商品的外盒包裝作為企業與消費者間最基本且最主要的行銷溝通方式，它就如同是商品以及公司品牌在銷售點上的「發言人」，深深影響著消費者的購買決策。消費者會透過外盒包裝對商品本身進行推論，例如產品圖片在商品包裝正面上的位置便被證實對於商品知覺重量及包裝評價會產生影響，稱作為「產品圖片位置效應」。本研究即以產品圖片位置效應相關文獻之研究結果為基礎，首先將產品圖片位置分為視覺重量重與視覺重量輕兩種，再加上視覺與觸覺的不同種感官刺激型式，試圖了解產品圖片的不同位置搭配上不同感官刺激型式時，產品圖片位置效應會產生何種變化，並延伸觸摸動機領域中的觸摸需求程度的相關研究發現，於本研究中導入觸摸需求程度個人差異為變數，觀察其對產品圖片位置效應及對個人的產品判斷信心的影響。
本研究以實驗設幾法進行，產品圖片位置(右下方vs.左上方)、感官刺激型式(單純視覺vs.同時視覺與觸覺vs.先視覺後觸覺)與享樂性觸摸需求程度(低vs.中vs.高)三項自變數，為2x3x3三因子設計，透過虛擬的零食產品外盒包裝設計配合指示不同的感官刺激型式建立六種實驗情境，同時藉由三分位數法區分出享樂性觸摸需求程度低、中、高的受測者，觀察受測者在不同情境下，對產品圖片分別位於不同位置的包裝所做的產品知覺重量及產品判斷信心的回應。
研究結果指出，當加入觸覺刺激時，產品圖片位置效應會消失；此外，相較於中、高享樂性觸摸需求者，低享樂性觸摸需求者之間會存在較強的產品圖片位置效應。再者，產品圖片位置與感官刺激型式會對產品判斷信心產生交互作用，當受測者僅能使用視覺時，包裝上不同的產品圖片位置會影響對產品判斷的信心，而當加入了觸覺之後，產品圖片的位置便不會對產品判斷信心產生顯著差異。綜合以上的研究發現，期望可以確實幫助學者及行銷企劃人員對產品圖片位置效應有更深一層了解，並且透過商品外盒包裝的設計達到有效的行銷溝通。

As a method of marketing communications between companies and consumers, packages serve as a “spokesperson” of the product on the point-of-sale. These may have significant impacts on the process of consumers’ purchase decisions. Consumers also make inferences from the products packages, and the location of the product image on a package facade was one of the factors that influences consumers’ perceptions of the visual heaviness of the product and evaluations of the package, which is called “product image location effect.” Based on previous studies on the product image location effect, this study distinguished the product image locations into two places: perceived as heavy or light. Furthermore, three types of sensation cues (“vision-only”, “vision and touch simultaneously”, and “vision then touch”) are considered in this study in order to understand how the product image location effect works. In addition, individual differences in need for touch (NFT) is also incorporated into this research to examine how it may sway the results of product image location effect and consumers’ confidence when judging products.
The present study employed an experimental design to investigate the effects of product image location (bottom-right vs. top-left), the type of sensation cues (vision-only vs. vision and touch simultaneously vs. vision then touch), and autotelic need for touch (low vs. medium vs. high) on consumers’ evaluation of perceived product heaviness and confidence in product judgments. A 2x3x3 factorial design was conducted. Six different scenarios were established through virtual packages and different sensation inputs. A quantile method was used to distinguish consumers into low, medium and high autotelic NFT. Consumers’ evaluation was measured by perceived product heaviness and confidence in product judgments.
