2解釋水平理論 9 第三章、研究方法 12 3.1研究假設 12 3.2實驗方法 15 3.3資料分析方法 18 第四章、研究結果與分析 19 4.1實驗1 19 4.2實驗2 24 4.3實驗3 27 第五章、結論與建議 32 5.1結論 32 5.2研究限制與後續研究建議 35 參考文獻 36 附錄 41 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.title | 解釋水平理論與消費者對選擇多樣性偏好程度關係之探討 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Relationship between Construal Level Theory and Consumers’ Preferences for Assortment Size | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 107-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳聿宏,陳俊廷 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 解釋水平理論,心理距離,時間距離,實驗再現性,選擇超載, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Construal Level Theory,Psychological Distance,Temporal Distance,Experimental Reproducibility,Choice Overload, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 48 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201902973 | |
| dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2019-08-12 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 國際企業學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 國際企業學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-108-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 1.27 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。