擬人化角色與廣告呈現形式對產品外觀偏好之影響

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：93

、訪客IP：18.117.76.180

姓名

陳妤蓁(CHEN,YU-CHEN) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

企業管理學系

論文名稱

擬人化角色與廣告呈現形式對產品外觀偏好之影響
(The Influences of Anthropomorphic Role and Advertisement Presentation on Preference for Products Appearance)

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]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限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。

摘要(中)

現今廣告在我們生活中無所不在，而有許多企業使用擬人化來行銷或建立品牌形象，而如果當擬人化的角色不同，便會影響消費者對產品屬性或品牌的態度。本研究旨在探討不同擬人化角色(朋友/老師/父親)與不同廣告呈現方式(純文字/文字加圖片)對產品外觀屬性偏好的影響。
此外，本研究還加入了幾項可能影響的干擾變數，並以實驗法進行研究，實驗一，消費者會對不同類型的產品(享樂/功利)進行理性認知或情感導向的決策，結果表明享樂產品會使消費者更注重產品外觀。實驗二，消費者好奇心狀態也會帶來不同影響，有好奇心的消費者會做出更放縱的選擇。實驗三，受到自我肯定的消費者，會更理性客觀的評估產品資訊。這些干擾變數都可能影響消費者對產品屬性之偏好，因此本研究進一步的探討，而研究結果發現：
1. 擬人化角色對產品外觀屬性偏好有顯著影響。
2. 廣告呈現形式對產品外觀屬性偏好有顯著影響。
3. 產品類型對產品外觀屬性偏好有顯著影響。
4. 擬人化角色與呈現形式與產品類型對產品外觀屬性偏好具顯著交互作用。
5. 消費者有無好奇心對產品外觀屬性偏好有顯著影響。
6. 擬人化角色與呈現形式與消費者有無好奇心對產品外觀屬性偏好具顯著交互作用。
7. 消費者是否自我肯定對產品外觀屬性偏好有顯著影響。
8. 呈現形式與消費者是否自我肯定對產品外觀屬性偏好具顯著交互作用。

摘要(英)

Nowadays, there are many enterprises which use the anthropomorphism as marketing strategies. Moreover, if enterprises use anthropomorphism form in different roles, it affects consumer’s attitude towards product attributes. The study aims to discussing the customer’s preference of the appearance of products how to be affected by different anthropomorphic characters (such as friends, teachers, or a father), and different kinds of advertisement (such as words only, or words with photos). Additionally, the study also adds moderator that could cause influence on the preferences of customers. Firstly, customers will make different decisions on different types of products (hedonic/utilitarian). Secondly, the curiosity of a customer will also have different influences on the preference of a customer. The customers who are curious will make choices that are more indulgent. Thirdly, the customers who are self-affirmed will evaluate a product more rationally and objectively. All of these moderator variables can all have influences on the customers’ preferences for the appearance of products. The results are as follows:
1. The personified characters have a significant effect on customers’ preferences for the appearance of a product.
2. The ways of presenting advertisements have a significant effect on customers’ preferences for the appearance of a product.
3. The types of products have a significant effect on customers’ preferences for the appearance of a product. 4. The personified characters, ways of presenting advertisements, and types of products have significant interaction on customers’ preferences for the appearance of a product.
5. Whether the customer is curious has a significant effect on the customers’ preferences for the appearance of a product.
6. The personified characters, ways of presenting advertisements, and whether the customer is curious have significant interaction on customers’ preferences for the appearance of a product.
7. Whether the customer is self-affirmed has a significant effect on the customers’ preferences for the appearance of a product.
8. The ways of presenting advertisements and whether the customer is self-affirmed have significant interaction on customers’ preferences for the appearance of a product.