The results indicated that when there was a tactile input, the product image location effect would disappear. Besides, compared to those who were medium and high in autotelic NFT, product image location effect was more influential on those who were low in autotelic NFT. In addition, in vision-only condition, location of the product image influenced consumers’ confidence in product judgment. According to these findings, this research contributes to the further understandings of product image location effect and provides implications for researchers and marketers on package design.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 前言 1
第二節 研究背景 1
第三節 研究動機 3
第四節 研究目的與問題 5
第五節 研究架構 6
第二章 文獻回顧 7
第一節 前言 7
第二節 產品圖片位置效應7
一、位置與視覺重量之概述 7
二、包裝上產品圖片位置效應之概述與相關研究 8
第三節 觸摸與觸覺線索 10
一、觸摸行為的重要性 10
二、觸摸動機的分類 12
三、觸摸需求程度之應用 15
第四節 多感官互動 17
一、多感官互動之概述 17
二、視覺與觸覺之互動 22
第五節 小結 25
第三章 研究設計與方法 26
第一節 前言 26
第二節 研究假設與架構 26
一、產品圖片位置與感官刺激型式的交互作用對產品知覺重量的影響 28
二、產品圖片位置與觸摸需求程度對產品知覺重量的影響29
三、產品圖片位置、感官刺激型式與觸摸需求對產品知覺重量的影響 30
四、產品圖片位置與感官刺激型式對產品判斷信心的影響 31
第三節 前測 31
一、前測問卷設計 31
二、前測分析結果 33
第四節 研究變數的操作型定義與衡量 36
一、自變數 36
二、依變數 39
三、個人差異變數 39
第五節 研究設計 40
一、問卷題項設計41
二、抽樣方法 42
第六節 小結 42
第四章 研究結果分析 43
第一節 前言 43
第二節 樣本背景資料 43
第三節 信度分析 44
第四節 研究設計之檢驗 45
一、產品圖片位置操弄之確認 45
二、觸摸需求程度分組 46
三、享樂性觸摸需求量表因子分析 46
四、潛在共變數檢定 47
第五節 研究假設之檢驗 48
一、以產品知覺重量為依變數進行研究假設檢驗 49
二、以產品判斷信心為依變數進行研究假設檢驗 56
第六節 小結 58
第五章 結論與建議 59
第一節 前言 59
第二節 研究結果討論 59
第三節 研究貢獻 62
一、理論貢獻 62
二、實務貢獻 63
第四節 研究限制 63
一、以學生樣本為便利抽樣 63
二、單一產品設計 64
三、實驗設計方法 64
四、僅選用產品知覺重量與產品判斷信心為依變數 64
五、透過回想和辨識進行操弄得確認 65
六、享樂性觸摸需求分組 65
第五節 未來研究建議 65
一、考量其他可能影響知覺重量的變數 66
二、探討「重量重」並不被偏好的產品類別 66
三、設計功能性觸摸需求的實驗情境與探討功能性觸摸需求之影響 66
四、實際測量產品知覺重量估計和實際重量的差異 66
五、產品圖片操弄的位置 67
六、產品圖片位置效應與飲食攝取量的控制 67
第六節 小結 68
參考文獻 69
附錄一 前測問卷 74
附錄二 正式問卷 83

Anderson, N. H., and Cuneo, D. O. (1978), “The Height + Width Rule in Children’s Judgments of Quantity,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 107(4), 335-378.
Arnheim, R. (1974), Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Balaji, M. S., Raghavan, S., and Jha, S. (2011), “Role of Tactile and Visual Inputs in Product Evaluation: A Multisensory Perspective,” Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 23(4), 513-530.
Bloch, P. (1995), ”Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response,” Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16-29.
Bourassa, D. C., McManus, I. C., and Bryden, M. P. (1996), “Handedness and Eye-Dominance: A Meta-Analysis of Their Relationship,” Laterality, 1(1), 5-34.
Coelho Do Vale, R., Pieters, R., and Zeelenberg, M. (2008), “Flying Under the Radar: Perverse Package Size Effects on Consumption Self-Regulation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 380-390.
Coren, S., and Porac, C. (1976), “Size Accentuation in the Dominant Eye,” Nature, 260, 527-528.
Cross, D. V., and Rotkin, L. (1975), “The Relation between Size and Apparent Heaviness,” Perception and Psychophysics, 18(2), 79-87.
Deng, X. (2009), “Consumer Response to Visual Aspects of Packaging and Product Design,” Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (AAI3363279).
Deng, X., and Kahn, B. E. (2009), “Is Your Product on the Right Side? The ”Location Effect” on Perceived Product Heaviness and Package Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 724-738.
Deng, X., and Kahn, B. E. (2008), “When Less is More: An Examination of the Effects of Location, Movement, and Color on Consumers’ Visual Weight Perception,” Working paper.
Dickson, P. R., and Sawyer, A. G. (1990), “The Price Knowledge and Search of Supermarket Shoppers,” Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 42-53.
Ellis, R. R., and Lederman, S. J. (1993), “The Role of Haptic versus Visual Volume Cues in the Size-Weight Illusion,” Perception and Psychophysics, 53(3), 315-324.
Ellis, R. R., and Lederman, S. J. (1999), “The Material-Weight Illusion Revisited,” Perception and Psychophysics, 61(8), 1564-1576.
Feldman, J., and Lynch, J. Jr. (1988), “Self-Generated Validity and Other Effects of Measurement on Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 421-435.
Folkes, V., and Matta, S. (2004), “The Effect of Package Shape on Consumers’ Judgments of Product Volume: Attention as a Mental Contaminant,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 390-401.
