 |
|
|
|
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：30 、訪客IP：3.144.228.149
姓名 沈聰明(Chung-Ming Shen) 查詢紙本館藏 畢業系所 企業管理學系在職專班 論文名稱 組合商品的定價模式對消費者的滿意度與價值知覺
(The Effect of Bundle Product Price Framing on Satisfaction and Perceived Value)相關論文 檔案 [Endnote RIS 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) 本研究認為組合商品定價模式和其商品組成份子差異與否會造成消費者滿意感受與價值知覺的差異。本篇研究有二十個研究假設，以兩個實驗設計分別檢驗服務組合商品和實質組合商品。
實驗一的目的是檢定服務組合商品的定價模式和商品組成份子差異與否對消費者滿意度與價值知覺的關聯。透過x 6（組合商品定價模式） x2（商品組成份子的差異與否）x2（受測者的社會價值導向）x2（受測者的性別）以進行研究分析。
消費者在服務組合商品定價模式的滿意感受和價值知覺的分析結果為：
1、 服務組合商品的定價方式會造成消費者的滿意感受的差別。六種定價模式中，免費贈送二：以特定金額購買較低價值商品，免費獲贈價值較高商品的組合商品定價模式(Freebie 2)能給消費者最高的滿意度。
2、 服務組合商品的定價方式對消費者的個人主觀認定與對賣給陌生人最低可接受的價差價值知覺有影響。六種定價模式中免費贈送二：以特定金額購買較低價值商品，免費獲贈價值較高商品的組合商品定價模式(Freebie 2)能給消費者最高的價值知覺。
社會價值導向對在服務組合商品的滿意感受和價值知覺的分析結果為：
1、 社會價值導向會造成消費者服務組合商品的滿意感受的差別。自私自利型社會價值導向者的滿意度較高。
2、 當消費者為正向消費心情時，社會價值導向會對消費者對服務組合商品的滿意感受的差別。自私自利型社會價值導向者的滿意度較高。
服務組合商品組成份子差異與否對組合商品的滿意感受和價值知覺分析結果為：
1、 服務組合商品組成份子差異與否會造成消費者的滿意感受的差別。商品組成份子差異低者（即其商品組成份子為相同者）會造成較高的消費者滿意度。
2、 當消費者為正向消費心情時，服務組合商品組成份子差異與否會造成消費者滿意感受的差別。商品組成份子差異低者（即其商品組成份子為相同者）會造成較高的消費者滿意度。
3、 當消費者為負向消費心情時，服務組合商品組成份子差異與否會造成消費者的滿意感受的差別。商品組成份子差異低者（即其商品組成份子為相同者）消費者的滿意度較高。
消費者的性別對服務組合商品的滿意感受和價值知覺的分析結果為：
1、 消費者的性別對服務組合商品的滿意感受會造成影響。男性的滿意度較高。
2、 當消費者為正向消費心情時，消費者的性別會造成對服務組合商品滿意感受的差別。男性的滿意度較高。
3、 當消費者為負向消費心情時，消費者的性別會造成對服務組合商品滿意感受的差別。男性的滿意度較高。
4、 消費者的性別會造成對服務組合商品上個人價值知覺的影響。女性的價值知覺較高。
5、 消費者的性別會造成服務組合商品上對朋友最低可接受售價的價值知覺影響。女性的價值知覺較高。
6、 消費者的性別會造成服務組合商品上對陌生人最低可接受售價的價值知覺影響。女性的價值知覺較高。
7、 消費者的性別會造成服務組合商品上對朋友最低可接受價格與對陌生人最低可接受的售價價差的價值知覺影響。女性的價值知覺較高。
以性別、年齡、社會價值導向、職業與定價方式和組合商品組成份子作應變數的交互作用檢驗獲得的結果為：
1、 組合商品定價方式與性別對應變數的交互作用部份成立。
2、 組合商品定價方式與年齡對應變數的交互作用部份成立。
3、 組合商品定價方式與職業對應變數的交互作用部份成立。
4、 組合商品組成份子與性別對應變數的交互作用部份成立。
5、 組合商品組成份子與年齡對應變數的交互作用部份成立。
6、 組合商品組成份子與社會價值導向對應變數的交互作用部份成立。
7、 組合商品組成份子與職業對應變數的交互作用部份成立。
實驗二的目的在於檢定實質組合商品的定價模式和組合商品組成份子差異與消費者滿意感受與價值知覺的關聯。
消費者在實質組合商品定價模式的滿意感受和價值知覺分析的結果為：
1、 實質組合商品的定價模式與個人價值知覺和對陌生人最低可接受售價價差的價值知覺影響是顯著的。免費贈送二：以特定金額購買較低價值商品，免費獲贈價值較高商品的組合商品定價模式(Freebie 2)能給消費者最高的價值知覺差異。
社會價值導向對在實質組合商品的滿意感受和價值知覺的分析結果為：
1、 當消費者為正向消費心情時，社會價值導向會造成對實質組合商品滿意感受的差別。自私自利者感受的滿意度較高。
2、 當消費者為負向消費心情時，社會價值導向會造成對實質組合商品滿意感受的差別。自私自利者感受的滿意度較高。
實質組合商品組成份子差異與否對組合商品的滿意感受和價值知覺分析結果為：
1、 實質組合商品組成份子差異與否會造成對朋友最低可接受售價價差的價值知覺影響。商品組成份子差異低者（即其商品組成份子為相同者）會造成消費者較高的價值知覺。
2、 組合商品組成份子差異與否會對個人價值知覺和對朋友最低可接受售價價差的價值知覺造成影響。商品組成份子差異低者（即其商品組成份子為相同者）的會造成消費者較高的價值知覺。
消費者的性別對實質組合商品的滿意感受和價值知覺的分析結果為：
1、 消費者的性別對實質組合商品的滿意度感受有差別。男性消費者平均滿意水準較高。
2、 消費者的性別在實質組合商品上會造成對陌生人最低可接受售價的價值知覺影響。女性消費者的價值知覺較高。
以性別、年齡、社會價值導向、職業與定價方式和組合商品組成份子作應變數的交互作用檢驗的結果為：
1、 組合商品定價方式與性別對應變數的交互作用部份成立。
