論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:校內校外完全公開 unrestricted
開放時間 Available:
校內 Campus: 已公開 available
校外 Off-campus: 已公開 available
論文名稱 Title |
消費者人格特質對妥協效果及吸引效果之影響研究 The Impact of Personality Traits on Compromise and Attraction Effects |
||
系所名稱 Department |
|||
畢業學年期 Year, semester |
語文別 Language |
||
學位類別 Degree |
頁數 Number of pages |
81 |
|
研究生 Author |
|||
指導教授 Advisor |
|||
召集委員 Convenor |
|||
口試委員 Advisory Committee |
|||
口試日期 Date of Exam |
2012-06-28 |
繳交日期 Date of Submission |
2012-07-09 |
關鍵字 Keywords |
內外控程度、獨特性需求、吸引效果、自信心、認知需求、妥協效果 locus of control, need for uniqueness, need for cognition, self-confidence, compromise effects, attraction effects |
||
統計 Statistics |
本論文已被瀏覽 5833 次,被下載 1657 次 The thesis/dissertation has been browsed 5833 times, has been downloaded 1657 times. |
中文摘要 |
一般消費者總認為,性質相同的產品擁有越多的選擇性越好,因為選擇越多,則越容易進行比較,也越能選出最符合自己需求之產品。早期學者認為,新選項的加入不但不會增加任何已有選項的被選中的機率,反而會分走已有選項被選擇的機率;然而1982年學者卻提出,新選項的加入不但不會分散被選擇的機率,反而可將其視為一種誘餌,引導消費者改變選擇的標準,亦即,消費者是會受到「新增的選項」影響判斷結果的,這就是所謂的情境效果。而情境效果又可分為「妥協效果」與「吸引效果」,前者指目標選項因為新選項的加入,成為屬性介於各選項中間值的中間選項,因此吸引了極端趨避的消費者所選擇;後者則是因新選項以較低評價屬性進入後,反而突顯了目標選項的好,進而增加了目標選項被選中的機率。此兩種情境效果皆證明了多餘的選項並不一定能幫助消費者進行更理性的選擇,反而會影響消費者進行選擇的判斷及標準。 然而,並非所有消費者都會對這些「誘餌」有所反應,個體對其反應的強度也有所差異,本研究欲探討之問題,即為在妥協效果和吸引效果下,究竟在何種人格特質反應最劇?以及不同特質的消費者對不同的效果的反應強度大小之比較。本研究以五項人格特質-自信心、認知需求、獨特性需求、內外控程度以及自我監控程度為出發點,分析擁有不同特質的消費者在面臨商品選擇過程時,是否會受到新加入選項的影響,進而產生調整選擇標準,改變選擇結果的情況。 研究結果發現:最容易產生強烈的妥協效果之消費者為具備「低獨特性需求」特質之族群;而對吸引誘餌最為敏感者為「高認知需求」族群。另外,「高自信心」、「高認知需求」、「高獨特性需求」、「低自我監控」族群僅對吸引效果有所反應,妥協效果則無;而「低自信心」、「低認知需求」、「低獨特性需求」、「高自我監控」族群則同時受到妥協效果及吸引效果的影響。 |
Abstract |
In order to meet our needs, consumer always believe that the more wild of selection, the better to choose the best of us. One such assumption is the regularity principle, which asserts that the addition of a new option to the choice set should not increase the probability of choosing any of the original options (Luce 1977). Clearly, both the attraction and compromise effects reflect an increase in the share of the target option after adding a third option. It implies that a new option added to a given set should take shares from existing options in proportion to their original shares. In fact, not all of the consumers react to these "third option" in the same level, because of the different personality traits , everyone have different thoughts even they get the same message. So, we want to know the impact of personality traits on compromise and attraction effects, and the intensity of those effects. We choose “self-confidence”, “need for cognition”, “need for uniqueness”, “locus of control”, and “self-monitoring” to test the compromise and attraction effects, and we found that people with “low need for uniqueness” had the strongest compromise effect; and with “high need for cognition” had the strongest attraction effect. In addition, “high self-confidence”, “high need for cognition”, “high need for uniqueness”, and “low self-monitoring” groups only exist attraction effect but compromise effect; “low self-confidence”, “low need for cognition”, “low need for uniqueness” and “high self-monitoring” groups react not only on attraction effect, but on compromise effect. |
目次 Table of Contents |
論文審定書 i 誌謝 ii 中文摘要 iii 英文摘要 iv 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究目的及問題 3 第三節 研究流程 4 第二章 文獻探討 5 第一節 妥協效果及吸引效果概論 5 第二節 同化�對比效果理論 10 第三節 人格特質概論 10 第四節 自信心 13 第五節 內外控傾向 15 第六節 認知需求 16 第七節 獨特性需求 17 第八節 自我監控 19 第三章 研究方法 21 第一節 研究變項概念型定義及衡量方式 21 第二節 實驗設計 25 第三節 資料分析步驟及方法 29 第四章 實證分析與結果 31 第一節 敘述性統計分析 31 第二節 人格特質信度分析 33 第三節 中位數分析 35 第四節 妥協效果計算 36 第五節 吸引效果計算 39 第六節 妥協及吸引效果分析 41 第七節 綜合特質比較分析 44 第八節 綜合比較分析 45 第五章 研究結論與貢獻 47 第一節 妥協效果消失原因 47 第二節 兩效果在人格特質上之差異探討 48 第三節 綜合比較結果與研究問題討論 52 第四節 理論貢獻與管理意涵 56 第五節 研究限制 57 參考文獻 58 |
參考文獻 References |
