消費者對選購促銷下附屬產品願付價格的判斷：多定錨點的影響

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：63

、訪客IP：3.23.92.127

姓名

陳銘(Ming Chen) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

企業管理學系

論文名稱

消費者對選購促銷下附屬產品願付價格的判斷：多定錨點的影響
(Consumer’s Willingness to Pay for Supplementary Product in Conditional Promotion Package: The Effect of Multiple Anchors)

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)

在銷售中，提供不同價格的產品是公司用來促銷產品和吸引消費者的常用策略。通常的促銷策略是通過提供免費或打折產品（即附屬產品）來補充消費者所需購買的主要產品（即焦點產品）。
以前的一些研究認為，提供免費產品會降低產品的價值，並使消費者不願意在之後為此付費。根據Kamins，Folkes和Fedorikhin（2009）的研究，如果將任何一種產品以免費的方式捆綁銷售，那麼消費者就不願意在焦點產品或附屬產品單獨銷售時為其買單。Raghubir（2004）也認為，附屬產品的低價會影響消費者在促銷結束後對該產品的願付價格。如果消費者在之後單獨購買該附屬商品時，他們願意支付的價格會降低。然而，一些研究發現在促銷終止後，消費者對免費提供的附屬產品的願付價格會高於以低折扣價提供的附屬產品（Palmeira＆Srivastava，2013）。因此，鑒於之前就附屬產品不同的定價方式對消費者在促銷結束後再次購買該附屬產品的願付價格影響研究中存在矛盾的觀點以及對於產品互補性在選購促銷中影響的研究的有限性，本文旨在重點研究消費者如何在促銷結束之後單獨購買附屬產品時決定其的願付價格。本文通過5個實驗來闡釋本文的觀點。
實驗1的結果與Palmeira和Srivastava（2013）發現的結果類似，即當附屬產品以免費（vs. 折扣價格）的方式提供時，消費者在促銷結束之後單獨購買附屬產品時的願付價格更高。此外，我們還發現附屬產品的價格和消費者對附屬商品的內部參考價格是影響消費者願付價格的兩個獨立因素。更高（低）內部參考價格會導致消費者在促銷結束之後單獨購買附屬產品時有更高（低）願付價格。與此同時，無論附屬產品是以何種方式提供，內部參考價格都將成為消費者估算其在促銷結束之後單獨購買附屬產品時願付價格的主要依據。
和實驗1的結果類似，研究2同樣表明了內部參考價格對消費者估計支付意願的顯著影響。此外，結果顯示消費者對附屬商品的內部參考價格和焦點產品的價格是兩個獨立因素影響了他們的願付價格。更高（低）價格的焦點產品會導致消費者在促銷結束之後單獨購買附屬產品時會有更高（低）願付價格。
實驗3則為本文提出的多重錨定判斷理論提供了強有力的支援。實驗表明：如果附屬產品的促銷價格高（低）于消費者對附屬商品的內部參考價格，則消費者在促銷結束之後單獨購買附屬產品時的願付價格會增加（減少）。消費者使用他們對附屬商品的內部參考價格作為判斷外部參考價格（如附屬產品的促銷價格）是否是合理價格（即在促銷結束後能以該促銷價格單獨銷售）資訊的標準。
實驗4為本文所提出的多重錨定判斷理論提供了額外的依據。只有當原價被認為是合理的價格資訊時，附屬產品的原價才會影響消費者在促銷結束之後單獨購買附屬產品時的願付價格。如果附屬產品的原價高（低）于消費者對附屬商品的內部參考價格，則消費者在促銷結束之後單獨購買附屬產品時的願付價格會增加（減少）。
實驗5探討了焦點產品的價格與消費者對附屬商品的內部參考價格之間的關係對在促銷結束之後單獨購買附屬產品時的願付價格的影響。只有當焦點產品的價格遠高於消費者對附屬商品的內部參考價格時，附屬產品與焦點產品具有的屬性互補性才能影響消費者的願付價格，即更高（低）屬性互補性會導致消費者在促銷結束之後單獨購買附屬產品時會有更高（低）願付價格。最後，本文還討論了研究的局限性和未來研究的途徑。

摘要(英)

