請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/26398完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 張重昭 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Shih-Yao Lin | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 林室垚 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T07:08:50Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2008-08-04 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2008 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2008-08-01 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Aaker, Jennifer L. and Angela Y. Lee (2001), “‘I’ Seek Pleasures and ‘We’ Avoid Pains: The Role of Self-Regulatory Goals in Information Processing and Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (June), 33–49
Arkes, Hal R. (1996), ”The Psychology of Waste,” Journal of Behaviral Decision Making, 9(3),213-24 and Catherine Blumer (1985), ”The Psychology of Sunk Cost Cost,” Orgazonational Behavior and Behavior and Human Decision Process Batra, Rajeev and Olli T. Ahtola (1990),”Measuring The Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of Consumer Attitudes,” Marketing Letteres, 2(2), 159-70 Berry, Christopher J. (1994), “The Idea of Luxury: A Conceptual and Historical Investigation,” New York: Cambridge University Press. Best, Roger J. (1976), “The Predictive Aspects of a Joint-Space Theory of Stochastic Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 13(May), 198-204 Bettman, James R. and Mita Sujan (1987),” Effects of Framing on Evaluation of Comparable and Noncomparable Alternatives by Expert and Novice Consumers ,” Journal of Consumer Research, Gainesville: 14(Sep), 141-155 Chernev, Alexander (2004), “Goal-Attribute Compatibility in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (1–2), 141–50. Chitturi, Ravindra, Rajagopal Raghunathan and Vijay Mahajan (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 (November), 702–714. Crowe, Ellen, and E.Tory Higgins (1997),”Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations: Promotion and Prevention in Decision Making,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 69(Februrary), 117-23 Dhar, Ravi and Klaus Wertenbroch (2000), “Consumer Choice Between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (February), 60–71. Gentner, Dedre and Arthur B. Markman (1994), “Structural Alignment in The Comparison: No Difference Without Similarity,” Psychological Science, 5, 152-158 (1997), “Structure Mapping in Analogy and Similarity,” American Psychologist, 52, 45-56 Ghose, Sanjoy (1998), ”Distance Representation of Consumer Projection: Evaluating Appropriateness by Using Diagnostics,“ Journal of Marketing Research, 35(May), 151-64 Glazer, Rashi and Kent Nakomoto (1991), “Congnitive Geometry: An Analysis of Structure Underlying Representations of Smilarity,” Marketing Science, 10(Summer),205-288 Heath, Chip (1995) ,”Escalation and De-escalation of Commitment in Response to Sunk Cost: The Role of Budgeting in Mental Accounting ,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processs,62 (April), 38-54 and Matin G. Fennema (1996), “Mental Depreciation and Marginal Decision Making,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processs,62 (April), 38-54 and Jack B. Soll (1996), “Mental Budgeting and Consumer Decisions,” Mental Budgeting and Consumer Decision, 23(June), 40-52 Higgins, E. Tory (1997), “Beyond Pleasure and Pain,” American Psychologist, 52 (12), 1280–1300 (2000), “Making a Good Decision: Value from Fit,” American Psychologist, 55 (November), 1217–30 (2001), “Promotion and Prevention Experiences: Relating Emotions to Nonemotional Motivational States,” in Handbook of Affect and Social Cognition, Joseph P. Forgas, ed. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 186–211 (2002), “How Self-Regulation Creates Distinct Values: The Case of Promotion and Prevention Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12 (3), 177–91 Christopher J.R. Roney, Ellen Crowe, and Charles Hymes (1994),”Ideal nversus Ought Predictions for Approach and Avoidance: Distinct Self-Regulatory System,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (Februrary), 276-86 Lorraine C. Idson, Antonio L. Freitas, Scott Spiegel, and Daniel C. Molden (2003), “Transfer of Value from Fit,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (June), 1140–53 Hirschman, Elizabeth C. and Morris B. Holbrook (1982),”Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (Summer), 92-101 Holbrook, B. Morris (1999), “Consumer Value: A Framework forAnalysis and Research,” New York: Routledge Jens, Förster, Friedman