消費者知識及屬性平衡對不完全資訊下消費者選擇之影響

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：29

、訪客IP：3.12.34.150

姓名

吳佩勳(Pei-Hsun Wu) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

企業管理學系

論文名稱

消費者知識及屬性平衡對不完全資訊下消費者選擇之影響
(The Impacts of Consumer Knowledge and Attribute Balance on Consumer Choice under Incomplete Information)

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 ( 永不開放)

摘要(中)

消費者通常在不完全資訊的情況下作選擇，過去的研究論證在不完全資訊的情況下，消費者將對選項間的共同屬性(定義為選擇集中的所有選項均有已知屬性值的特定屬性)賦予較高的權重，基於此觀念，Kivetz 及 Simonson (2000)論證在不完全資訊下將觀察到偏好非遞移 (preference intransitivity) 的現象 (A>B 且 B>C，但 A 實驗一論證在不完全資訊下，消費者對於選擇集中選項的偏好係消費者知識的函數，基於高知識消費者傾向採用以品牌為基礎的處理方式，而低知識消費者傾向採用以屬性為基礎的處理方式的推論。高知識的消費者將選擇一個已知屬性值在市場屬性水準範圍內績效表現較平均的選項(相對於一個已知屬性值表現較佳、另一個表現較差的選項)，即使該選項在共同屬性的績效表現較差；而低知識的消費者則傾向選擇共同屬性表現較佳的選項。實驗二則導入方案聯合及分離兩種不同的評估模式，論證高知識消費者採用兩種評估模式對於選項偏好的差異將小於低知識的消費者。實驗三探討消費者知識水準及具有共同屬性值的類別參考資訊對於在不完全資訊下選擇不作選擇選項比例的交互影響，我們論證低知識消費者在面對類別參考選項的共同屬性值優於及劣於選擇集中選項的共同屬性值的兩種情況下，選擇不作選擇選項比例的差異將大於高知識消費者。實驗四則導入尺度等價的觀念，將所有屬性的市場屬性水準範圍標準化成相同的尺度範圍，藉以將消費者對於市場屬性水準範圍的知識提昇到同一水準，論證當選擇集中不存在屬性平衡選項時，消費者對於選項的偏好是由共同屬性所決定，然而當選擇集中存在屬性平衡選項時，消費者將偏愛屬性平衡選項，即使該選項在共同屬性上的表現較差。實驗五則更進一步探討屬性平衡選項的存在對於是否能夠觀察到偏好非遞移現象的影響，我們論證當選擇集中的三個方案中均不存在屬性平衡選項時，將可以觀察到偏好非遞移的現象，但當三個方案中有一個方案為屬性平衡選項時，偏好非遞移的現象將不會被觀察到，且屬性平衡選項將支配選擇集中的其他選項，目前的研究並根據研究結果進行理論及實務意涵的討論。

摘要(英)

Consumers often need to make choices based on incomplete information. Previous research has argued that consumers will place more weights on the common attribute (defined as the specific attribute values of all options are known) between options in the case of incomplete information. Kivetz and Simonson (2000) demonstrated that a common dimension may lead to intransitive preference (A>B, B>C, but A Study 1 demonstrated that consumer preference toward the options in a choice set is a function of consumer knowledge. Base on the inferences to a high-knowledge consumer will more possibly to adopt brand-based processing, whereas a low-knowledge consumer will more possibly to adopt attribute-based processing. A high-knowledge consumer would choose an option whose known attribute performance is fairly average in the attribute range in the marketplace (when compared to an option with mixed known attribute values), even when that the option performance in common attribute is relatively poor. A low-knowledge consumer, on the other hand, would tend to choose an option that has better performance in the common attribute. Study 2 introduced two different evaluation modes of joint evaluation and separate evaluation, demonstrated that the preference differences in high-knowledge consumers’ application of both joint (choose from two simultaneously presented options) and separate (present and evaluate one option one by one) evaluation modes are smaller than those in low-knowledge consumers. Study 3 explored the interaction effect of consumer knowledge and category reference with common attribute value on choice deferral under incomplete information, demonstrated that the proportional differences among low-knowledge consumers in choosing no-choice option when facing with two conditions of either common attribute of the category reference being better or worse than the common attribute of the options in a choice set will be greater than those in high-knowledge consumers. Furthermore, we introduced the concept of scale equivalence in Study 4 and 5. Study 4 demonstrated that when attribute balance is unavailable in both options, consumers will prefer the option whose common attribute performs better; in contrast, when attribute-balance is available in one option, consumers will prefer the option with attribute-balance even the common attribute performs worse. Study 5 explored the presence of attribute balance would prevent consumers from exhibiting preference intransitivity. We demonstrated that when attribute balance is unavailable in the three options, intransitivity will be observed. In contrast, when any one of the three options includes an attribute balance, intransitivity will not be observed and the attribute balance option will dominate the other options in the choice set. The present research also conducted discussions regarding theoretical and practical implications based on the research results.

