權衡公益價值下，產品外觀特徵、情境設計和人格特質對產品態度與願付價格的影響

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：14

、訪客IP：3.144.2.5

姓名

詹岳玲(Yueh-Ling Chang) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

企業管理學系在職專班

論文名稱

權衡公益價值下，產品外觀特徵、情境設計和人格特質對產品態度與願付價格的影響

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 (2026-7-31以後開放)

摘要(中)

在當今商業環境中，企業社會責任已成為企業策略的核心，影響公司的公眾形象及消費者行為。本研究探討企業在融入公益價值的過程中，產品特徵、情境設計和消費者人格特質是否會影響消費者對產品的態度和願付價格。
本研究通過四個實驗發現，公益議題與產品包裝顏色顯著影響消費者對產品品質的感受和願付價格；公益議題與情緒也顯著影響消費者的喜好和願付價格。公益議題、包裝顏色和情緒及人格特質之間的三因子交互作用對消費者的產品態度和願付價格也有顯著影響。此外，研究發現產品形狀、材質、包裝上是否標示公益議題、文案敘述方式及活動期間等因素也會影響消費者的品質感受、喜好和願付價格。這些結果表明，企業在設計產品和營銷策略時，需綜合考慮多個因素，以更有效地結合公益價值與商業利益，提升消費者的產品態度和購買意願。
例如，孤兒公益議題適合使用明亮的黃色包裝，獨居老人議題則適合使用莊重的黑色包裝；快樂情緒能提升對孤兒產品的喜好，悲傷情緒則能激發對獨居老人產品的支持。消費者的人格特質也會影響他們對公益議題產品的態度。圓形產品形狀更適合身障者議題，六角形更適合更生人議題；木材材質適合氣候災民議題，金屬材質適合戰爭災民議題。正向文案適合氣候災民議題，負向文案適合戰爭災民議題。
總結來說，本研究提供企業在整合公益價值與商業利益方面的策略建議。

摘要(英)

In today′s business environment, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become central to corporate strategy, influencing public image and consumer behavior. This study investigates whether integrating public welfare values into business models, through product features, situational design, and consumer personality traits, can affect consumers′ attitudes toward products and their willingness to pay.
Through four experiments, the study found that public welfare issues and product packaging colors significantly influence consumers′ perceptions of product quality and their willingness to pay. Additionally, public welfare issues and emotions significantly impact consumers′ preferences and willingness to pay. The three-way interactions between public welfare issues, packaging colors, emotions, and personality traits also have significant effects on consumers′ product attitudes and willingness to pay. Furthermore, the study discovered that factors such as product shape, material, whether public welfare issues are labeled on the packaging, copywriting styles, and event duration also influence consumers′ perceptions of quality, preferences, and willingness to pay. These findings suggest that companies need to consider multiple factors when designing products and marketing strategies to effectively combine public welfare values with commercial interests, thereby enhancing consumers′ product attitudes and purchase intentions.
For instance, using bright yellow packaging for orphan-related public welfare issues can enhance consumers′ positive emotional responses, while solemn black packaging is more appropriate for elderly-related issues. Happy emotions can increase preferences for orphan-related products, while sad emotions can boost support for elderly-related products. Consumer personality traits also influence their attitudes toward public welfare products. Circular product shapes are more suitable for disability-related issues, while hexagonal shapes are better for ex-convict-related issues. Wooden materials are more appropriate for climate refugee issues, while metal materials are better for war refugee issues. Positive copywriting is more effective for climate refugee issues, while negative copywriting is more impactful for war refugee issues.
In conclusion, this study provides valuable strategic recommendations for companies on integrating public welfare values with commercial interests.

關鍵字(中)

★ 公益議題
★ 情緒
★ 顏色
★ 材質
★ 文案敘述方向
★ 活動期間

關鍵字(英)

★ Public welfare issues
★ Emotions
★ Color
★ Material
★ Copywriting
★ Event duration