關鍵字(中)

★ 擬人化角色
★ 廣告呈現形式
★ 產品類型
★ 好奇心
★ 自我肯定
★ 產品外觀

關鍵字(英)

★ anthropomorphic role
★ advertisement presentation
★ products types
★ appearance of product
★ self-affirmed
★ curiosity

論文目次

摘要 I
Abstract II
圖目錄 VIII
表目錄 IX
第一章緒論 1
1-1 研究動機與背景 1
1-2 研究目的與問題 2
1-3 研究流程 4
第二章文獻探討與研究假設 5
2-1 對產品屬性偏好 5
2-1-1 功能 5
2-1-2 外觀 5
2-1-3 功能與外觀 6
2-2 擬人化角色 6
2-2-1 擬人化的方法 6
2-2-2 擬人化對消費者影響 7
2-2-3 擬人化角色 7
2-3 呈現形式 9
2-3-1 雙碼理論 10
2-3-2 雙碼理論與消費者行為 11
2-4 購買情境(享樂/功利) 12
2-4-1 享樂情境 12
2-4-2 功利情境 12
2-4-3 享樂與功利屬性之評估 13
2-4-4 享樂/功利情境與產品屬性之關聯 13
2-5 好奇心 15
2-5-1 好奇心之定義 15
2-5-2 好奇心與產品屬性之關聯 17
2-6 自我肯定 18
2-6-1 自我肯定定義 19
2-6-2 自我肯定對行為之影響 19
2-6-3 自我肯定與產品外觀 20
第三章研究方法 22
3-1 實驗一 22
3-1-1 實驗一研究架構 22
3-1-2 實驗產品選擇 23
3-1-3 變數之定義與衡量 23
3-1-4 研究設計 25
3-1-5 研究對象 27
3-2 實驗二 27
3-2-1 實驗二研究架構 27
3-2-2 實驗產品選擇 28
3-2-3 變數之定義與衡量 28
3-2-4 前測 31
3-2-5 研究設計 32
3-2-6 研究對象 34
3-3 實驗三 35
3-3-1 實驗三研究架構 35
3-3-2 實驗產品選擇 35
3-3-3 變數之定義與衡量 36
3-3-4 研究設計 38
3-3-5 研究對象 41
3-4 統計方法與工具 42
第四章研究結果 43
4-1 實驗一 43
4-1-1 操弄性檢定 43
4-1-2 資料分析與假說驗證 44
4-2 實驗二 50
4-2-1 操弄性檢定 50
4-2-2 資料分析與假說驗證 51
4-3 實驗三 58
4-3-1 操弄性檢定 58
4-3-2 資料分析與假說驗證 59
4-4 假設驗證結果整理 64
第五章研究結論與建議 67
5-1 研究結論 67
5-1-1 擬人化角色與呈現方式與購買情境對產品外觀偏好之影響 67
5-1-2 擬人化角色與呈現形式與好奇心對產品外觀偏好之影響 68
5-1-3 擬人化角色與呈現形式與自我肯定對產品外觀偏好之影響 68
5-2 實務上意涵與建議 69
5-3 研究限制 69
5-4 未來研究建議 70
參考文獻 72
附錄一、實驗一圖片 78
附錄二、實驗一正式問卷(享樂) 79
附錄三、實驗一正式問卷(功利) 81
附錄四、實驗二圖片 83
附錄五、實驗二正式問卷(有好奇心) 84
附錄六、實驗二正式問卷(無好奇心) 87
附錄七、實驗三圖片 90
附錄八、實驗三正式問卷(自我肯定) 91
附錄九、實驗三正式問卷(無自我肯定) 94

參考文獻

一、中文文獻
1. 邱珍琬，2005。大學生知覺的父親形象。屏東師院學報第二十二期。
2. 王叢桂，2000。促進參與父職因素的探討。應用心理研究: 父母親的面貌(臺灣)，6，
131-172。

