請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/46795
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 練乃華 | |
dc.contributor.author | Yi-Jen Tsai | en |
dc.contributor.author | 蔡宜臻 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T05:41:34Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2012-02-09 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2011-02-09 | |
dc.date.issued | 2010 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2011-01-17 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1. Andersen, S. M., and Cole, S. W. (1990). “Do I know you?”: The role of significant others in general social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 384-399.
2. Andersen, S. M., Glassman, N. S., and Gold, S. W. (1998). Mental representations of the self, significant others, and nonsignificant others: Structure and processing of private and public aspects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 845-861. 3. Avnet, T., and Higgins, E. T. (2006). How Regulatory Fit Affects Value in Consumer Choices and Opinions. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 1-10. 4. Bauer, R.A.(1960),Consumer behavior as risk taking, in R.S. Hancock( Ed), Dynamic Marketing for a Changing World, Chicago: American Marketing Association. 5. Belk, R. W. (1982). Effects of gift-giving involvement on gift selection strategies. Advances in Consumer Research, 9(1), 408-412. 6. Cox, D. F. (1967). Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior. Boston: Harvard University Press. 7. Cunningham, S. M. (1976). The major dimensions of perceived risk. Boston:Harvard University Press, 82-108. 8. Clarke, K. and Belk, R. W. (1979). The effects of product involvement and task definition on anticipated consumer effort. Advances in Consumer Research, 1(6), 313-318. 9. Campbell, C. M. and Goodstein, C. R. (2001). The Moderating Effect of Perceived Risk on Consumers' Evaluations of Product Incongruity. The Research, 28(3), 439-449. 10. Carolyn, C. and Malhotra, K. (2006).The Impact of Desirability and Feasibility Considerations for Self and Others. 11. DeVere, S. P., Scott, C. D. and Shulby, W. L. (1983). Consumer perception of gift-giving occasions: attribute saliency and structure. Advances in Consumer Research, 10,185-90 12. Dube, L., Renaghan, L. M. and Miller, J. M. (1994). Measuring customer satisfaction for strategic management. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 35(1), 39-47. 13. Dhar, R., and Sherman, S. (1996). The effect of common and unique features in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(3), 193-203. 14. Erdem, Tulin (1998).An Empirical Analysis of Umbrella Branding, Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (August), 339-351. 15. Fiedler, K., Semin, G. R., Finkenauer, C., and Berkel, I. (1995). Actor-observer bias in close relationships: The role of self-knowledge and self-related language. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 525–538. 16. Gronhaug, K. (1972). Buying situation and buyer's information behavior. European Marketing Research Review, 7, 33-48. 17. Gentner, D., and Markman, A.B. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science,5, 152–158. 18. Hart, E. W., Jr., (1974). Consumer risk-taking for self and for spouse. Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University. 19. Heeler, R., Francis, J., Okechuku, C. and Reid, S. (1979). Gift versus personal use brand selection. Advances in Consumer Research, 1(6), 325-328. 20. Huber, J., and McCann, J. (1982). The impact of inferential beliefs on product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 324-333 21. Houston, F. S. and Gassenheimer J. B. (1987). Marketing and exchange. Journal of Marketing, 51 (October), 3-18. 22. Henderson, M. D., Fujita, K. F., Trope, Y. and Liberman, N. (2006). The effect of spatial distance on social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 845–856. 23. Idson, L. C. and Mischel, W. (2001). The personality of familiar and significant people: The lay perceiver as a social-cognitive theorist. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 585–596. 24. Jacoby, J. and Kaplan, L.B.(1972). The components of perceived risk. Advances in Consumer Research.in M. Venkatesan, ed., Chicago. 25. Jones, E. E. and Nisbett, R. E. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the cause of behavior. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, and B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. 26. Johnson, R. D. and Levin I. P. (1985). More than meets the eye: the effect of missing information on purchase evaluations. The Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2), 169-177. 27. Johnson, M.D. (1984). Consumer choice strategies for comparing noncomparable alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 741–753. 28. Kaplan, L. B., Szybillo, G. J. and Jacoby, J. (1974). Components of perceived risk in product purchase. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59 (June), 287-291. 29. Kray, L., and Gonzalez, R. (1999). Differential weighting in choice versus advice: I’ll do this, you do that. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 201-217. 30. Lowes, B., Turner, J., and Wills, G. (1971). Patterns of gift-giving in exploration in marketing thought. Bradford University Press, 82-102. 31. Liljander, V. and Strandvik, T. (1993). Estimating zones of tolerance in perceived service quality. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 4(2), 6-29. 32. Liberman, N., and Trope, Y. (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, 5–18. 33. Libby, L. K., and Eibach, R. P. (2002). Looking back in time: self-concept change affects visual perspective in autobiographical memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 167–179. 34. Liberman, N., and Trope, Y. (2003). Temporal Construal. Psychological Review, 110(July), 403-21. 35. Liberman, N., Trope, Y., and Wakslak C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance:Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83-85. 36. Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008), Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: implications for perception of others’ actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1256-1269. 37. Montgomery, Cynthia A. and Wererfelt B. (1992). Risk Reduction and Umbrella Branding, Journal of Business, 65 (January), 31-50. 38. Markman, A.B., and Medin, D.L. (1995). Similarity and alignment in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 117–130. 39. Medin, D.L., Goldstone, R.L., and Markman, A.B. (1995). Comparison and choice: Relations between similarity processing and decision processing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2, 1–19. 40. Macklin, N. C., and Walker, M. (1988). The joy and irritation of gift-giving. Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science, Montreal, Academy of Marketing Science. 41. Nan, X. (2007). Social Distance, Framing, and Judgment: A Construal Level Perspective. Human Communication Research, 33, 489–514. 42. Oglethorpe, Janet E. and Monroe B. K. (1987), 'Risk perception and risk acceptability in consumer behavior: conceptual issues and an agenda for future research,' in AMA Winter Marketers Educators' Conference, ed. Russell W. Belk et al., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 255-260. 43. Otnes, C., Lowrey, T. M. and Kim, Y. C. (1993). Gift selection for easy and difficult recipients: A social roles interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 229-244 44. Payne, John W., Bettman, R. J., and Johnson, J. E. (1993). The adaptive decision maker, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 45. Ryans, A. (1977). Consumer gift buying behavior: an exploratory analysis. Contemporary Marketing Thought, 99-104. 46. Shapiro, B. A. (1970). The effect of price on purchase behavior. Broadening the Concept of Marketing, 43. 47. Sherry, J. F. (1983). Gift giving in anthropological perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 157-168. 48. Simmons, C., and Lynch, J., Jr. (1991). Inference effects without inference making? Effects of missing information on discounting and use of present information. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 477-491. 49. Slovic, P., and MacPhillamy, D. (1974). Dimensional commensurability and cue utilization in comparative judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11, 172-194 50. Tversky, A., and Gati, I. (1982). Similarity, separability, and the triangle inequity. Psychological Review, 89, 123-154. 51. Trope, Y., and Liberman, N. (2000). Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 876–889. 52. Trope, Y., and Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403–421. 53. Verma, R. and Thompson, G. M. (1996). Basing service management on customer determinants. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,37(3), 18-24. 54. Weigl, K. G. (1975). Perceived risk and information search in a gift-buying situation. Master’s thesis, Purdue University. 55. Wakslak, C. J., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., and Alony, R. (2006). Seeing the forest when entry is unlikely: Probability and the mental representation of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 641–653. 56. Zhang, S. and Markman, B. A. (2001). Processing Product Unique Features: Alignability and Involvement in Preference Construction. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(1), 13–27. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/46795 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 日常生活中,消費者會經歷各式不同的送禮場合,隨著送禮對象的不同,挑選產品的偏好往往會有所改變,然而過去的研究鮮少探討不同的送禮對象如何影響消費者的送禮決策,因此本研究欲以解釋水平理論中之社會距離來探討其對送禮行為之影響並且根據線性結構理論將產品屬性二分法,分為線性差異以及非線性差異,以明確地了解消費者在挑選不同送禮對象的禮物時所重視的產品屬性面向。此外,知覺風險亦為在送禮情境中影響決策之因素,因此將知覺風險引入本研究中作為調節變數。
本研究利用三個組間實驗設計來驗證假設,以操弄社會距離(遠/近)和風險程度(高/低)為實驗之自變數來探討消費者在替不同送禮對象挑選產品時所重視的屬性類別(線性差異佳/非線性差異佳)之差異,主要研究結論如下: 一、在替社會距離近的對象挑選禮物時,消費者會偏好選擇線性差異佳之產品;替社會距離遠的對象挑選禮物時,消費者則會偏好選擇非線性差異佳之產品。 二、在低風險之情境下,消費者挑禮的決策不易受到知覺風險之影響:在替社會距離近的對象挑選禮物時,消費者會偏好選擇線性差異佳之產品;在替社會距離遠的對象挑選禮物時,消費者則會偏好選擇非線性差異佳之產品。 三、在高風險之情境下,消費者挑理的決策將受到知覺風險之影響:不論送禮對象的社會距離遠近,消費者會偏好選擇線性差異佳之產品。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | In daily life, people experience various gift-giving occasions and the preference of gifts changes as the recipient differs. However, seldom had previous research focused on the influence of different recipients on gift-giving strategy. Therefore, the present research will discuss gift-giving behavior from the point of view of social distance and classify product attributes based on Structural alignment theory into alignable differences and nonalignable differences in order to interpret the attributes that people value when facing different recipients. In addition, since perceived risk also plays an important role in gift-giving occasions, this factor has been conducted in the research as well.
