請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71023
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 練乃華 | |
dc.contributor.author | Chia-Chi Yu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 俞嘉琦 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T04:48:59Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2018-08-03 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2018-08-03 | |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2018-08-01 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1. Batra, R. & Ahtola, O.T. (1990), Measuring The Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of Consumer Attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159-70.
2. Brown, C. L., & West, P. R. (1997). Taken out of context: The effects of preference formation on consumers, adaptation to change. Working paper. Marketing Department, New York University. 3. Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187-217. 4. Bazerman, M., Tenbrunsel, A., & Wade-Benzoni, K. (1998). Negotiating with Yourself and Losing: Making Decisions with Competing Internal Preferences. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 225-241. 5. Biswas, D. & Grau, S. (2008). Consumer choices under product option framing: Loss aversion principles or sensitivity to price differentials?. Psychology and Marketing, 25, 399-415. 6. Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60-71. 7. Griffin, D. & Tversky, A. (1992). The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cognitive Psychology, Volume 24, Issue 3, 411-435. 8. Grant, AM. & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too Much of a Good Thing: The Challenge and Opportunity of the Inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science Vol 6, Issue 1, 61-76. 9. Hirschman, E., & Holbrook, M. (1982). Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92-101. 10. Hauser, J, R., & Wernerfelt, B. (1990). An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets, Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 16, Issue 4, 393-408. 11. Hardie, B.G.S., Johnson, E.J. & Fader, P.S. (1993). Modeling Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence Effects on Brand Choice. Marketing Science, 12, 378-394. 12. Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995-1006. 13. Jasper, J. D., & Ansted, D. (2008). Liberal-conservative differences in inclusion-exclusion strategy choice. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(5), 417-424. 14. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., & Thaler, R. (1990). Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325-1348. 15. Kahneman, D. (1991), Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039-61. 16. Keller, P, A., & McGill, A. (1994), Differences in the Relative Influence of Product Attributes Under Alternative Processing Conditions: Attribute Importance Versus Attribute Ease of Imageability. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3(1), 29-49. 17. Levin, I. P., Prosansky, C. M., Heller, D., & Brunick, B. M. (2001). Prescreening of choice options in 'positive' and 'negative' decision-making tasks. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14(4), 279-293. 18. Levin, I. P., Schreiber, J., Lauriola, M., & Gaeth, G. J. (2002). A tale of two pizzas: Building up from a basic product versus scaling down from a fully-loaded product. Marketing Letters, 13(4), 335-344. 19. Nagle, T. T., & Holden, R. K. (2002). The strategy and tactics of pricing: A guide to profitable decision making. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 20. Ordóñez, L. D., Benson, L., & Beach, L. R. (1999). Testing the Compatibility Test: How Instructions, Accountability, and Anticipated Regret Affect Prechoice Screening of Options. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(1), 63-80. 21. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1915-1926. 22. 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(3), 534-552. 23. Paese, P.W. & Sniezek, J.A. (1991). Influences on the Appropriateness of Confidence in Judgment: Practice, Effort, Information, and Decision-Making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 100-130. 24. Park, C., Jun, S., & MacInnis, D. (2000). Choosing What I Want versus Rejecting What I Do Not Want: An Application of Decision Framing to Product Option Choice Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 187-202. 25. Pereira, R.E. (2001). Influence of Query-based Decision Aids on Consumer Decision Making in Electronic Commerce. Information Resources Management Journal 26. Pornpitakpan, C. (2009). Cross‐cultural generalization of the effect of option choice framing on product option choices. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 21 Issue: 3, 342-354. 27. Ritov, I., & Baron, J. (1992). Status-quo and omission bias. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 49-61. 28. Sherman, F., Stewart, J. W., & Tsunasawa, S. (1985). Methionine or not methionine at the beginning of a protein. Bioessays, 3, 27-31. 29. Shafir, E (1993). Choosing Versus Rejecting: Why Some Options Are Both Better and Worse Than Other. Memory & Cognition, Volume 21, Issue 4, 546-556. 30. Sanna, L. J. (1996). Defensive pessimism, optimism, and stimulating alternatives: Some ups and downs of prefactual and counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(5), 1020-1036. 31. Strahilevitz, M., & Loewenstein, G. (1998). The Effect of Ownership History on the Valuation of Objects. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 276-289. 32. Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J. G. (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), 434-446. 33. Samuelson, W. & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status Quo Bias in Decision Making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1988, vol. 1, issue 1, 7-59. 34. Shiv, B., & Huber, J. (2000). The impact of anticipating satisfaction on consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 202-216. 35. Sengupta, J., & Zhou, R. (2007). Understanding Impulsive Eaters’ Choice Behaviors: The Motivational Influences of Regulatory Focus. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 297-308. 36. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039-1061. 37. Tversky, A., & Shafir, E. (1992). Choice Under Conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision. Psychological Science - PSYCHOL SCI, 3, 358-361. 38. Timmermans, D. (1993). The impact of task complexity on information use in multi-attribute decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 6(2), 95-111. 39. Tybuot, AM., & Artz, N (1994). Consumer Psychology, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 45, 131-169. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71023 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 過去許多研究陸續指出,消費者在進行購買選擇時,會受到許多外在因素的影響,包含選項框架、決策環境以及選項數目的多少等等。本研究致力於將過去關於選項框架與選項數目相關之理論與產品屬性的決策行為理論相結合,探討當產品的附加服務同時包含享樂型服務與實用型服務時,受測者在不同的選項框架情境與選項數目的操弄下,對其產品屬性決策結果與心理知覺會產生何種影響。本研究採用受測者間實驗設計法,操弄選項框架(OF+/OF-)、選項數目(多/少)以及主服務之產業屬性(享樂型/實用型)作為銷售方案設計之自變數,將受測者的產品屬性決策結果(選擇之選項總數、選擇之享樂型選項數目、選擇之實用型選項數目、選擇之享樂型選項數目減去實用型選項數目)與心理知覺(知覺價值、選擇難易度、情緒、決策信心)作為應變數,發展出八組實驗情境,經由網路問卷的形式發給以台灣大學為主的學生,再以多變量共變異分析驗證實驗假說。本研究的有效樣本共416份,歸納研究發現如下:一、當消費者面對無形的服務進行購買決策時,相較於OF+的選擇情境,在OF-的選擇情境下會選擇較多的附加服務總數,使最終購買的總金額較高。二、在選項可複選且同時包含享樂型與實用型服務屬性時,當面對的選項數目越多,消費者會同時選擇越多的實用型服務選項與享樂型服務選項,進而造成最終選擇的選項總數目變多。三、在選項可複選且同時包含享樂型與實用型服務屬性時,決策者只有在擁有較少的選項數目時,在OF+選擇情境下選擇的實用型服務會多於享樂型服務;只在擁有較多的選項數目時,在OF-選擇情境下刪去的實用型服務會多於享樂型服務。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T04:48:59Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-107-R05741019-1.pdf: 2217072 bytes, checksum: 09aa6824229dbfbb83c5fc581c4a6a89 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 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 第二章 文獻探討 4 第一節、選項框架(Option Framing) 4 第二節、產品屬性與決策行為 8 第三節、選項數目(Numbers of Choice) 10 第三章 研究方法與架構 12 第一節、研究架構 12 第二節、研究假設 13 第三節、研究設計 19 第四節、自變數 20 第五節、依變數 30 第六節、抽樣方法與研究步驟 32 第四章 研究結果分析 34 第一節、樣本結構 34 第二節、信度分析 35 第三節、變數操弄檢定 36 第四節、假設檢定 39 第五節、研究結果總結 50 第五章 結論與建議 55 第一節、研究結論 55 第二節、研究討論 57 第三節、理論意涵 61 第四節、實務意涵 63 第五節、研究限制 65 第六節、未來研究建議 67 參考文獻 69 附錄 74 附錄一:電信附加服務前測問卷(實體問卷) 74 附錄二:渡假飯店附加服務前測問卷 76 附錄三:電信服務的正式問卷-以選項數目多/OF+框架的版本為例 78 附錄四:渡假飯店的正式問卷-以選項數目多/OF+框架的版本為例 94 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 選項框架與選項數目對產品屬性決策行為以及消費者心理知覺的影響 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Effect of Option Framing and Number of Choices on Consumer Choice Between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods and Psychological Reactions | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 106-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳建維,簡怡雯 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 選項框架,選項數目,實用型,享樂型,心理知覺, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Option Framing,Number of Choices,Utilitarian,Hedonic, | en |
dc.relation.page | 110 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201802322 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2018-08-01 | |
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-107-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.17 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。