二、英文文獻
1. Aaker, Shansby, J. G. (1982), “Positioning Your Product,” Business horizons, 25(3), 5662.
2. Aarts, Custers, R., and Marien, H. (2008), “Preparing and Motivating Behavior Outside of Awareness,” Science, 319(5870), 1639-1639.
3. Aggarwal, McGill, A. L. (2007), “Is That Car Smiling at Me? Schema Congruity as a Basis for Evaluating Anthropomorphized Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 468-479.
4. Aggarwal, McGill, A. L. (2011), “When Brands Seem Human, Do Humans Act Like Brands? Automatic Behavioral Priming Effects of Brand Anthropomorphism,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 307-323.
5. Alba, Williams, E. F. (2013), “Pleasure Principles: A Review of Research on Hedonic Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(1), 2-18.
6. Babin, Darden, W. R., and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value,” Journal of consumer research, 20(4), 644-656.
7. Bargh, Chen, M., and Burrows, L. (1996), “Automaticity of Social Behavior: Direct Effects of Trait Construct and Stereotype Activation on Action,” Journal of personality and social psychology, 71(2), 230.
8. Batra, Ahtola, O. T. (1991), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of Consumer Attitudes,” Marketing letters, 2(2), 159-170.
9. Berger, Shiv, B. (2011), “Food, Sex and the Hunger for Distinction,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(4), 464-472.
10. Berkowitz, M. (1987), “Product Shape as a Design Innovation Strategy,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4(4), 274-283.
11. Berlyne, D. E. (1954), “A Theory of Human Curiosity,” British Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 180-191.
12. Bettman, Kakkar, P. (1977), “Effects of Information Presentation Format on Consumer Information Acquisition Strategies,” Journal of Consumer Research, 3(4), 233-240. 13. Bettman, Luce, M. F., and Payne, J. W. (1998), “Constructive Consumer Choice Processes,” Journal of consumer research, 25(3), 187-217.
14. Bloch, P. H. (1995), “Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response,” The Journal of Marketing,59(3),16-29.
15. Botti, McGill, A. L. (2010), “The Locus of Choice: Personal Causality and Satisfaction with Hedonic and Utilitarian Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 10651078.
16. Castelli, Happé, F., Frith, U., and Frith, C. (2000), “ Movement and Mind: a Functional Imaging Study of Perception and Interpretation of Complex Intentional Movement Patterns,” Neuroimage, 12(3), 314-325.
17. Cesario, Plaks, J. E., and Higgins, E. T. (2006), “Automatic Social Behavior as Motivated Preparation to Interact,” Journal of personality and social psychology, 90(6), 893.
18. Chen, Liu, H. M., and Ann, B. Y. (2018), “Product Attributes and Purchase Intention for Smartphones: a Moderated Mediation Model,” International Journal of Mobile Communications, 16(1), 1-23.
19. Childers, Houston, M. J., and Heckler, S. E. (1985), “Measurement of Individual Differences in Visual Versus Verbal Information Processing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2), 125-134.
20. Chitturi, Raghunathan, R., and Mahajan, V. (2007), “Form Versus Function: How the Intensities of Specific Emotions Evoked in Functional Versus Hedonic Trade-offs Mediate Product Preferences,” Journal of marketing research, 44(4), 702-714.
21. Churchill, Jessop, D. C., Green, R., and Harris, P. R. (2018). “Self-affirmation Improves Self-control Over Snacking Among Participants Low in Eating SelfEfficacy,” Appetite, 123, 264-268.
22. Coleman, J. S. (1988), Social Capital in the Development of Human Capital: The Ambiguous Position of Private Schools.
23. Correll, Spencer, S. J., and Zanna, M. P. (2004), “An Affirmed Self and an Open Mind: Self-affirmation and Sensitivity to Argument Strength,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(3), 350-356.
24. Dhar, Wertenbroch, K. (2000), “Consumer Choice Between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of marketing research, 37(1), 60-71.
25. Dijksterhuis, Van Knippenberg, A. (1998), “The Relation between Perception and Behavior, or How to Win a Game of Trivial Pursuit,” Journal of personality and social psychology, 74(4), 865.
26. Epley, Waytz, A., and Cacioppo, J. T. (2007), “On Seeing Human: a Three-factor Theory of Anthropomorphism,” Psychological review, 114(4), 864.