Ronald S. and Liberman N. (2004), “Temporal Construal Effects of Abstract and Concrete Thinking: Consequences for Insight and Creative Cognition,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 177-189 Johnson, M.D. (1984), “Consumer Choice Strategies for Comparing Noncomparable Alternative,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 741-753 (1989), ”The Differential Processing of Product Category and Noncomparable Choice Alternative,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 300-309 Kivetz, Ran and Itamar Simonson (2002b), “Self-Control for the Righteous:Toward a Theory of Precommitment to Indulgence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (September), 199–217. Liberman, Nira and Yaacov Trope (1998),”The Role of Feasibility and Desirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Decisions: A test of Temporal ConstrualTtheory,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5-18 Lindemann, Patricia G. (2000),”The Impact of Attribute Alignability and Domain Knowledge on Multiattribute Choice”, Columbia University, 141 pages, AAT 9970231 Maclnnis, Deborah J. and Linda L. Price (1987), “The Role of Imagery in Information Processing: Review and Extensions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12(March), 473-91 Malkoc, Selin A., Gal Zauberman, and Canan Ulu(2005),”Consuming Now or Later? The Interactive Effect of Timing and Attribute Alignability,” Psychological Science,Vol.16 Number 5,411-417 Markman, Arthur B. and Dedre Gentner (1993),”Splitting the Differences: A Structural Alignment View of Similarity”, Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 517-535 Markman, Arthur B. and D.L. Medin (1995),”Similarity and Alignment in Choice,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 117-130 Medin, D.L., R. L. Goldstone and Arthur B. Markman(1995), “Comparison and Choice: Relationship Between Similarity Processing and Decision Processing,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 1-19 Mogilner, Cassie, Jennifer L. Aaker and Ginger L. Pennington (2008),”Time Will Tell: The Distant Appeal of Promotion and Imminent Appeal of Prevention,”Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 34(February), 670-681 Okada, Erica Mina. (2001), “Trade-Ins, Metal Accounting and Product Replacement Decisions,” Journal of Cosumer Research, 27(March), 433-46 (2005), “Justification Effects on Consumer Choice of Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (February), 43–53 (2006), ”Upgrades and New Purchases,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70(Oct), 92-102 Park, C.W. B.J. Jaworski and D.J. Maclnnis (1986), ”Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management,” Journal of Marketing , 50(Oct), 135-45 Ravindra, Chitturi, Rajagopal Raghunathan, and Vijay Mahajan. (2008),”Delight by Design: The Role of Hedonic Versus Utilitarian Benefits,” Journal of Marketing,72(May), 46-83 Ries, A. and J. Trout (1981),”Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind,” New York, McGraw Hill Rogers, Everett M. (1995), “Diffusion of Innovation,” 4th ed. New York: Free Press Safer, Diane A. (1998), “Preferences for Luxurious or Reliable Products: Promotion and Prevention Focus as Moderators,” Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 59 (November), 2488. Soman, D. (1998), “The Illusion of Delayed Incentives : Evaluating Future Effort-Money Transactions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 427-438 Strahilevitz, Michal and John G. Myers (1998), “Donations to Charity as Purchase Incentives: How Well They Work May Depend on What You Are Trying to Sell,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 434–46. Thaler, Richard (1980), “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1(1), 36-90 Trope, Yaacov and Nira Liberman (2000),”Temporal Construal and Time-Dependent Changes in Preferences,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,79 (December),876-89 (2003),”Temporal Construal,” Psychological Review,110(7),403-21 Tversky, Amos (1977), “Features of Similarity,” Psychological Review, 84(4), 327-52 Yeo, Junsang and Jongwon Park (2006),” Effects of Parent-Extension Similarity and Self Regulatory Focus on Evaluations of Brand Extensions,” Journal of Consumer psychology, 16(3), 272-282 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/26398 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | The main goal of this study was to find out the effects of decision temporal distance, different product attributes and self-regulatory focus on evaluation of product upgrade.