2、 組合商品定價方式與年齡對應變數的交互作用部份成立。摘要(英) In this paper, we investigated if price framing and heterogeneity make difference to consumer’s satisfaction and perceived value on bundle product. We examined twenty hypotheses on two experimental designs, namely service bundle product and physical bundle product.
In this research, we presumed that a group of consumers has bought bundle products at a given price and have used the product partially. Looking back, he has some reactions to the package. We want to measure his reactions to make some conclusions related to our study objectives – namely how should a bundle product be priced and how should it be packaged? We want to know if he is satisfied with the bundle product for the price that he bought and for the product component that it contains. Does the value that he perceived of the package before he bought actually diminish or enhance?
Study One was designed to evaluate the impacts of service bundle product price framing and heterogeneity on consumer’s satisfaction and perceived value.
The effects of service bundle product on price framing to consumer’s satisfaction and perceived value are as followed:
1. Price framing should have effect on consumer’s satisfaction. Freebie 2, consumers buy one low value product at a single price and get other high value goods for free, it had provided consumers the highest satisfaction in the six price framings.
2. Price framing should have effect on the minimum offer to others. Freebie 2 had provided the biggest consumer’s perceived value in the six price framings.
The effects of social value orientation on service bundle product to consumer’s satisfaction and perceived value are as followed:
1. Social value orientation should have effect on consumer’s satisfaction. The selfish had reported higher satisfaction than the pro-social.
2. When consumer is in the condition of positive emotion, social value orientation should have effect on consumer’s satisfaction. The selfish had reported higher satisfaction than the pro-social.
The impacts of heterogeneity on service bundle product to consumer’s satisfaction and perceived value are as followed:
1. Heterogeneity should have effect on consumer’s satisfaction. The consumers had reported higher satisfaction on the low heterogeneity bundle product than the high heterogeneity.
2. When consumer in the condition of positive emotion, heterogeneity should have effect on consumer’s satisfaction. The consumers had reported higher satisfaction on the low heterogeneity bundle product than the high heterogeneity.
3. When consumer in the condition of negative emotion, heterogeneity should have effect on consumer’s satisfaction. The consumers had reported higher satisfaction on the low heterogeneity bundle product than the high heterogeneity.