Grohmann, B., Spangenberg, E. R., and Sprott, D. E. (2007), “The Influence of Tactile Input on the Evaluation of Retail Product Offerings,” Journal of Retailing, 83(2), 237-245.
Hoegg, J., and Alba, J. W. (2006), “Taste Discrimination: The Influence of Visual and Verbal Cues,” in C. Pechmann and L. Price (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, 33, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, 452.
Hoegg, J., and Alba, J. W. (2007), “Taste Perception: More than Meets the Tongue,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 490-498.
Houston, M. J., Childers, T. L., and Heckler, S. E. (1987), “Picture-Word Consistency and the Elaborative Processing of Advertisements,” Journal of Marketing Research, 24(4), 359-369.
Hulten, B., Broweus, N., and Dijk, M. (2009), Sensory Marketing, Basingstoke ; New York : Palgrave Macmillan.
Jansson-Boyd, C. V. (2011), “Touch Matters: Exploring the Relationship between Consumption and Tactile Interaction,” Social Semiotics, 21(4), 531-546.
Jostmann, N. B., Lakens, D., and Schubert, T. W. (2009), “Weight As an Embodiment of Importance,” Psychological Science, 20(9), 1169-1174.
Kahneman, D., and Frederick, S. (2002), Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kisielius, J., and Sternthal, B. (1986), “Examining the Vividness Controversy: An Availability-Valence Interpretation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12(4), 418-431.
Klatzky, R. L., and Lederman, S. J. (1992), “Stages of Manual Exploration in Haptic Object Identification,” Perception and Psychophysics, 52(6), 661-670.
Klatzky, R. L., and Lederman, S. J. (1993), “Toward a Computational Model of Constraint-Driven Exploration and Haptic Object Identification,” Perception, 22(5), 597-621.
Krider, R., Raghubir, P., and Krishna, A. (2001), “Pizza-Pi or Squared? The Effect of Perceived Area on Price Perceptions,” Marketing Science, 20(4), 405-425.
Krishna, A. (2006), “Interaction of Senses: The Effect of Vision versus Touch on the Elongation Bias,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), 557-566.
Krishna, A. (2008), “Spatial Perception Research: An Integrative Review of Length, Area, Volume and Number Perception,” in M. Wedel and R. Pieters (Eds.), Visual Marketing: From Attention to Action, New York: Erlbaum, 167-192.
Krishna, A., and Morrin, M. (2008), “Does Touch Affect Taste? The Perceptual Transfer of Product Container Haptic Cues,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 807-818.
Krishna, A. (2010), Sensory Marketing: Research on the Sensuality of Products, Routledge Academic, New York, NY.
Lee, Y. H., and Mason, C. (1999), “Responses to Information Incongruency in Advertising: The Role of Expectancy, Relevancy, and Humor,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26(2), 156-169.
Marlow, N., and Jansson-Boyd, C. V., (2011), “To Touch or Not to Touch: That Is the Question. Should Consumers Always Be Encouraged to Touch Products, and Does It Always Alter Product Perception?” Psychology and Marketing, 28(3), 256-266.
McGill, A. L., and Anand, P. (1989), “The Effect of Vivid Attributes on the Evaluation of Alternatives: The Role of Differential Attention and Cognitive Elaboration,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 188-196.
Morales, A. C., and Fitzsimons, G. J. (2007), “Product Contagion: Changing Consumer Evaluations Through Physical Contact with “Disgusting” Products,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 272-283.
Olsen, J. C., and Jacoby, J. (1972), “Cue Utilization in the Quality Perception Process,” In M. Venkatesan (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association of Consumer Research, Iowa City, IA: Association for Consumer Research, 167-179.
Pavio, A. (1986), Mental Representations. A Dual Coding Approach, New York: Oxford University Press.
Peck, J., and Childers, T. L. (2003a), “Individual Differences in Haptic Information Processing: The “Need for Touch” Scale,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 430-443.
Peck, J., and Childers, T. L. (2003b), “To Have and to Hold: The Influence of Haptic Information on Product Judgments,” Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 35-48.
Peck, J., and Childers, T. L. (2006), “If I Touch It I Have to Have It: Individual and Environmental Influences on Impulse Purchasing,” Journal of Business Research, 59(6), 765-769.
Peck, J., and Wiggins, J. J. (2006), “It Just Feels Good: Consumers’ Affective Response to Touch and Its Influence on Attitudes and Behavior,” Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 56-69.
Peck, J., and Barger, V.A. (2008), “In Search of a Surrogate for Touch: The Effect of Haptic Imagery on Psychological Ownership and Object Valuation,” in A. L. McGill and S. Shavitt (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, 36, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, 127-130.
