不同決策模式下，具有抵換屬性的產品對於折衷選項的偏好

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：20

、訪客IP：3.140.186.201

姓名

林天生(Tian-Sheng Lin) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

企業管理學系

論文名稱

不同決策模式下，具有抵換屬性的產品對於折衷選項的偏好
(Preferences for compromise options of products with trade-off attributes under different decision-making model)

相關論文

★ 網頁背景圖片對消費者產品偏好的影響	★ 組合商品的定價模式對消費者的滿意度與價值知覺
★ KTV消費型態與消費者類型之關聯	★ 蘋果沉浸度研究
★ 女性業務人員的配飾、妝容、上衣對業務職能特質知覺之影響	★ 男性業務人員服飾配件對職能特質知覺之影響
★ 個人辦公桌擺設對員工工作投入與專業職能知覺之影響	★ 飯店房間內擺設對消費者知覺與金錢價值之影響 --- 以人格特質為干擾變數
★ 療癒著色本對情緒轉換與風險偏好的影響	★ 名片設計對業務人員的職能特質與工作績效之知覺影響
★ 美語補習班的創新服務	★ 台灣工具機製造商之策略構面、組織構面及財務績效之關係研究：五大廠商之個案分析
★ 服務花朵的創新與競爭優勢:以五家牙科診所的個案分析	★ 反向策略之廣告效果研究
★ 不同性刺激形式所引發的性幻想程度對廣告效果之影響	★ 情緒在消費者決策行為中的影響

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

至系統瀏覽論文 (2026-12-19以後開放)

摘要(中)

本研究主以兩種實驗設計分別以一階段決策模式與兩階段決策模式作為操弄消費者決策模式之自變數，又以食物美味與健康的抵換關係及水壺容量與保溫效果的抵換關作為操弄題材，並探討消費者選擇是否因受到不同的產品選擇或是不同決策模式（一階段/兩階段）而有改變，進而對認知需求（認知需求高/認知需求低）、偏好強化（短期享樂觀念/長期永續觀念）抉擇之影響。研究結果，1.受試者不論在何種決策模式階段下，選擇較不會受到影響，選擇折衷選項的比重仍多過於極端選項。2.受試者兩階段決策模式下，產品具有抵換關係時，認知需求較高具有顯著影響，偏向選擇較為極端的選項。

摘要(英)

Factors such as the number of options, their relationships, and descriptions directly impact consumers′ decision patterns and behavioral outcomes. This study employs two distinct experimental designs, utilizing one-stage and two-stage decision-making as independent variables to manipulate consumer decision modes. The study also explores whether consumers′ choices are influenced by different product options or decision model. Furthermore, it examines the impact of cognitive level and preference reinforcement on decision-making.

關鍵字(中)

★ 抵換關係；決策模式；偏好強化；認知需求；極端趨避

關鍵字(英)

★ Trade-off；Decision model；Preference reinforcement；Need of cogniton；Extremeness aversion