In sales, offering a product for different prices is a common strategy used by companies to promote products and attract consumers. A common promotional tactic is to supplement a required purchase (i.e., a focal product) by offering a free or discounted product (i.e., a supplementary product).
Some previous studies argue that offering a product for free lowers the product’s value and makes consumers less willing to pay for it. According to Kamins, Folkes, and Fedorikhin (2009), offering any one of the products in a bundle as “free” makes consumers less willing to pay for each product when unbundled and sold individually. Raghubir (2004) also argued that the low cost of the supplementary product makes consumers less willing to pay for it as a stand-alone product after the conditional promotion has been terminated. However, several research has examined that consumers’ evaluation of the supplementary product after the promotion has been terminated was higher when it was offered for free than when it was offered at a low, discounted price (Palmeira & Srivastava, 2013). Given the conflicting points of view regarding to the influence of offering a supplementary product for free and the limited research on impacts of complementarity of the products in conditional promotion, this dissertation focuses on the contextual factors of how consumers determine their willingness to pay for a supplementary product after different types of temporary promotions are terminated by using five experiments.
Study 1 shows the similar results found by Palmeira and Srivastava (2013) that when a supplementary product is offered for free, a consumer’s willingness to pay is higher than if the product is offered for a discounted price. In addition, we found the price of a supplementary product and a consumer’s IRP are two independent factors that can influence a consumer’s willingness to pay. A high IRP leads to a higher willingness to pay for the supplementary product than a low IRP. Furthermore, regardless of the supplementary product’s price, the IRP would be the main anchor when estimating willingness to pay.
In line with the results of study 1, study 2 also demonstrated the significant effect of IRP on a consumer’s estimated willingness to pay. Moreover, the results revealed that the IRP and the price of the focal product independently influenced a consumer’s willingness to pay. A higher (lower) priced focal product predicted an increase (decrease) in consumers’ willingness to pay for a supplementary product.
Study 3 provides strong support for the proposed multiple anchoring judgment theory: the promotional price of the supplementary product can increase (decrease) consumers’ willingness to pay for the supplementary product after the promotion ends if it is higher (lower) than consumers’ IRP only when the promotional price is regarded as plausible price information. Consumers use their IRP as a criterion to judge whether the ERP is plausible contextual price information or not.
Study 4 provides additional evidence for the proposed multiple anchoring judgment theory. The original price of the supplementary product can increase (decrease) consumers’ willingness to pay for the supplementary product after the promotion ends if it is higher (lower) than consumers’ IRP only when the original price is regarded as plausible price information.
Study 5 explored the role of the relationship between the price of the focal product and the IRP of the supplementary product, on consumers’ willingness to pay for a supplementary product. Consumers will have higher (lower) willingness to pay for a supplementary product that shares a higher (lower) level of attribute complementarity with the focal product only when the price of the focal product is much higher than the consumer’s IRP for the supplementary product. Limitations and future avenues for research are also discussed.

關鍵字(中)

★ 同化效應
★ 對比效應
★ 外部參考價格
★ 內部參考價格
★ 多重錨定
★ 願付價格

關鍵字(英)

★ assimilation effect
★ contrast effect
★ external reference price
★ internal reference price
★ multiple anchoring
★ willingness to pay

論文目次

ABSTRACT I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS VII
LIST OF FIGURES IX
LIST OF TABLES X
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Research motivation 1
1.2 Research purpose and questions 3
1.3 Sructure of the dissertation 7
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES 8
2.1 Reference price 8
2.1.1 Internal reference price 9
2.1.2 External reference price 12
2.2 Multiple anchoring judgment 14
2.3 Criteria for judging the plausibility of contextual price information 17
2.4 Complementarity of products 20
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND RESULTS 23
3.1 Overview of five studies 23
3.2 Study 1 25
3.2.1 Method 25
3.2.2 Procedure 25
3.2.3 Results 26
3.3 Study 2 30
3.3.1 Method 30
3.3.2 Procedure 30
3.3.3 Results 31
3.4 Study 3 34
3.4.1 Method 34
3.4.2 Procedure 36
3.4.3 Results 36
3.5 Study 4 40
3.5.1 Method 40
3.5.2 Procedure 41
3.5.3 Results 42
3.6 Study 5 45
3.6.1 Method 45
3.6.2 Procedure 46
3.6.3 Results 46
CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION 50
4.1 Summary and general discussion 50
4.2 Implications 57
4.2.1 Theoretical implications 57
4.2.2 Managerial implications 59
4.3 Limitation and future research 61
REFERENCES 64
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRES OF STUDY 1 72
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRES OF STUDY 2 80
APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRES OF STUDY 3 84
APPENDIX D: QUESTIONNAIRES OF STUDY 4 88
APPENDIX E: QUESTIONNAIRES OF STUDY 5 92