The impacts of gender on service bundle product to consumer’s satisfaction and perceived value are as followed:
1. Gender should have effect on consumer’s satisfaction in all three emotions: in the condition of neutral, positive, and negative emotions. The male consumers had reported higher satisfaction than the female.
2. Gender should have effect on consumer’s perceived value in varied relationships: personal evaluation, minimum offer to a friend, and minimum offer to others. The female consumers had replied higher perceived value than the male in those three criterions.
3. Gender should have effect on consumer’s perceived value difference between minimum offer to a friend and minimum offer to others. The female consumers had replied higher perceived value difference than the male.
The study then examined if individual variables such as gender, age, social value orientation, and profession have interaction with price framing and heterogeneity on dependent variables. The major results are as followed:
1. Price framing and gender should have interaction on dependent variables is partially supported.
2. Price framing and age have interaction on dependent variables is partially supported.
3. Price framing and profession have interaction on dependent variables is partially supported.
4. Heterogeneity and gender have interaction on dependent variables is partially supported.
5. Heterogeneity and age have interaction on dependent variables is partially supported.
6. Heterogeneity and social value orientation have interaction on dependent variables is partially supported.
7. Heterogeneity and profession have interaction on dependent variables is partially supported
Study Two had examined the effects of physical bundle product on price framing and heterogeneity to consumer’s satisfaction and perceived value.
The effect of physical bundle product on price framing to consumer’s satisfaction and perceived value is: price framing should have effect on perceived value difference between personal evaluation and minimum offer to others. Freebie 2 had reported the highest cognition to the consumers on perceived value difference by its mean value.
The effects of social value orientation on physical bundle product to consumer’s satisfaction and perceived value are as followed:
1. When consumer is in the condition of positive emotion, social value orientation should effect on consumer’s satisfaction. The selfish had replied higher satisfaction by the mean value.
2. When consumer is in the condition of negative emotion, social value orientation should have effect on consumer’s satisfaction. The selfish had replied higher satisfaction by the mean value.
The impacts of heterogeneity on physical bundle product to consumer’s satisfaction and perceived value are as followed:
1. Heterogeneity should have effect on minimum offer to a friend. The low heterogeneity had been reported with bigger perceived value than the high heterogeneity by the mean value.
2. Heterogeneity should have effect on perceived value difference between personal evaluation and minimum offer to a friend. The low heterogeneity had reported with bigger perceived value then the high heterogeneity by the mean value.
The impacts of gender effect on physical bundle product to consumer’s satisfaction and perceived value are as followed:
1. Gender should have effect on consumer’s satisfaction. The male consumers had replied higher satisfaction than the female by the mean value.
2. Gender should have effect on minimum offer to others. The female consumers had replied higher perceived value than the male by the mean value.
When we reviewed the interaction relationships, it was found that price framing have effect on physical bundle product only. Major findings are as followed:
1. Price framing and gender have interaction on dependent variables is partially supported.
2. Price framing and age have interaction on dependent variables is partially supported.
We believe when people overall review service bundle product, they care for both price framing and heterogeneity. When the consumers evaluate physical bundle product in total, they care more for price framing, however. The product composition had been pre-configured by the consumers before or in the moment when they take the purchase decision.關鍵字(中) ★ 自私自利者
★ 社會價值導向
★ 組合商品的定價模式
★ 組合商品組成份子的差異與否
★ 正負向消費心情
★ 消費者滿意度
★ 價值知覺
★ 利他主義者關鍵字(英) ★ price framing
★ pro-social
★ positive emotion
★ negative emotion
★ social value orientation
★ perceived value
★ selfish
★ heterogeneity論文目次 Chapter 1 Introduction……………………………….………........………...1
1.1Background Information………………..…….…….………………..……...1
1.2Purpose of Research ……………………………….……………………......1
Chapter 2 Literature Review……………………………………….........…..3
2.1 Bundle Product….…………………………….……….…..…….......…..3
2.2 Consumer’s Satisfaction …….…………..…………….…....…...……3
2.3 Price Framing…………………......…………..…………………………...4
2.4 Positive and Negative Emotion…………………………………….………..6
2.5 Evaluation Difference in Distinct Relationship….………….…..……6
2.6 Social Value Orientation…………..……….……………...………......7
2.7Heterogeneity...…...………….……………………….…...……...………8
Chapter 3 Research Methodology……………….................…………….11
3.1 Research Design………………………………….........................11
3.2 Research Framework…......…………………………………….…………….16
3.3 Research Subjects……………………………………….. ……..…..………17
3.4 Research Procedure and Measurement …………...……………..…………18
Chapter 4 Results and Analysis……………………………………..........…19
4.1 The Survey Statistics ……..……………………….……...……..……..19
4.2 Reliability and Item Analysis ………….…………………...…........21
4.3 Social Value Orientation…………………………..…………………......21
4.4 Study One Analysis……………..…………………………..…...…….....22
4.4.1 One Way ANOVA Analysis…..…………………………….……….........22
4.4.2 Analysis with Moderate Variables …...…………………...….......40
4.5 Study Two Analysis……………..………..………………….….……......54
4.5.1 One Way ANOVA Analysis…..……………………………….…….........54
4.5.2 Analysis with Moderate Variables …...………………………........71
Chapter 5 General Discussion…………………….…………..….…..........79
5.1 Conclusion……………………………………...……….....…………………79
5.2 Implications for Business Management………………….….………...….81
5.3 Limitations and Research Extensions………………..…...………..…..82
Reference…………………………………………………………..….............83
Questionnaire.........................................................86參考文獻 1. Adams, William J. and Janet L. Yellen (1976), “Commodity Bundling and Burden of Monopoly”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 90, pp. 475 – 498.
2. Aggarwal, Pankaj and Law, Sharmistha (2005), “Role of Relationship Norms in Processing Brand Information”, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 32, pp. 453-464.
3. De Dreu C.K.W and Boles, T.L. (1998), “Share and Share Alike or Winner Take all? The Influence of Social Value Orientation upon Choice and Recall of Negotiation Heuristics”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol.76, pp. 253-276.
4. De Dreu C.K.W and McCusker, C (1997), “Gain-Loss Framings and Cooperation in Two-Person Social Dilemmas: A Transformational Analysis”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol.72, pp. 1093 -1106.
5. De Dreu C K.W and Van Kleff Gerben A. (2002), “Social Value Orientation and Impression Formation: A Test of Two Competing Hypotheses about Information Search in Negotiation”, The International Journal of Conflict Management, vol. 13, pp. 59-77.
6. Farrell, J., Monroe, H.K., and Saloner, G.(1998), “The vertical organization of industry: systems competition versus components competition”, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, pp. 143-182.
7. Fisher, Robert J., and Dube Laurette (2005), “Gender Differences in Responses to Emotional Advertising: A Social Desirability Perspective”, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 31, pp. 850-858.
8. Guiltinan, Joseph P. (1987), “The Price Bundling of Services: A Normative Framing work”, Journal of Marketing, vol.51, pp. 74-85.
9. Gaudreau, Partick, Sanchez, Xavier, and Blondin, Jean-Pierre (2006), “Positive and Negative Emotion States in a Performance-Related Setting. Testing the Factorial Structure of the PANAS across Two Samples of French-Canadian Participants”, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, vol. 22 pp. 240-249.
10. Hansen, Ward and R. Kipp Martin (1990), “Optimal Bundle Price”, Management Science, vol.36, No. 2 .Feb., pp. 155-174.
11. Harlam, Bari A. Krishna, Aradhna, Lehmann, Donald R., and Mela Carl (1995), “Impact of Bundle Type, Price framing and Familiarity on Purchase Intention for the Bundle”, Journal of Business Research, vol.33, pp. 57-66.
12. Janiszewski, Chris and Cunha JR, Marcus (2004), “The Influence of Price Discount Framing on the Evaluation of a Product Bundle”, Journal of Consumer Research, vol.30. pp. 534-546.
13. Jeuland, Abel (1984), “Comments on ‘Gaussian Demand and Commodity Bundling’”, The Journal of Business, Jan., vol. 57, pg S231.
14. Koppalle, Praveen K, Krishna, Aradhna, and Assuncao, Joao L, (1999), “The Role of Market Expansion on Equilibrium Bundling Strategies”, Managerial and Decision Economics, vol. 20, pp. 265-377.