論文目次

摘要 i
ABSTRACT ii
致謝 iv
目錄 v
表目錄 viii
圖目錄 xii
第一章緒論 1
　　1-1　研究背景與動機 1
1-2 研究目的與問題 2
1-3　研究流程 5
第二章文獻探討 7
2-1　消費者認知品質、喜好程度與願付價格 7
2-2　老人與小孩 8
2-3　情緒 8
2-4　顏色 9
2-5 身障者與更生人 11
2-6　形狀 13
2-7 有無標示公益字樣 13
2-8 戰爭災民與氣候災民 16
2-9 材質 17
2-10 目標框架效應 18
2-11 保護森林與倡導吃素 21
2-12 線 21
2-13 活動期間 22
2-14 五大人格 24
第三章　　研究方法 31
3-1 實驗一研究方法 31
3-1-1研究架構(實驗一) 31
3-1-2 變數操作定義與衡量(實驗一) 33
3-1-3問卷內容 36
3-2 實驗二研究方法 37
3-2-1研究架構(實驗二) 38
3-2-2 變數操作定義與衡量(實驗二) 39
3-2-3問卷內容 41
3-3　實驗三研究方法 44
3-3-1研究架構(實驗三) 44
3-3-2 變數操作定義與衡量(實驗三) 45
3-3-3問卷內容 47
3-4　實驗四研究方法 49
3-4-1研究架構(實驗四) 49
3-4-2 變數操作定義與衡量(實驗四) 50
3-4-3問卷內容 52
3-5 研究方法與研究對象 54
3-6 統計方法之選擇 54
第四章研究結果 56
4-1 實驗一研究結果 57
4-2 實驗二研究結果 76
4-3 實驗三研究結果 93
4-4 實驗四研究結果 111
第五章結論 127
5-1 假設驗證結果之摘要表 127
5-2 研究結論 142
5-3 研究貢獻 144
5-4 研究限制 145
5-5 對後續研究的建議 146
參考文獻 147

參考文獻

中文部分
1. 宋德才，2018。創世紀Genesis─設計之躍Breakthrough of Design。https://www.pinterest.com/pin/809873945484360019/。搜尋日期:2024年4月20日。
2. 李仁豪與陳怡君，2016。IPIP五大人格量表簡版的發展及跨年齡層的測量不變性檢定，教育研究與發展期刊，第12卷第4期:87-119頁。
3. 李銘龍，1994。應用色彩學。台北:藝風堂出版社。
4. 林建煌，2017。行銷管理（第七版）。台北：華泰文化事業有限公司。
5. 林書堯，1993。色彩學。台北:三民書局。
6. 林崇宏，1999。造形、設計、藝術。台北:田園城市文化事業。
7. 郭玟蘭，2010。從矯正社會工作者角色論戒毒資源之使用。社區發展季刊，第一百二十九期:383-391頁。
8. 陳宣融，2003。市場佔有率、系統負荷、價格及企業聲譽對消費者認知品質與購買意圖影響之研究。實踐大學碩士論文。
9. 薛秀宜、陳利銘與洪佩圓，2006。人格心理學：理論與研究。台北:心理出版社。
10. Fucci，2016。平面構成的基本要素線。https://kknews.cc/psychology/52ejp8.html。搜尋日期:2024年 5月1日。
11. Gary，2024。食品包裝的視覺設計6個影響消費者關鍵。https://myppt.cc/IrNWCL。搜尋日期:2024年5月20日。