參考文獻

Adaval, R., & Wyer, R. S. (2011). Conscious and nonconscious comparisons with price anchors: Effects on willingness to pay for related and unrelated products. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(2), 355-365.
Alba, J. W., Broniarczyk, S. M., Shimp, T. A., & Urbany, J. E. (1994). The influence of prior beliefs, frequency cues, and magnitude cues on consumers′ perceptions of comparative price data. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 219-235.
Berkowitz, E. N., & Walton, J. R. (1980). Contextual influences on consumer price responses: An experimental analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(3), 349-358.
Biswas, A., & Blair, E. A. (1991). Contextual effects of reference prices in retail advertisements. Journal of Marketing, 55(3), 1-12.
Bridges, E., Yim, C. K., & Briesch, R. A. (1995). A high-tech product market share model with customer expectations. Marketing Science, 14(1), 61-81.
Briesch, R. A., Krishnamurthi, L., Mazumdar, T., & Raj, S. P. (1997). A comparative analysis of reference price models. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 202-214.
Bucklin, R. E., & Lattin, J. M. (1991). A two-state model of purchase incidence and brand choice. Marketing Science, 10(1), 24-39.
Chandon, P., Wansink, B., & Laurent, G. (2000). A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 64(4), 65-81.
Chandran, S., & Morwitz, V. G. (2006). The price of ‘free’-dom: Consumer sensitivity to promotions with negative contextual influences. Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (3), 384-392.
Cunha, M., & Shulman, J. D. (2011). Assimilation and contrast in price evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 822-835.
Darveau, J., & d′Astous, A. (2014). Bundle building in the arts: An experimental investigation. Psychology & Marketing, 31(8), 591-603.
Dickson, P. R., & Sawyer, A. G. (1990). The price knowledge and search of supermarket shoppers. Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 42-53.
Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological Science, 12(5), 391-396.
Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science, 17(4), 311-318.
Gaeth, G. J., Levin, I. P., Chakraborty, G., & Levin, A. M. (1991). Consumer evaluation of multi-product bundles: An information integration analysis. Marketing Letters, 2(1), 47-57.
Greenleaf, E. A. (1995). The impact of reference price effects on the profitability of price promotions. Marketing Science, 14(1), 82-104.
Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effects of price-comparison advertising on buyers′ perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value, and behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 46-59.
Griffin, Em (2011). A First Look at Communication Theory. New York, New York: McGraw Hill.
Han, S., Gupta, S., & Lehmann, D.R. (2001). Consumer price sensitivity and price thresholds. Journal of Retailing, 77(4), 435-456.
Hardie, B. G. S., Johnson, E. J., & Fader, P. S. (1993). Modeling loss aversion and reference dependence effects on brand choice. Marketing Science, 12(4), 378-394.
Harlam, B. A., Krishna, A., Lehmann, D. R., & Mela, C. (1995). Impact of bundle type, price framing and familiarity on purchase intention for the bundle. Journal of Business Research, 33(1), 57-66.
Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation-level theory: An experimental and systematic approach to behavior. New York: Harper & Row.
Herr, P. M. (1989). Priming price: Prior knowledge and context effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 67-75.
Kahn, B. E., & Schmittlein, D. C. (1989). Shopping trip behavior: An empirical investigation.Marketing Letters, 1(1), 55-69.
Kahn, B. E., & Schmittlein, D. C. (1992). The relationship between purchases made on promotion and shopping trip behavior. Journal of Retailing, 68(3), 294-315.
Kalwani, M. U., & Yim, C. K. (1992). Consumer price and promotion expectations: An experimental study. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(1), 90-100.
Kalwani, M. U., Yim, C. K., Rinne, H. J., & Sugita, Y. (1990). A price expectations model of customer brand choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(3), 251-262.
Kalyanaram, G., & John D. C. Little. (1994). An empirical analysis of latitude of price acceptance in consumer package goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 408-418.
Kalyanaram, G., & Winer, R. S. (1995). Empirical generalizations from reference price research. Marketing Science, 14(3), 161-169.
Kamins, M., Folkes, V., & Fedorikhin, A. (2009). Promotional bundles and consumers’ price judgments: When the best things in life are not free. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(4), 660-670.
Klein, N. M., & Oglethorpe, J. E. (1987). Cognitive reference points in consumer decision making. Advances in Consumer Research, 14, 183-187.
Kopalle, P. K., & Lindsey-Mullikin, J. (2003). The impact of external reference price on consumer price expectations. Journal of Retailing, 79(4), 225-236.
Kopalle, P. K., Rao, A. G., & Assuncao, J. L. (1996). Asymmetric reference price effects and dynamic pricing policies. Marketing Science, 15(1), 60-85.