27. Finley, Schwartz, S. J. (2006), “Parsons and Bales Revisited: Young Adult Children′s Characterization of the Fathering Role,” Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 7(1), 42.
28. Goldenberg, Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., and Solomon, S. (2000), “Fleeing the Body: A Terror Management Perspective on the Problem of Human Corporeality,” Personality and social psychology review, 4(3), 200-218.
29. Graham, Poulin-Dubois, D. (1999), “Infants′ Reliance on Shape to Generalize Novel Labels to Animate and Inanimate Objects,” Journal of Child Language, 26(2), 295-320.
30. Grayson, K. (2007), “Friendship Versus Business in Marketing Relationships,” Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 121-139.
31. Harber, K. (1995), Sources of Validation Scale. Unpublished scale.
32. Haytko, D. L. (2004), “Firm-to-firm and Interpersonal Relationships: Perspectives from Advertising Agency Account Managers,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 312-328.
33. Hirschman, Holbrook, M. B. (1982), “Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions,” Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92-101.
34. Hollins, Pugh, S. (1990), Successful Product Design: What to Do and When. Butterworth-Heinemann.
35. Hur, Koo, M., and Hofmann, W. (2015), “When Temptations Come Alive: How Anthropomorphism Undermines Self-control,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42(2), 340-358.
36. Jaccard, Brinberg, D., and Ackerman, L. J. (1986), “Assessing Attribute Importance: A Comparison of Six Methods,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12(4), 463-468. 37. James, W. (1950). The Principles of Psychology: In 2 Volumes. Dover Publ., Incorporated.
38. Kim, McGill, A. L. (2011), “Gaming with Mr. Slot or Gaming the Slot Machine? Power, Anthropomorphism, and Risk Perception,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 94-107.
39. Kronrod , Danziger, S. (2013), “Wii Will Rock You! The Use and Effect of Figurative Language in Consumer Reviews of Hedonic and Utilitarian Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40(4), 726-739.
40. Lancaster, K. (1971), Consumer Demand: A New Approach. Columbia University Press.
41. Eun-JuLee (2010), “The More Humanlike, the Better? How Speech Type and Users’ Cognitive Style Affect Social Responses to Computers,” Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 665-672.
42. Lefkoff-Hagius, Mason, C. H. (1993), “Characteristic, Beneficial, and Image Attributes in Consumer Judgments of Similarity and Preference,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 100-110.
43. Levie, Lentz, R. (1982), “Effects of Text Illustrations: A Review of Research,” ECTJ, 30(4), 195-232.
44. Lewis, Whitler, K. A., and Hoegg, J. (2013), “Customer Relationship Stage and The Use Of Picture-Dominant Versus Text-Dominant Advertising: A Field Study,” Journal Of Retailing, 89(3), 263-280.
45. Litman, J. A. (2008), “Interest and Deprivation Factors of Epistemic Curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1585-1595.
46. Litman, Jimerson, T. L. (2004), “The Measurement of Curiosity as A Feeling of Deprivation,” Journal Of Personality Assessment, 82(2), 147-157.
47. Loewenstein, G. (1994), “The Psychology of Curiosity: A Review and Reinterpretation,” Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75.
48. Menon, Soman, D. (2002), “Managing the Power of Curiosity for Effective Web Advertising Strategies,” Journal Of Advertising, 31(3), 1-14.
49. Nenkov, Scott, M. L. (2014), “So Cute I Could Eat It Up: Priming Effects of Cute Products on Indulgent Consumption,” Journal Of Consumer Research, 41(2), 326-341.
50. Okada, E. M. (2005), “Justification Effects on Consumer Choice of Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal Of Marketing Research, 42(1), 43-53.
51. Orth, Malkewitz, K. (2008), “Holistic Package Design and Consumer Brand Impressions,” Journal Of Marketing, 72(3), 64-81.
52. Paivio, A. (1990), Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford University Press.
53. Pham, M. T. (1998), “Representativeness, Relevance, and the Use of Feelings in Decision Making,” Journal Of Consumer Research, 25(2), 144-159.
54. Price, Arnould, E. J. (1999), “Commercial Friendships: Service Provider-Client Relationships in Context,” Journal Of Marketing, 63(4), 38-56.
55. Raghubir, Greenleaf, E. A. (2006), “Ratios in Proportion: What Should the Shape of the Package Be? ” Journal Of Marketing, 70(2), 95-107.