關鍵字(中)

★ 選擇
★ 不完全資訊
★ 消費者知識
★ 屬性平衡

關鍵字(英)

★ Choice
★ Incomplete Information
★ Consumer Knowledge
★ Attribute Balance

論文目次

ABSTRACT i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 MOTIVATION 1
1.2 RESEARCH OVERVIEW 4
1.3 DISSERTATION STRUCTURE 8
CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES 9
2.1 CONSUMER CHOICE UNDER INCOMPLETE INFORMATION 9
2.2 EFFECT OF CONSUMER KNOWLEDGE 13
2.3 EFFECT OF CONSUMER KNOWLEDGE ACROSS JOINT VERSUS SEPARATE EVALUATIONS 18
2.4 INTERACTION EFFECT OF CONSUMER KNOWLEDGE AND CATEGORY REFERENCE ON DEFERRAL 23
2.5 EFFECT OF ATTRIBUTE BALANCE 28
2.6 EFFECT OF ATTRIBUTE BALANCE ON PREFERENCE INTRANSITIVITY 32
CHAPTER 3 STUDY 1: EFFECT OF CONSUMER KNOWLEDGE 34
3.1 METHODOLOGY 34
3.2 RESULTS 36
CHAPTER 4 STUDY 2: EFFECT OF CONSUMER KNOWLEDGE ACROSS JOINT VERSUS SEPARATE EVALUATIONS 39
4.1 METHDOLOGY 39
4.2 RESULTS 41
CHAPTER 5 STUDY 3: INTERACTION EFFECT OF CONSUMER KNOWLEDGE AND CATEGORY REFERENCE ON DEFERRAL 44
5.1 METHODOLOGY 44
5.2 RESULTS 47
CHAPTER 6 STUDY 4: EFFECT OF ATTRIBUTE BALANCE 49
6.1 METHODOLOGY 49
6.2 RESULTS 51
CHAPTER 7 STUDY 5: EFFECT OF ATTRIBUTE BALANCE ON PREFERENCE INTRANSITIVITY 53
7.1 METHODOLOGY 53
7.2 RESULTS 54
CHAPTER 8 GENERAL DISCUSSIONS 56
8.1 SUMMARY 56
8.2 THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 57
8.3 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS 58
8.4 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH 60
REFERENCES 61
APPENDIX A 69
TABLE A1 ATTRIBUTES AND ATTRIBUTE VALUES OF　PRODUCTS USED IN STUDY 1 69
TABLE A2 ATTRIBUTES AND ATTRIBUTE VALUES OF PRODUCTS USED IN STUDY 2 70
TABLE A3 ATTRIBUTES AND ATTRIBUTE VALUES OF PRODUCTS USED IN STUDY 3 71
TABLE A4 ATTRIBUTES AND ATTRIBUTE RATINGS OF PRODUCTS USED IN STUDY 4 73
TABLE A5 ATTRIBUTES AND ATTRIBUTE RATINGS OF PRODUCTS USED IN STUDY 5 74
APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRES OF STUDY 1 75
APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRES OF STUDY 2 81
APPENDIX D QUESTIONNAIRES OF STUDY 3 84
APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRES OF STUDY 4 88
APPENDIX F QUESTIONNAIRES OF STUDY 5 90