論文目次

中文摘要 I
Abstract II
目錄 III
圖目錄 VII
表目錄 VIII
第一章緒論 1
1-1 研究背景與動機 1
1-2 研究問題與目的 3
1-3 研究流程 3
第二章文獻探討 5
2-1 兩階段決策模式與抵換選項關係 5
2-2 折衷效果與抵換選項 6
2-2-1折衷效果概念 6
2-2-2折衷效果的產生 8
2-3 認知需求（Need of Cognition） 9
2-4 兩階段決策模式之應用 11
第三章研究方法 13
3-1 研究架構 13
3-2 研究假設 13
3-3 研究設計 15
3-4 變數之操作型定義與衡量 17
3-4-1 自變數-決策模式：一階段vs.兩階段 17
3-4-2 衡量變數-認知需求量表 18
3-4-3 操弄與操弄性檢定-強化個人偏好 20
3-4-4 應變數-選擇比重（極端選項與折衷選項） 21
3-5 前測實驗 24
3-5-1操弄變數-強化個人偏好文章 24
3-5-2題材操弄-美味與健康屬性間的抵換關係 25
3-6 研究對象 28
3-7 統計分析方法 28
3-7-1描述性統計分析 29
3-7-2事後比較 29
3-7-3信度分析 29
3-7-4卡方檢定 30
第四章研究結果 31
4-1 樣本結構 31
4-1-1實驗一樣本結構及問卷信度 31
4-1-2實驗二樣本結構及問卷信度 32
4-1-3實驗三樣本結構及問卷信度 34
4-2 實驗一研究結果 36
4-2-1實驗一實驗題材操弄檢定 36
4-2-2實驗一「決策模式」對「選擇比重（極端與折衷）」分析 38
4-2-3實驗一加入衡量變數「認知需求」分析 39
4-2-4實驗一加入操弄變數「強化個人偏好」分析 40
4-2-5實驗一加入人口統計變數分析 42
4-2-6實驗一延伸分析 43
4-3 實驗二研究結果 44
4-3-1實驗二「決策模式」對「選擇比重（極端與折衷）」分析 44
4-3-2實驗二加入衡量變數「認知需求」分析 46
4-3-3實驗二加入人口統計變數分析 47
4-4 實驗三研究結果 48
4-4-1實驗三「決策模式」對「選擇比重（極端與折衷）」分析 48
4-4-2實驗三加入衡量變數「認知需求」分析 48
4-4-3實驗三加入人口統計變數分析 49
第五章結論與建議 51
5-1 實驗結果彙整 51
5-2 研究結論 51
5-2-1 不同決策與抵換關係選項的關係 52
5-2-2 強化個人偏好與認知需求對於極端比重影響 53
5-3 研究貢獻 53
5-3-1 學術貢獻 53
5-3-1 實務貢獻 54
5-4 研究限制與問題 55
5-5 後續研究 55
參考文獻 57
中文部分 57
英文部分 57
附錄 63
附錄一實驗一食物前測問卷-第一版 63
附錄二實驗一食物前測問卷-第二版 65
附錄三實驗一文章前測文章問卷 68
附錄四實驗一正式問卷 70
附錄五實驗二正式問卷一-一階段 78
附錄六實驗二正式問卷二-二階段 82
附錄七實驗二正式問卷三-二階段(含安慰劑) 87
附錄八實驗三正式問卷-一階段 92
附錄九實驗三正式問卷-二階段 97
附錄十交叉表及檢定表 102

參考文獻

中文部分
[1] 林建煌（2016）。消費者行為（五版）。華泰文化。
[2] 吳統雄（1985）。態度與行為研究的信度與效度：理論、應用、反省。民意學術專刊，夏季號，29，53。
[3] 高泉豐（1994）。認知需求的概念與測量。中華心理學刊，36:1卷，1-20。
[4] 蕭文龍（2020）。統計分析入門與應用：SPSS中文版+SmartPLS 3（PLS-SEM）（三版）。碁峰。

英文部分

[1] Alba, J. W., & Chattopadhyay, A. (1985). Effects of Context and Part-Category Cues on Recall of Competing Brands. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(3), 340-349. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378502200309
[2] Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of Consumer Expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411-454. https://doi.org/10.1086/209080
[3] Arnould, E. J., Price, L., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2002). Consumers. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
[4] Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116-131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116

[5] Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Morris, K. J. (1983). Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 805-818. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805
[6] Cohen, A. R., Stotland, E., & Wolfe, D. M. (1955). An experimental investigation of need for cognition. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(2), 291-294. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042761
[7] Dhar, R., Huber, J., & Khan, U. (2007). The Shopping Momentum Effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 370-378. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.3.370
[8] Drolet, A. (2002). Inherent Rule Variability in Consumer Choice: Changing Rules for Change′s Sake. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 293-305. https://doi.org/10.1086/344433
[9] Gensch, D. H. (1987). A two-stage disaggregate attribute choice model. Marketing Science, 6(3), 223-239. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.6.3.223
[10] Hansen, D. E., & Helgeson, J. G. (2001). Consumer Response to Decision Conflict From Negatively Correlated Attributes: Down the Primrose Path or Up Against the Wall? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(3), 159-169. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1003_4
[11] Huber, J., Goldsmith, K., & Mogilner, C. (2008). Reinforcement versus balance response in sequential choice. Marketing Letters, 19, 229-239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-008-9042-5
[12] Huber, J., & Klein, N. M. (1991). Adapting cutoffs to the choice environment: the effects of attribute correlation and reliability. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(3), 346-357. https://doi.org/10.1086/209264
[13] Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90-98. https://doi.org/10.1086/208899