The present research is divided into three studies. The first and second sections investigate the influence of social distance on gift-giving behavior. The third study conducts perceived risk as moderator to test the attributes preference in gift-giving behavior toward different recipients. The results are as follow: 1. When selecting gifts for socially proximal recipient (e.g. self), consumer will choose alignable better products; however, when selecting gifts for socially distant recipient (e.g. a friend), consumer will prefer nonalignable better products. 2. Under low risk condition, consumer’s gift-giving behavior will not be influence by perceived risk: When selecting gifts for socially proximal recipient, consumer will still choose alignable better products; on the other hand, when selecting gifts for socially distant recipient, consumer will prefer nonalignable better products. 3. Under high risk condition, consumer’s gift-giving behavior will be influence by perceived risk: no matter what the social distance of the recipient is, consumer will choose alignable better products. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T05:41:34Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-99-R97741011-1.pdf: 1243808 bytes, checksum: d3e944805784ad6a021040ef428466b0 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目錄
謝辭 i 中文摘要 ii 英文摘要 iii 目錄 iv 圖目錄 v 表目錄 vi 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機 1 第二節 研究目的 3 第二章 文獻探討 4 第一節 送禮行為(Gift Giving) 4 第二節 解釋水平理論(Construal Level Theory) 6 第三節 社會距離(Social Distance) 8 第四節 線性結構理論(Structural alignment theory) 10 第五節 知覺風險(Perceived Risk) 13 第三章 研究方法與資料分析 15 第一節 研究架構 15 第二節 前測 16 第三節 實驗一 18 第四節 實驗二 26 第五節 實驗三 34 第六節 檢定結果總結 44 第四章 結論與建議 45 第一節 研究結論 45 第二節 行銷意涵 47 第三節 研究限制 50 第四節 後續研究建議 52 參考文獻 54 附錄 60 圖目錄 圖3-1 研究架構圖 15 表目錄 表2-1 高、低水平解釋之區別 7 表3-1 各屬性之重要性和吸引程度之評分 17 表3-2 實驗一之實驗設計 18 表3-3 主實驗之產品屬性陳列表 19 表3-4 實驗一之問卷樣本結構 21 表3-5 實驗一之產品屬性類別的吸引程度 22 表3-6 實驗一之社會距離對產品選擇的影響 22 表3-7 實驗一之社會距離對產品喜好度的影響 23 表3-8 實驗一之社會距離對決策過程的影響 24 表3-9 實驗二之實驗設計 26 表3-10 主實驗之產品屬性陳列表 27 表3-11 實驗二之問卷樣本結構 29 表3-12 實驗二之產品屬性類別的吸引程度 30 表3-13 實驗二之社會距離對產品選擇的影響 30 表3-14 實驗二之社會距離對產品喜好度的影響 31 表3-15 實驗二之社會距離對決策過程的影響 32 表3-16 實驗二之不同社會距離的風險程度 32 表3-17 實驗三之實驗設計 34 表3-18 主實驗之產品屬性陳列表 36 表3-19 實驗三之問卷樣本結構 37 表3-20 實驗三之產品屬性類別的吸引程度 38 表3-21 實驗三之情境風險程度 38 表3-22 實驗三之不同社會距離的情境風險程度 39 表3-23 實驗三之社會距離與知覺風險對產品選擇的影響 40 表3-24 實驗三之社會距離與知覺風險對產品喜好度的影響 41 表3-25 實驗三之社會距離與知覺風險對決策過程的影響 42 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 社會距離對送禮行為之影響 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Effects of Social Distance on Gift-Giving Behavior | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 98-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳建維,沈永正 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 社會距離,送禮行為,知覺風險,線性差異,非線性差異, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Social distance,Gift giving,Perceived risk,Alignable differences,Nonalignable differences, | en |
dc.relation.page | 77 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2011-01-18 | |
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-99-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.21 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。