15. Liao, Chung-Hsiung and Tauman, Yair (2002), “The role of bundling in price competition”, International Journal of Industrial Organization, vol. 20, pp. 365-389.
16. Lin, Hung Ming (2005), “The Role of Social Value Orientation in the Endowment Effect”, National Central University unpublished PhD thesis.
17. Long Jr., and John B (1984), “Comments on “Gaussian Demand and Commodity Bundling”, The Journal of Business, Jan, vol. 57 pg S235.
18. Manelli, Aljandro M. and Vincent, Daniel R., (2006), “Bundling as an Optimal selling mechanism for a multiple-good monopolist”, Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 127, pp.1-35.
19. McAfee, R.P., McMillan, J., and Whinston, M.D (1989), “Multi-product monopoly, commodity bundling, and correlation of value”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, pp.371-383.
20. McClave, Benson, and Sincich (2005), “Statistics for Business and Economics Ninth Edition” Pearson Prentice Hall, pp.554-641.
21. Mccormick, Robert E., Shughart II, William F, and Tollison Robert D. (2006), “A Theory of Commodity Bundling in Final Product Markets: Professor Hirshleifer Meets Professor Becker”, International Review of Law and Economics, vol. 26, pp 162 -179.
22. Newman, Joseph W (1977), “Consumer External Search: Amount and Determinants, Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior”, A.G. Woodside, et al. Eds. New York: North Holland Publishing Company, pp.79-94.
23. Roehm, J.R. Harper A. and Roehm, L. Michelle (2005), “Re-Inquiry: Revisiting the Effect of Positive Mood on Variety Seeking”, Journal of Consumer Research vol.32. September, pp. 330 – 337.
24. Schmalensee, Richard (1984), “Price of bundle products – Gaussian Demand and Commodity Bundling”, The Journal of Business, Jan, pg 5211.
25. Soman, Dilip and Gourville, John T (2001), “Transaction Decoupling: How Price Bundling Emotions the Decision to Consume”, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 38, pp.30-44.
26. Stinger, George (1963), “A note on block booking”. Supreme Court Review United States v. Lowe’s, Inc., pp 152-157.
27. Telser, L.G. (1979), “A Theory of Monopoly of Complementary Portion”, The Journal of Business, vol. 52, pp 211-230.
28. Thorelli, Hans B. and Sarah V. Thorelli (1997), “Consumer Information Systems and Consumer Policy”. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.
29. Venkatesh, R. and Vijay Mahajan (1993) “A Probabilistic Approach to Price a Bundle of Products and Services,” Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 30 Nov., pp 1039-1061.
30. Watson, David, Clark, and Lee Anna (1998) “Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Emotion: The PANAS Scales”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 54, pp 1063-1070.
31. Yadav Manjit S and Monroe, Kent B (1993) “How Buyers Perceive Savings in a Bundle Price: An Examination of a Bundle’s Transaction Value”, Journal of Marketing Research Vol. XXX, pp. 350-358.
32. Yadav, Manjit S. (1994), “How Buyers Evaluate Bundle products: A model of Anchoring and Adjustment”, Journal of Consumer Research Vol. 21, pp. 342-353.
33. Zeithaml, Valarie, A. Parasuraman, and Leonard L. Berry (1985), “Problems and Strategies in Services Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, vol. 49, pp.33-46.
34. 林建煌著，2002年2月初版，消費者行為，勝智文化事業有限公司
35. 唐麗英、王春和著，2005年3月初版二刷，Statistica 6.0版與基礎統計分析，儒林圖書公司
36. 陳順宇著，2005年6月四版，多變量分析，華泰文化
37. 陳順宇、鄭碧娥著，1999年3月初版，Statistica手冊 (II)工業統計，華泰文化
38. 陳順宇、鄭碧娥著，2004年四月出版，基礎統計學，華泰文化指導教授 林建煌(C. H. Lin) 審核日期 2007-1-15 推文 plurk
funp
live
udn
HD
myshare
netvibes
friend
youpush
delicious
baidu
網路書籤 Google bookmarks
del.icio.us
hemidemi
facebook
twitter
google
reddit