[14] Huber, J., & Puto, C. (1983). Market boundaries and product choice: Illustrating attraction and substitution effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(1), 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1086/208943
[15] Johnson, E. J., Meyer, R. J., & Ghose, S. (1989). When choice models fail: Compensatory models in negatively correlated environments. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(3), 255-270. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172899
[16] Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.193
[17] Kivetz, R., Netzer, O., & Srinivasan, V. (2004). Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(3), 237-257. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.41.3.237.35990
[18] Lei, J., & Zhang, Y. (2021). The Impact of a Two-Step Choice Process on Trade-Off Decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(3), 415-427. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucab016
[19] Moore, W. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (1982). Effects of usage and name on perceptions of new products. Marketing Science, 1(4), 351-370. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1.4.351
[20] Newman, G. E., Gorlin, M., & Dhar, R. (2014). When going green backfires: How firm intentions shape the evaluation of socially beneficial product enhancements. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 823-839. https://doi.org/10.1086/677841
[21] Payne, J. W. (1982). Contingent decision behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 92(2), 382-402. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.92.2.382
[22] Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2

[23] Raghunathan, R., Naylor, R., & Hoyer, W. (2006). The Unhealthy = Tasty Intuition and Its Effects on Taste Inferences, Enjoyment, and Choice of Food Products. Journal of Marketing, 70, 170-184. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.4.170
[24] Ratneshwar, S., Barsalou, L. W., Pechmann, C., & Moore, M. (2001). Goal-derived categories: The role of personal and situational goals in category representations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(3), 147-157. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1003_3
[25] Ratneshwar, S., Pechmann, C., & Shocker, A. D. (1996). Goal-Derived Categories and the Antecedents of Across-Category Consideration. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(3), 240-250. https://doi.org/10.1086/209480
[26] Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49(1-2), 11-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(93)90034-S
[27] Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158-174. https://doi.org/10.1086/209205
[28] Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 281-295. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172740
[29] Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327
[30] Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039-1061. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937956
[31] Weary, G., & Edwards, J. A. (1994). Individual differences in causal uncertainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.308

[32] Wernerfelt, B. (1995). A rational reconstruction of the compromise effect: Using market data to infer utilities. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(4), 627-633. https://doi.org/10.1086/209423
[33] Weary, G., & Edwards, J. A. (1994). Individual differences in causal uncertainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.308
[34] Sorrentino, R. M., Bobocel, D. R., Gitta, M. Z., Olson, J. M., & Hewitt, E. C. (1988). Uncertainty orientation and persuasion: Individual differences in the effects of personal relevance on social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(3), 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.3.357
[35] Montgomery, H. (1983). Decision rules and the search for a dominance structure: Towards a process model of decision making. Advances in Psychology, 14, 343-369. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62243-8
[36] North-Holland. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1982). Why study risk perception? Risk Analysis, 2(2), 83-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01369.x
[37] Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. John Wiley & Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1037/10628-000
[38] Wright, Peter and Fredrick Barbour (1977), “Phased Decision Strategies: Sequels to an Initial Screening,” in Multiple Criteria Decision Making, ed. Martin K. Starr and Milan Zeleny, Amsterdam: North Holland, 1977.
[39] Tversky, A., & Sattath, S. (1979). Preference trees. Psychological Review, 86(6), 542. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.86.6.542
[40] Beach, L. R. (1993). Broadening the definition of decision making: The role of prechoice screening of options. Psychological Science, 4(4), 215-220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00264.x

[41] Bettman, J. R., & Park, C. W. (1980). Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of the choice process on consumer decision processes: A protocol analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), 234-248. https://doi.org/10.1086/208812
[42] Billings, R. S., & Marcus, S. A. (1983). Measures of compensatory and noncompensatory models of decision behavior: Process tracing versus policy capturing. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31(3), 331-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(83)90129-0
[43] Crow, L. E., Olshavsky, R. W., & Summers, J. O. (1980). Industrial buyers’ choice strategies: A protocol analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(1), 34-44. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151114
[44] Payne, J. W. (1976). Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 366-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90022-2
[45] Lehmann, Donald, and Yigang Pan (1994), “Context Effects, New Brand Entry, and Consideration Sets,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (3), 364–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/3152223

指導教授

林建煌

審核日期

2024-1-9

推文