Krishna, A., Currim, I. S., & Shoemaker, R. W. (1991). Consumer perceptions of promotional activity. Journal of Marketing, 55(2), 4-16.
Lattin, J. M., & Bucklin, R. E. (1989). Reference effects of price and promotion on brand choice behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(3), 299-310.
Lichtenstein, D. R., & Bearden, W. O. (1989). Contextual influences on perceptions of merchant-supplied reference prices. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 55-66.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Burton, S., & Karson, E. J. (1991). The effect of semantic cues on consumer perceptions of reference price ads. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(3), 380-391.
Lynch, J. G. Jr., & Ariely, D. (2000). Wine online: Search costs affect competition on price, quality, and distribution. Marketing Science, 19(1), 83-103.
Mayhew, G. E., & Winer, R. S. (1992). An empirical analysis of internal and external reference prices using scanner data. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1), 62-70.
Mazumdar, T., Raj, S. P., & Sinha, I. (2005). Reference price research: Review and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 84-102.
Meyers-Levy, J., & Sternthal, B. (1993). A two-factor explanation of assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(3), 359-368.
Monroe, K. B. (1990), Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2004). The euro in the common european market: A single currency increases the comparability of prices. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(5), 557-563.
Neslin, S.A. (2002). Sales Promotion. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Nunes, J. C., & Park, C. W. (2003). Incommensurate resources: Not just more of the same. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(1), 26-38.
Nunes, J. C., & Boatwright, P. (2004). Incidental prices and their effect on willingness to pay. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(4), 457-466.
Palmeira, M. M., & Srivastava, J. (2013). Free offer ≠ cheap product: A selective accessibility account on the valuation of free offers. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(4), 644-656.
Peter T.L. Popkowski Leszczyc, & Häubl, G. (2010). To bundle or not to bundle: Determinants of the profitability of multi-item auctions. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 110-124.
Parducci, A. (1965). Category judgment: a range-frequency model. Psychological review, 72(6), 407-418.
Raghubir, P. (2004). Free gift with purchase: Promoting or discounting the brand? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1), 181-186.
Rajendran, K. N., & Tellis, G. J. (1994). Contextual and temporal components of reference price. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 22-34.
Schmitt, B. H. (1994). Contextual priming of visual information in advertisements. Psychology and Marketing, 11(1), 1-14.
Sherif, M., & Hovland, C.I. (1961). Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sherif, M., Sherif, C., & Nebergall, R. (1965). Attitude and attitude change: The Social Judgment-Involvement Approach. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders.
Sherif, M., & Hovland, C.I. (1964). Social Judgment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Stafford, T. F., Leigh, T. W., & Martin, L. L. (1995). Assimilation and contrast priming effects in the initial consumer sales call. Psychology and Marketing, 12(4), 321-347.
Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 437-446.
Stremersch, S., & Tellis, G. J. (2002). Strategic bundling of products and prices: A new synthesis for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 55-72.
Swaminathan, V., Gürhan-Canli, Z., Kubat, U., & Hayran, C. (2015). How, when, and why do attribute-complementary versus attribute-similar cobrands affect brand evaluations: A concept combination perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(1), 45-58.
Thaler, R. H. (2008). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 27(1), 15-25.
Thomas, M., & Morwitz, V. (2005). Penny wise and pound foolish: The Left‐Digit effect in price cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 54-64.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
Urbany, J. E., Bearden, W. O., & Weilbaker, D. C. (1988). The effect of plausible and exaggerated reference prices on consumer perceptions and price search. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(1), 95-110.
Wenner, L. M. (2015). Expected prices as reference points—Theory and experiments. European Economic Review, 75, 60-79.
Winer, R. S. (1985). A price vector model of demand for consumer durables: Preliminary developments. Marketing Science, 4(1), 74-90.
Winer, R. S. (1986). A reference price model of brand choice for frequently purchased products. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 250-256.
Yadav, M. S. (1994). How buyers evaluate product bundles: A model of anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 342-353.
Yi, Y. (1990). The effects of contextual priming in print advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 215-222.

指導教授

林建煌(Chien-Huang Lin)

審核日期

2018-6-4

推文