請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/73513
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 葉怡玉 | |
dc.contributor.author | Yen-Ting Chen | en |
dc.contributor.author | 陳彥廷 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T07:39:15Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2020-03-08 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2019-03-08 | |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2019-02-27 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Aggarwal, P., & Vaidyanathan, R. (2003). Use it or lose it: Purchase acceleration effects of time‐limited promotions. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review, 2, 393-403.
Besharat, A., Ladik, D. M., & Carrillat, F. A. (2014). Are maximizers blind to the future? When today’s best does not make for a better tomorrow. Marketing Letters, 25, 77-91. Campo, K., Gijsbrechts, E., & Nisol, P. (2000). Towards understanding consumer response to stock-outs. Journal of Retailing, 76, 219-242. Chang, E. C., Lin, N. J., Herringshaw, A. J., Sanna, L. J., Fabian, C. G., Perera, M. J., & Marchenko, V. V. (2011). Understanding the link between perfectionism and adjustment in college students: Examining the role of maximizing. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 1074-1078. Chernev, A. (2003). Product assortment and individual decision processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 151. Chernev, A. (2006). Decision focus and consumer choice among assortments. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 50-59. Chernev, A., Böckenholt, U., & Goodman, J. (2015). Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25, 333-358. Chernev, A., & Hamilton, R. (2009). Assortment size and option attractiveness in consumer choice among retailers. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 410-420. Dahling, J. J., & Thompson, M. N. (2013). Detrimental relations of maximization with academic and career attitudes. Journal of Career Assessment, 21, 278-294. Diehl, K., & Poynor, C. (2010). Great expectations?! Assortment size, expectations, and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 312-322. Ehrenberg, A. S., Hammond, K., & Goodhart, G. (1994). The after-effects of price-related consumer promotions. Journal of advertising Research, 34, 11-22. Fitzsimons, G. J. (2000). Consumer response to stockouts. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 249-266. Godinho, S., Prada, M., & Garrido, M. V. (2016). Under pressure: An integrative perspective of time pressure impact on consumer decision-making. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 28, 251-273. Gotlieb, J. B., & Swan, J. E. (1990). An application of the elaboration likelihood model. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18, 221-228. Grewal, D., Marmorstein, H., & Sharma, A. (1996). Communicating price information through semantic cues: The moderating effects of situation and discount size. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 148-155. Griffin, J. G., & Broniarczyk, S. M. (2010). The slippery slope: The impact of feature alignability on search and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 323-334. Hardesty, D. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2003). Consumer evaluations of different promotion types and price presentations: The moderating role of promotional benefit level. Journal of Retailing, 79, 17-25. 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 & Marketing, 26, 204-212. Heilman, C. M., Nakamoto, K., & Rao, A. G. (2002). Pleasant surprises: Consumer response to unexpected in-store coupons. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 242-252. Iyengar, S. S., Lepper, M. R. J. J. o. p., & psychology, s. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 995. Krishnan, B. C., Dutta, S., & Jha, S. (2013). Effectiveness of exaggerated advertised reference prices: The role of decision time pressure. Journal of Retailing, 89, 105-113. Lallement, J. (2010). The effects of time pressure on information processing. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition), 25, 45-69. 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, 202-215. Osiurak, F., Faure, J., Rabeyrone, T., Morange, D., Dumet, N., Tapiero, I., . . . Finkel, A. (2015). Predictors of academic procrastination: Self-determined motivation, self-esteem and degree of maximization. Pratiques Psychologiques, 21, 19-33. Papatla, P., & Krishnamurthi, L. (1996). Measuring the dynamic effects of promotions on brand choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 20-35. Purvis, A., Howell, R. T., & Iyer, R. (2011). Exploring the role of personality in the relationship between maximization and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 370-375. Reutskaja, E., & Hogarth, R. (2009). Satisfaction in choice as a function of the number of alternatives: When “goods satiate”. Psychology & Marketing, 26, 197-203. Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1178-1197. Seuntjens, T. G., Zeelenberg, M., Van de Ven, N., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2015). Dispositional greed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 917. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99-118. Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man, social and rational: Mathematical essays on rational human behavior. New York: John Wiley &Sons. Sloot, L. M., Verhoef, P. C., & Franses, P. H. (2005). The impact of brand equity and the hedonic level of products on consumer stock-out reactions. Journal of Retailing, 81, 15-34. Taylor, G. A. (2001). Coupon response in services. Journal of Retailing, 77, 139-151. Van Herpen, E., & Pieters, R. (2007). Anticipated identification costs: Improving assortment evaluation by diagnostic attributes. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24, 77-88. Verbeke, W., Farris, P., & Thurik, R. (1998). Consumer response to the preferred brand out-of-stock situation. European Journal of Marketing, 32, 1008-1028. Zinn, W., & Liu, P. C. (2001). Consumer response to retail stockouts. Journal of Business Logistics, 22, 49-71. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/73513 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本研究探討個體的購買決策傾向在不同消費情境裡如何影響其購買選擇。本研究以極大化(maximizing tendency)決策傾向作為個別差異的指標,而消費情境則分為資訊量大小與不同時間壓力情境。極大化者(maximizer)的消費行為可能存有較為特別的模式,與滿足者(satisficer)不同。前者在決策時考量多個重要屬性後才能選擇,而後者視為重要的屬性較少,只要滿足其購買目標即可。本研究假設此個別差異在資訊量大且有時間壓力的消費情境裡會更為凸顯。過去研究有三種不同的時間壓力的消費情境:價格促銷、商品即將售完及倒數計時的傳統限時。然而,文獻並未探討這些情境對極大化者與滿足化者的影響是否有所不同。本研究以相機購買為模擬情境,在研究一A裡,可供選擇的產品有32(大資訊量)與8(小資訊量)的二種可能,時間壓力則有三種與無壓力的控制組。共281位參與者以隨機方式分派到8種情境之中。研究結果發現,當資訊量小時,權重模式的分析未達顯著,無法由屬性考量而成功地預測購買行為。當資訊量大時,決策傾向的個別差異均符合預期,極大化者考量的重要屬性多於滿足者。由於樣本數偏低,此結果可能存有偏誤。因此,研究一B著重於資訊量大的情境,增加232位參與者,以隨機方式分派到4種消費情境。合併分析一A與一B的結果顯示,控制組並未出現個別差異,但在三種時間壓力下均出現個別差異的影響,極大化者考慮的重要屬性多於滿足者。此差異在商品售完與傳統限時的情境裡尤為凸顯,滿足者考慮的重要屬性只有品牌的知名度。相對於控制組,極大化者在時間壓力情境裡的選擇受到較多屬性的影響。本研究發現個體決策傾向與購買時間壓力交互影響決策選擇。本研究結果或可供實務者在消費體驗上的建議。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Prior research has shown that individual differences in decision tendency and time pressure influence consumer behaviors. Yet, no study has investigated how these two factors conjointly affect choice behaviors. Individual differences focused on maximizing tendency as previous studies have shown that maximizers consider more attributes to be important in consumer decision making compared with satisficers. We postulated that this difference will be enlarged particularly when consumers are under time pressure. In Study 1a, a scenario of buying a camera was presented to the participants with either 32 or 8 options. Three types of time pressure (price promotion under time constraint, stockout, and countdown) and one control condition without any time pressure were manipulated. A total of 281 participants were randomly assigned to one of the eight conditions and were asked to buy a camera. The results showed that none of the attributes significantly predicted the choice of camera when there were eight options. This null finding may have arisen from the fact that participants were familiar with the buying context and were able to integrate all attributes for each camera so that none of the attributes independently predicted the choice. When there were more options for choice, the maximizers considered more attributes to be important than satisficers as expected. Yet, this difference remained the same under the stockout context. As the sample size was small in each group under each buying context, we conducted Study 1b focusing on the context of 32 options under four time constraints. A total of 232 participants completed the study and their data were combined with those of Study 1a. The results showed no individual differences in the control condition where no time pressure was imposed on the choice. In both the stockout and countdown conditions, the satisficers only considered brand to be important whereas the maximizers added evaluation as an important attribute. With a discount offered under time constraint, all participants considered evaluation to be important compared with the control condition. Moreover, the maximizers added price as an important attribute for considering which one to buy. Taken together, the results showed that individual differences in decision tendency and purchase contexts conjointly influence the decision of buying. Both factors should be considered in marketing and for improving shopping experiences. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T07:39:15Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-107-R05227116-1.pdf: 1658135 bytes, checksum: e9891961819bde7590b242a01df3989c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 前言 1 第二節 極大化者與滿足化者 2 第三節 購買情境 3 第四節 選項多寡 5 第二章 研究一A 7 第一節 研究動機與假設 7 第二節 研究方法與設計 8 第三節 研究結果 11 第四節 小結 18 第三章 研究一B 20 第一節 研究方法 20 第二節 研究結果 20 第三節 小結 26 第四章 綜合討論 27 第一節 研究結果總結 28 第二節 研究貢獻與限制 30 參考文獻 32 附錄一 38 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 倒數計時─個別差異對消費決策的影響 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Countdown-The Effect of Individual Differences on Consumer Decision Making | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 107-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 黃揚名,汪曼穎 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 時間壓力,極大化傾向,極大化者,消費決策, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | time pressure,maximizing tendency,maximizer,consumer decision, | en |
dc.relation.page | 46 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201900628 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2019-02-27 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 理學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 心理學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 心理學系 |
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 | 1.62 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。