The study was designed by two parts and the first one was primarily about the “general enhancement” on the allocation of product attributes for alignable and nonalignable product upgrades with different type of “self-regulatory focus”, “product attributes” and “decision temporal distance”. The second one was to revise the “general enhancement” to the “focus enhancement” for the allocation of product attributes for the observation on the difference of different product upgrade. The conclusions of this study are as follows: 1. The consumers with the “promotion focus” would prefer the “nonalignable enhancement” and the consumers with the “prevention focus” would prefer the “alignable enhancement”. 2. When facing the “distant future” purchase decision, the consumers would prefer the “nonalignable enhancement”. When confronting the “near future” purchase decision, the consumers would prefer the “alignable enhancement”. 3. When facing the product upgrade with the “hedonic product attribute”, the consumers would prefer the “nonalignable enhancement”. When confronting the product upgrade with the “utilitarian product attribute”, the consumers would prefer the “alignable enhancement”. 4. Under the “focus enhancement” on product upgrade, when facing the “promotion focus”, “distant future decision” and “hedonic product attribute”, the consumers would prefer the “nonalignable product upgrade”. With the “general enhancement” on product grade and facing “prevention focus”, “near future decision” and “utilitarian product attributes”, the consumers would prefer the “alignable product upgrade”. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T07:08:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-97-R94741068-1.pdf: 914633 bytes, checksum: 82393f01c0cff09ff5e63966fff250ce (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | ABSTRACT v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 3 2-1 Product Upgrade and New Purchase 3 2-2 Upgrade of General and Focus Enhancement 4 2-3 Upgrade of Nonalignable and Alignable Enhancement 5 2-4 Regulatory Focus Theory 6 2-5 Effect of Regulatory Focus 7 2-6 Regulatory Focus Fits 8 2-7 Temporal Construal Theory 9 2-8 Hedonic and Utilitarian Product Attributes 10 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 12 CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTS 15 4-1 Pre-Test 15 4-2 Experiment 1 16 4-3 Experiment 2 23 CHAPTER 5 GENERAL CONSLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH 31 5-1 Conclusion 31 5-2 Discussion and Future Research 32 REFFERENCE 34 APPENDIX A Pre-test Result 38 APPENDIX B Pre-test Questionnaire (Importance) 47 APPENDIX C Pre-test Questionnaire (Hedonic and Utilitarian) 55 APPENDIX D Formal Questionnaire（General Enhancement） 64 APPENDIX E Formal Questionnaire（Focus Enhancement） 73 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURE Figure 2-1 Enhancement to Maximize Distance 4 Figure 3-1、Framework of Hypothesis 1 13 Figure 3-2、Framework of Hypothesis 2 14 Figure 4-1、Interaction of Experiment 1 21 TABLE Table 4-1、Allocation of Product Attributes in Pre-test 15 Table 4-2、Number of Sample 16 Table 4-3、Example of General Enhancement 17 Table 4-4、Manipulation Check of Experiment 1 18 Table 4-5、Number of Valid Sample 18 Table 4-6、Cronbach's Alpha of Experiment 1 19 Table 4-7、Model Significance of Experiment 1 19 Table 4-8、Main Effect of Experiment 1 20 Table 4-9、Interaction Effect of Experiment 1 21 Table 4-10、Choice of Model Significance of Experiment 1 22 Table 4-11、Result 1 of Choice in Experiment 1 22 Table 4-12、Result 2 of Choice in Experiment 1 22 Table 4-13、Result 3 of Choice in Experiment 1 22 Table 4-14、Number of Sample 23 Table 4-15、Example of Focus Enhancement 24 Table 4-16、Manipulation Check of Experiment 2 25 Table 4-17、Number of Valid Sample 25 Table 4-18、Cronbach's Alpha of Experiment 2 26 Table 4-19、Model Significance of Experiment 2 26 Table 4-20、Main Effect of Experiment 2 26 Table 4-21、Choice of Model Significance of Experiment 2 28 Table 4-22、Result 1 of Choice in Experiment 2 28 Table 4-23、Result 2 of Choice in Experiment 2 28 Table 4-24、Result 3 of Choice in Experiment 2 28 Table 4-25、Model Significance of Experiment 1 and 2 29 Table 4-26、Main Effect of Experiment 1 and 2 29 Table 4-27、Digital Camera Study Result in Experiment 1 and 2 30 Table 5-1、Comparison of Study Result and Hypothesis in Experiment 1 31 Table 5-2、Comparison of Study Result and Hypothesis in Experiment 2 31 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.title | 消費者評估產品升級因素之探討 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Determinants of Customers’ Evaluation on Product Upgrade | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 96-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 鄭士蘋,鄧景宜 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 調節焦點,促進焦點,預防焦點,產品升級,集中性升級,一般性升級,線性升級,非線性升級,歡樂性屬性,功能性屬性,時間效果, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Self-regulatory focus,promotion focus,prevention focus,product upgrade,general enhancement,focus enhancement,hedonic attribute,utilitarian attribute,temporal effect, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 37 | |
| dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2008-08-01 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 商學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 商學研究所 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-97-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 893.2 kB | 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。