一、 中文部分 古宜禾,(2009).獨特性需求對消費者決策的影響,臺中科技大學. 簡明輝,(2008).消費者行為,新文京開發出版股份有限公司 二、 英文部分 Albrecht, T. L., & Adelman, M. B. (1987). Communicating social support: A theoretical perspective. In T. L. Albrecht, M. B. Adelman, and Associates (Eds.), Communicating social support (pp. 13-39). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(1), i-171. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1991). Multitrait–multimethod matrices inconsumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 426–439. Bailey, J. R. and M. J. Strube (1991), “Effects of Need for Cognition on Patterns of Information Acquisition,” In M. Lynn and J. M. Jackson (eds), Proceedings of the Society for Consumer Psychology at the 1991 Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 41-45. Bearden, William O., Hardesty, David M., & Rose, Randall L. (2001). Consumer Self‐Confidence: Refinements in Conceptualization and Measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 121-134. Bettman, J. R. (1979). An information processing theory of consumer choice / James R. Bettman. Reading, Mass. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. Blackwell, R.D., Miniard, P.W., and Engel, J.F. (2006). Consumer Behavior (10th Ed.). Boston: South-Western. Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes. Vol. 1.San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 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. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait–multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56,81–105. Chernev, A. (2004). Extremeness Aversion and Attribute-Balance Effects in Choice. [Article]. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 249-263. 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. Del I. Hawkins, David L. Mothersbaugh, & Roger J.Best(2007),Consumber Behavior,10th ed., New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill Companies, o441 Erikson, E.H. (1963). Childhood and Society. (2nd ed.). New York: Norton. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Friestad, Marian and Peter Wright (1994), "The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts," Journal of Consumer Research, 21,1, (June), I31. Guilford, J.P. 1959. Traits of creativity in Creativity and its Cultivation. pp. 142-161. Harper and Row. Hall, C. S., & Lindzey, G. (1957). Theories of personality: Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Hansen, D. E., & Helgeson, J. G. (1996). Choice under Strict Uncertainty: Processes and Preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66(2), 153-164. Hellen, K., & Saaksjarvi, M. (2011). Is consumer serf-confidence a stable phenomenon? The effect of mood on serf-confidence dimensions. [Article]. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 10(3), 223-243. Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis. [Article]. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90-98. Huber, J., & Puto, C. (1983). Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects. [Article]. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(1), 31-44. Kahneman, D., & Knetsch, J. L. (1991). The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias. [Article]. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193-206. Kivetz, R., Netzer, O., & Srinivasan, V. (2004). Alternative Models for Capturing the Compromise Effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(3), 237-257. Lichtenstein, Donald R. and Scot Burton (in press), "The Relationship Between Perceived and Objective Price-Quality," Journal of Marketing Research. Locander WB, Hermann PW (1979). The effect of self-confidence and anxiety on information seeking in consumer risk reduction. J. Market. Res., 16(2): 268-274. Loibl, C., Soo Hyun, C. H. O., Diekmann, F., & Batte, M. T. (2009). Consumer Self-Confidence in Searching for Information. [Article]. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 43(1), 26-55. Lynn, M. (1992). The Psychology of Unavailability: Explaining Scarcity and Cost Effects on Value. [Article]. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 13(1), 3-7. Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997). The desire for unique consumer products: A new individual differences scale. Psychology and Marketing, 14(6), 601-616. Lynn, M. & Snyder, C.R. (2002). Uniqueness seeking. In C.R. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.) Handbook of Positive Psychology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pgs. 395-410 Mantel, S. P., & Kardes, F. R. (1999). The Role of Direction of Comparison, Attribute-Based Processing, and Attitude-Based Processing in Consumer Preference. [Article]. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(4), 335-352. Moorthy, S., B.T. Ratchford, and D. Talukdar (1997), “Consumer Information Search Revised: Theory and Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Consumer Research, 23, pp.263-277. Nunnally, J.C., (1978), Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill. Petty, R. E., John. T. Cacioppo and David S.,1983, “Central and peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement.” The Journal of consumer Research, Vol.10,pp.135-146. R.Duncan, L. (1977). The choice axiom after twenty years. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 215-233. Rajamma, R. K., Pelton, L. E., Hsu, M. K., & Knight, D. K. (2010). The Impact of Consumers' Need for Uniqueness and Nationality on Generation Y's Retail Patronage Behaviors: Investigating American and Taiwanese Consumers. [Article]. Journal of Global Marketing, 23(5), 387-410. Ratneshwar, S., Shocker, A. D., & Stewart, D. W. (1987). Toward Understanding the Attraction Effect: The Implications of Product Stimulus Meaningfulness and Familiarity. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 520-533. Reekie, W. D. (1980). Pricing: Making profitable decisions, Kent B. Monroe, pricing: Making profitable decisions, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1979. pp. xv+286. £8.50. Managerial and Decision Economics, 1(1), 46-47. Russell, T., & Thaler, R. (1985). The Relevance of Quasi Rationality in Competitive Markets. The American Economic Review, 75(5), 1071-1082. Schiffman LG, Kanuk LL (2007). Consumer Behaviour. (9th ed.). NewJersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Scott, W.G. & Mitchell, T.R.(1972). Organization Theory, Homewood, I11.:Richard D. Irwin Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. Oxford, England: Yale Univer. Press. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158-174. Simonson, I., & Nowlis, Stephen M. (2000). The Role of Explanations and Need for Uniqueness in Consumer Decision Making: Unconventional Choices Based on Reasons. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 49-68. Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion. [Article]. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 29(3), 281-295. Snyder, C. R. (1980). Uniqueness, the human pursuit of difference / C. R. Snyder and Howard L. Fromkin. New York :: Plenum Press. Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1977). Abnormality as a positive characteristic: The development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86(5), 518-527. Snyder, Mark and Kenneth G. Bono (1985), "Appeals to Image and Claims About Quality: Understanding the Psychology of Advertising," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 (3), 586-597. Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers' Need for Uniqueness: Scale Development and Validation. [Article]. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 50-66. Tian, Kelly T., Bearden, William O., & Hunter, Gary L. (2001). Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness: Scale Development and Validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 50-66. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). LOSS AVERSION IN RISKLESS CHOICE: A REFERENCE-DEPENDENT MODEL. [Article]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039-1061. Tversky, A., & Simonson, I. (1993). Context-Dependent Preferences. Management Science, 39(10), 1179-1189. Wood, W., & Stagner, B. (1994). Why are some people easier to influence than others? Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (pp. 149-174). Needham Heights, MA, US: Allyn & Bacon. Worchel, S., Lee, J., & Adewole, A. (1975). Effects of supply and demand on ratings of object value. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5), 906-914. |
電子全文 Fulltext |
本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。 論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:校內校外完全公開 unrestricted 開放時間 Available: 校內 Campus: 已公開 available 校外 Off-campus: 已公開 available |
紙本論文 Printed copies |
紙本論文的公開資訊在102學年度以後相對較為完整。如果需要查詢101學年度以前的紙本論文公開資訊,請聯繫圖資處紙本論文服務櫃台。如有不便之處敬請見諒。 開放時間 available 已公開 available |
QR Code |