56. Reimann, Zaichkowsky, J., Neuhaus, C., Bender, T., and Weber, B. (2010), “Aesthetic Package Design: A Behavioral, Neural, and Psychological Investigation,” Journal Of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 431-441.
57. Rempel, Holmes, J. G., and Zanna, M. P. (1985), “Trust in Close Relationships,” Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 49(1), 95.
58. Saxe, Rebecca, Haushofer, and Johannes (2008), “For Love or Money: A Common Neural Currency for Social and Monetary Reward,” Neuron, 58(2), 164−165.
59. Schnotz, Bannert, M. (2003), “Construction and Interference in Learning from Multiple Representation,” Learning And Instruction, 13(2), 141-156.
60. Sherman, Nelson, L. D., and Steele, C. M. (2000), “Do Messages about Health Risks Threaten the Self? Increasing the Acceptance of Threatening Health Messages Via SelfAffirmation,” Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1046-1058.
61. Silver, A. (1990), “Friendship in Commercial Society: Eighteenth-Century Social Theory and Modern Sociology,” American Journal Of Sociology, 95(6), 1474-1504.
62. Soanes, Stevenson, A. (2005). Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford University Press
63. Solomon, M. R. (1983), “The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective,” Journal Of Consumer Research, 10(3), 319-329.
64. Steele, C. M. (1988), “The Psychology of Self-Affirmation: Sustaining the Integrity of the Self,” Advances In Experimental Social Psychology ,21, 261-302 65. Steele, Spencer, S. J., and Lynch, M. (1993), “Self-Image Resilience and Dissonance: The Role of Affirmational Resources,” Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 64(6), 885.
66. Strahilevitz, Myers, J. G. (1998), “Donations to Charity as Purchase Incentives: How Well They Work May Depend on What You are Trying to Sell,” Journal Of Consumer Research, 24(4), 434-446.
67. Talke, Salomo, S., Wieringa, J. E., and Lutz, A. (2009), “What about Design Newness? Investigating the Relevance of a Neglected Dimension of Product Innovativeness,” Journal Of Product Innovation Management, 26(6), 601-615.
68. Tesser, Millar, M., and Moore, J. (1988), “Some Affective Consequences of Social Comparison and Reflection Processes: The Pain and Pleasure of Being Close,” Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 54(1), 49.
69. Townsend, Sood, S. (2012), “Self-Affirmation Through the Choice of Highly Aesthetic Products,” Journal Of Consumer Research, 39(2), 415-428.
70. Townsend, Montoya, M. M., and Calantone, R. J. (2011), “Form and Function: a Matter of Perspective,” Journal Of Product Innovation Management, 28(3), 374-377. 71. Tremoulet, Feldman, J. (2000), “Perception of Animacy from the Motion of a Single Object,”Perception, 29(8), 943-951.
72. Van Den Bergh, Dewitte, S., and Warlop, L. (2008), “Bikinis Instigate Generalized Impatience in Intertemporal Choice,” Journal Of Consumer Research, 35(1), 85-97.
73. Van Den Bergh, Schmitt, J., and Warlop, L. (2011), “Embodied Myopia,” Journal Of Marketing Research, 48(6), 1033-1044.
74. Veltman (2004), “Aristotle and Kant on Self-Disclosure in Friendship,” Journal Of Value Inquiry, 38(2), 225-239.
75. Voss, Spangenberg, E. R., and Grohmann, B. (2003), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude,” Journal Of Marketing Research, 40(3), 310-320.
76. Wang, Huang, Y. (2017), “I Want to Know the Answer! Give Me Fish’n’Chips! The Impact of Curiosity on Indulgent Choice,” Journal Of Consumer Research, 44(5), 10521067.
77. Wansink (1996), “Can Package Size Accelerate Usage Volume?” Journal Of Marketing, 60(3), 1-14.
78. Waytz, Cacioppo, J., and Epley, N. (2010), “Who Sees Human? The Stability and Importance of Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism,” Perspectives On Psychological Science, 5(3), 219-232.
79. Wen Wan, Peng Chen, R., and Jin, L. (2017), “Judging a Book by Its Cover? The Effect of Anthropomorphism on Product Attribute Processing and Consumer Preference,” Journal Of Consumer Research, 43(6), 1008-1030.
80. Wertenbroch, Dhar, R., and Khan, U. (2005), A Behavioral Decision Theory Perspective on Hedonic and Utilitarian Choice,” In Inside Consumption ,166-187. Routledge.
81. Zettl (2013), Sight, Sound, Motion: Applied Media Aesthetics. Cengage Learning.

指導教授

林建煌(Jian-Huang Lin)

審核日期

2018-6-19

推文