參考文獻

Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (March), 411-54.
Assar, Amardeep and Dipankar Chakravarti (1984), “Attribute Range Knowledge: Effects on Consumers’ Evaluation of Brand-Attribute Information and Search Patterns in Choice,” in Scientific methods in marketing, eds. Russell W. Belk et al., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 62-67.
Baylis, Gordon C. and Jon Driver (1992), “Visual Parsing and Response Competition: The Effect of Grouping Factors,” Perception and Psychophysics, 51 (2), 145-63.
Bazerman, Max H., George F. Loewenstein, and Sally Blount White (1992), “Reversals of Preference in Allocation Decisions: Judging an Alternative versus Choosing among Alternatives,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 37 (June), 220-41.
Bazerman, Max H., Holly A. Schroth, Pri Pradhan Shah, Kristina A. Diekmann, and Ann E. Tenbrunsel (1994), “The Inconsistent Role of Comparison Others and Procedural Justice in Reactions to Hypothetical Job Descriptions: Implications for Job Acceptance Decisions,” Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 60 (December), 326-52.
Bazerman, Max H., Don A. Moore, Ann E. Tenbrunsel, Kimberly A. Wade-Benzoni, and Sally Blount (1999), “Explaining How Preferences Change Across Joint versus Separate Evaluation,” Journal of Economic Behavior &Organization, 39 (May), 41-58.
Bell, David R. and Randolph E. Bucklin (1999), “The Role of Internal Reference Points in the Category Purchase Decision,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (September), 128–43.
Bettman, James R. and Pradeep Kakkar (1977), “Effects of Information Presentation Format on Consumer Information Acquisition Strategies,” Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (March), 233-40.
Bettman, James R. and C. Whan Park (1980), “Effects of Prior Knowledgeand Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (December), 234–48.
Bettman, James R. and Mita Sujan (1987), “Effects of Framing on Evaluation of Comparable and Noncomparable Alternatives by Expert and Novice Consumers,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (September), 141-54.
Biswas, Abhijit and Daniel L. Sherrell (1993), “The Influence of Product Knowledge and Brand Name on Internal Price Standards and Confidence,” Psychology and Marketing, 10 (January / February), 31-46.
Blount, Sally and Max H. Bazerman (1996), “The Inconsistent Evaluation of Absolute versus Comparative Payoffs in Labor Supply and Bargaining,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 30 (August), 227-40.
Brucks, Merrie (1985), “The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (June), 1-16.
Chernev, Alexander (2004), “Extremeness Aversion and Attribute-Balance Effects in Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (September), 249-63.
Chernev, Alexander (2005), “Context Effects without a Context: Attribute Balance as a Reason for Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (September), 213-23.
Cooke, Alan D. J. and Barbara A. Mellers (1995), “Attribute Range and Response Range: Limits of Compatibility in Multiattribute Judgement,” Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 63 (August), 187-94.
Dhar, Ravi, Stephen M. Nowlis, and Steven J. Sherman (2000), “Trying Hard or Hardly Trying: An Analysis of Context Effects in Choice,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9 (4), 189-200.
Dhar, Ravi and Itamar Simonson (2003), “The Effect of Forced Choice on Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (May), 146-60.
Dick, Alan, Dipankar Chakravarti, and Gabriel Biehal (1990), “Memory-Based Inferences During Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (June), 82-93.
Eagle, Thomas C. (1984), “Parameter Stability in Disaggregate Retail Choice Models: Experimental Evidence,” Journal of Retailing, 60 (1), 101-23.
Ford, Gary T. and Ruth Ann Smith (1987), “Inferential Beliefs in Consumer Evaluations: An Assessment of Alternative Processing Strategies,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (December), 363-71.
Gardial, Sarah and Gabriel Biehal (1987), “Measuring Consumers’ Inferential Processing in Choice,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, eds. Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 101-05.
Haines Jr., George H. and Brian T. Ratchford (1987), “A Theory of How Intransitive Consumers Make Decisions,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 8 (September), 273-98.
Hansen, Chris J. and George M. Zinkhan (1984), “When Do Consumers Infer Product Attribute Values?” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, ed. Thomas C. Kinnear, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 187-92.
Hsee, Christopher K. (1996), “The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives,” Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 67 (September), 247-57.
Hsee, Christopher K. (1998), “Less Is Better: When Low-Value Options Are Valued More Highly Than High-Value Options,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 107-21.
Huber, Joel and John McCann (1982), “The Impact of Inferential Beliefs on Product Evaluations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (August), 324-33.
Huber, Joel, John W. Payne, and Christopher Puto (1982), “Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (June), 90-98.
Huber, Joel and Christopher Puto (1983), “Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (June), 31-44.
Hutchinson, J. Wesley and Joseph W. Alba (1991), “Ignoring Irrelevant Information: Situational Determinants of Consumer Learning,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (December), 325-45.
Jacoby, Jacob, Robert W. Chestnut, and Karl C. Weigl, and William Fisher (1976), “Pre-Purchase Information Acquisition: Description of a Process Methodology, Research Paradigm, and Pilot Investigation,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4, ed. William D. Perreault, Atlanta: Association for Consumer Research, 306-14.