Peck, J., and Childers, T. L. (2008), “If it Tastes, Smells, Sounds, and Feels like a Duck, Then It Must Be a …: Effects of Sensory Factors on Consumer Behaviors,” In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr, and F. R. Kardes (Eds), Handbook of Consumer Psychology, New York: Psychology Press, 193-219.
Peck, J., and Shu S. (2009), “The Effect of Mere Touch on Perceived Ownership,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 434-447.
Pieters, R., and Warlop, L. (1999), “Visual Attention during Brand Choice: The Impact of Time Pressure and Task Motivation,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 16(1), 1-16.
Point of Purchase Advertising Institute. (1995), The 1995 POPAI Consumer Buying Habits Study, Englewood, NJ: Author.
Porac, C., and Coren, S. (1976), “The Dominant Eye,” Psychological Bulletin, 83(5), 880-897.
Posner, M. I., Nissen, M. J., and Klein, R. M. (1976), “Visual Dominance: An Information-Processing Account of Its Origins and Significant,” Psychological Review, 83(2), 157-171.
Puffer, E. D. (1903), “Studies in Symmetry,” Psychological Monograph, 4(1), 467-539.
Raghubir, P., and Krishna, A. (1996), “As the Crow Flies: Bias in Consumers’ Map-Based Distance Judgment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23(1), 26-39.
Raghubir, P., and Krishna, A. (1999), “Vital Dimensions in Volume Perception: Can the Eye Fool the Stomach?” Journal of Marketing Research, 36(6), 313-326.
Raghubir, P., and Greenleaf, E. A. (2006), “Ratios in Proportion: What Should the Shape of the Package Be?” Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 95-107.
Russo, J. E., Staelin, R., Nolan, C. A., Russel, G. J., and Metcalf, B. L. (1986), “Nutrition Information in the Supermarket,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1), 48-70.
Scott, R. B., and Sumner, F. C. (1949), “Eyedness as Affecting Results Obtained with the Howard and Dolman Depth Perception Apparatus,” Journal of Psychology, 27, 479-482.
Scott, M. L., Nowlis, S. M., Mandel, N., and Morales, A. C. (2008), “The Effects of Reduced Food Size and Package Size on the Consumption Behavior of Restrained and Unrestrained Eaters,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 391-405.
Sloman, S. A. (1996), “The empirical case for two systems of reasoning,” Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3-22.
Spangenberg, E. R., Sprott, D. E., Grohmann, B., and Tracy, D. L. (2006), “Gender-Congruent Ambient Scent Influences on an Approach and Avoidance Behaviors in a Retail Store,” Journal of Business Research, 59(12), 1281-1287.
Stevens, J. C., and Patterson, M. Q. (1995), “Dimensions of Spatial Acuity in the Touch Sense: Changes over the Life Span,” Somatosensory and Motor Research, 12(1), 29-47.
Thornbury, J. M., and Mistretta, C. M. (1981), “Tactile Sensitivity as a Function of Age,” Journal of Gerontology, 36(1),34-39.
Underwood, R. L., and Ozanne, J. L. (1998), ”Is Your Package An Effective Communicator? A Normative Framework for Increasing the Communicative Competence of Packaging,” Journal of Marketing Communication, 4(4), 207-220.
Underwood, R. L., and Klein, N. M. (2001), “Packaging Communication: Attentional Effects of Product Imagery,” Journal of Product and Brand Management, 10(7), 403-422.
Underwood, R. L., and Klein, N. M. (2002), “Packages Are Brand Communication: Effects of Product Pictures on Consumer Responses to the Package and Brand,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(4), 58-68.
Unnava, H. R., Agarwal, S., and Haugtvedt, C. P. (1996), “Interactive Wffects of Presentation Modality and Message-Generated Imagery on Recall of Advertising Information.” Journal of Consumer Research, 23(1), 81-88.
Valenzuela, A., and Raghubir, P. (2009), “Position Based Schemas: The Center-Stage Effect,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(2), 185-196.
Wansink, B. (1996), “Can Package Size Accelerate Usage Volume?” Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 1-14.
Wansink, B., and Van Ittersum, K. (2003), “Bottoms Up! The Influence of Elongation on Pouring and Consumption Volume, ”Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 455-463.
Whitaker, T. A., Franklin, C. S., and Newell, F. N. (2008),”Vision and Touch: Independent or Integrated Systems for the Perception of Texture,” Brain Research, 1242, 59-72.
Zampini, M., and Spence, C. (2004), “The Role of Auditory Cues in Modulating the Perceived Crispness and Staleness of Potato Chips,” Journal of Sensory Studies, 19(5), 347-363.
Zeithaml, V. (1988), “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence,” Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22.