Johnson, Eric J. and J. Edward Russo (1984), “Product Familiarity and Learning New Information,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (June), 542-50.
Johnson, Richard D. and Irwin P. Levin (1985), “More than Meets the Eye: The Effect of Missing Information on Purchase Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (September), 169-77.
Johnson, Richard D. (1989), “Making Decisions with Incomplete Information: The First Complete Test of the Inference Model,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 16, ed. Thomas K. Srull, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 522-28.
Kalyanaram, Gurumurthy and Russell S. Winer (1995), “Empirical Generalizations from Reference Price Research,” Marketing Science, 14 (3), G161–G169.
Kivetz, Ran and Itamar Simonson (2000), “The Effects of Incomplete Information on Consumer Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (November), 427-48.
Kreps, David M. (1990), A Course in Microeconomic Theory, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lim, Jeen-Su, Richard W. Olshavsky, and John Kim (1988), “The Impact of Inference on Product Evaluations: Replication and Extension,” Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (August), 308-16.
Marks, Larry J. and Jerry C. Olson (1981), “Toward a Cognitive Structure Conceptualization of Product Familiarity,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, ed. Kent B. Monroe, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 145-50.
Mazis, Michael B. and Janice E. Adkinson (1976), “An Experimental Evaluation of a Proposed Corrective Advertising Remedy,” Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (May), 178-83.
Mellers, Barbara A. and Alan D. J. Cooke (1994), “Trade-offs Depend on Attribute Range,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20 (October), 1055-67.
Meyer, Robert J. (1981), “A Model of Multiattribute Judgments under Attribute Uncertainty and Informational Constraint,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (November), 428-41.
Meyer, Robert J. (1982), “A Descriptive Model of Consumer Information Search Behavior,” Marketing Science, 1 (1), 93-121.
Meyer, Robert J. and Thomas C. Eagle (1982), “Context-Induced Parameter Instability in a Disaggregate-Stochastic Model of Store Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (February), 62-71.
Moon, Junyean and Surinder Tikoo (1997), “Consumer Use of Available Information for Making Inferences about Missing Information,” Journal of Business Research, 39 (June), 135-46.
Ohler, Tobias, Aihong Le, Jordan Louviere, and Joffre Swait (2000), “Attribute Range Effects in Binary Response Tasks,” Marketing Letters, 11 (August), 249-60.
Park, C. Whan and V. Parker Lessig (1981), “Familiarity and its Impact on Consumer Decision Biases and Heuristics,” Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (September), 223-30.
Quinlan, Philip T. and Richard N. Wilton (1998), “Grouping by Proximity or Similarity? Competition between the Gestalt Principles in Vision,” Perception, 27 (4), 417-30.
van Raaij, W. Fred (1976), Consumer Choice Behavior: An Information-Processing Approach, Voorschoten, Netherlands: VAM.
Rao, Akshay R. and Kent B. Monroe (1988), “The Moderating Effect of Prior Knowledge on Cue Utilization in Product Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 253-64.
Rao, Akshay R. and Wanda A. Sieben (1992), “The Effect of Prior Knowledge on Price Acceptability and the Type of Information Examined,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (September), 256-70.
Ross Jr., William T. and Elizabeth H. Creyer (1992), “Making Inferences about Missing Information: The Effects of Existing Information,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (June), 14-25.
Russo, J. Edward and Eric J. Johnson (1980), “What Do Consumers Know About Familiar Products?” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, ed. Jerry C. Olson, San Francisco: Association for Consumer Research, 417-23.
Sanbonmatsu, David M., Frank R. Kardes, and Carol Sansone (1991), “Remembering Less and Inferring More: Effects of Time of Judgment on Inferences about Unknown Attributes,” Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 61 (October), 546-54.
Shafir, Eldar B., Daniel N. Osherson, and Edward E. Smith (1993), “The Advantage Model: A Comparative Theory of Evaluation and Choice under Risk,” Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 55 (August), 325-78.
Simmons, Carolyn J. and John G. Lynch, Jr. (1991), “Inference Effects Without Inference Making? Effects of Missing Information on Discounting and Use of Presented Information,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (March), 477-91.
Simonson, Itamar (1989), “Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (September), 158-74.
Simonson, Itamar and Amos Tversky (1992), “Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (August), 281-95.
Slovic, Paul and Douglas MacPhillamy (1974), “Dimensional Commensurability and Cue Utilization in Comparative Choice,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11 (April), 179-94.
Tversky, Amos (1969), “Intransitivity of Preferences,” Psychological Review, 76 (1), 31-48.
Wyer Jr., Robert S. (1974), Cognitive Organisation and Change: An Information Processing Approach, Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Yates, J. Frank, Carolyn M. Jagacinski, and Mark D. Faber (1978), “Evaluations of Partially Described Multiattribute Options,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21 (April), 240-51.
Zhang, Shi and Arthur B. Markman (1998), “Overcoming the Early Entrant Advantage: The Role of Alignable and Nonalignable Differences,” Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (November), 413-26.

指導教授

林建煌(Chien-Huang Lin)

審核日期

2006-5-14

推文