英文部分
1. Abbink, K., Irlenbusch, B., & Renner, E. 2002. An experimental bribery game. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 18(2): 428-454.
2. Allport, G. W. 1961. Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
3. Artaxo, P., et al. 2022. Tropical forests are crucial in regulating the climate on Earth. PLOS Climate, 1: e0000054.
4. Bar, M., & Neta, M. 2007. Visual Elements of Subjective Preference Modulate Amygdala Activation. Neuropsychologia, 45(10): 2191-2200.
5. Bar, M., Neta, M., & Linz, H. 2006. Humans Prefer Curved Visual Objects. Psychological Science, 17(8): 645-648.
6. Basil, D. Z., Ridgway, N. M., & Basil, M. D. 2006. Guilt appeals: The mediating effect of responsibility. Psychology & Marketing, 23(12): 1035-1054.
7. Basil, et al. 2006. Guilt and Giving: A Process Model of Empathy and Efficacy. Psychology & Marketing, 23(1): 91-112.
8. Bloch, P. H. 1995. Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response. Journal of Marketing, 56: 16-29.
9. Boenigk, S., & Mayr, M. L. 2016. The Happiness of Giving: Evidence from the German Socioeconomic Panel That Happier People Are More Generous. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5(10): 1825-1846.
10. Bou-Mitri, C., et al. 2021. The Influence of Package Design on Consumers′ Perception of Product Quality and Purchase Intention. Nutrition & Food Science, 51, 71-86.
11. Bradley, S. 2010.The Meaning of Lines: Developing A Visual Grammar. http://www.example.com/article-url. Accessed May 10, 2024.
12. Brewer, M. B., & Hewstone, M. (Eds.). 2004. Applied Social Psychology. Chichester: Wiley.
13. Brown, S., & Taylor, K. 2015. Charitable Behaviour and the Big Five Personality Traits: Evidence from UK Panel Data. IZA Discussion Paper, Munich.
14. Brunel, F. F., & Nelson, M. R. 2000. Explaining Gendered Responses to “Help-Self” and “Help-Others” Charity Ad Appeals: The Mediating Role of World-Views. Journal of Advertising, 29(3): 15-28.
15. Chang, C. T., & Lee, Y. K. 2010. Effects of Message Framing, Vividness Congruency and Statistical Framing on Responses to Charity Advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 29(3): 195-220.
16. Chang, C.T., Huang, G.H., & Liu, P.C. 2018. Dire Straits, Sad Planet: How Facial Emotion, Anthropomorphism, and Issue Proximity Affect Green Communication. Academy of Marketing Science, New Orleans.
17. Cirlot, J. E. 1971. A Dictionary of Symbols. New York: Philosophical Library.
18. Devaraj, S., et al. 2008. How Does Personality Matter? Relating the Five-Factor Model of Personality to Technology Acceptance and Use. Information Systems Research, 19(1): 93-105.
19. Faulkner, H., Dar-Nimrod, I., & Rhodes, P. 2018. Why are we less willing to help the victims of man-made disaster? International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 9(2): 208-218.
20. Gijsenberg, M. J. 2014. Going for Gold: Investigating the (Non)sense of Increased Advertising Around Major Sports Events. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 31(1): 2-15.
21. Hart, J. 2023, Types of Lines in Fashion Designing: Understanding Basics. https://www.theknowledgeacademy.com/blog/types-of-lines-in-fashion-designing/. Accessed May 15, 2024.
22. Hayashi, M. 2011. The care of older people in Japan: myths and realities of family ‘care’. History & Policy.
23. Heskett, J. 1980. Industrial Design. Londan: Thames & Hudson.
24. Howard, D. J., & Gengler, C. 2001. Emotional contagion effects on product attitudes. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(2): 189-201.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8405225/. Accessed May 25 2024.
25. Huang, Z., Wang, Z., & Qu, W. 2021. Influence of Cost and Self-Control on Individual Donation Behavior: The Promoting Effect of Self-Affirmation. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 14: 1339-1358.
26. Hwang, J., Kim, J. J., & Lee, S. (2020). The Importance of Philanthropic Corporate Social Responsibility and Its Impact on Attitude and Behavioral Intentions: The Moderating Role of the Barista Disability Status. Sustainability, 12(17): 6235.
27. Isaacs, J. B. 2009. Spending on children and the elderly. Brookings Institution.
28. Jiang, Y., et al. 2016. Does Your Company Have the Right Logo? How and Why Circular- and Angular-Logo Shapes Influence Brand Attribute Judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(5): 709-726.
29. Kaplan, S. 2023. Aesthetics, Affect, and Cognition: Environmental Preference from an Evolutionary Perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19(2): 3-32.
30. Kotler, P., & Lee, N. 2005. Best of Breed: When it Comes to Gaining a Market Edge While Supporting a Social Cause, ′Corporate Social Marketing′ Leads the Pack. Social Marketing Quarterly, 11(4): 91-103.
31. Lawrence, D., et al. 2022. The Unseen Effects of Deforestation: Biophysical Effects on Climate. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 5, Article 756115.
32. Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. 1988. How Consumers are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3): 374-378.
33. Liang, J., Chen, Z., & Lei, J. 2017. Inspirational Appeals Are More Effective: The Influence of Strength Emotions on Persuasion and Donation. Rutgers Business Review, 2(3): 212-216.
34. Lidwell, W., Holden, K., & Butler, J. 2003. Universal Principles of Design. Massachusetts: Rockport Publishers.
35. Ludke, R. 2022. Competitive Integrated Employment: A Driver of Long-Term Value Creation. Voya Financial.
36. McLennan, J. F. 2004. The Philosophy of Sustainable Design. Missouri: Ecotone Publishing.
37. Merchant, A., Ford, J. B., & Sargeant, A. 2010. Charitable Organizations′ Storytelling Influence on Donors′ Emotions and Intentions. Journal of Business Research, 63(7): 754-762.
38. Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. 2001. Do Consumers Expect Companies to be Socially Responsible? The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Buying Behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1): 45-72.
39. Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(3): 574-583.
40. Norton, S. W. 1987. The Coase Theorem and Suboptimization in Marketing Channels. Marketing Science, 6(2): 268-285.
41. Olshavsky, R. W. 1985. Perceived Quality. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
42. Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. 2018. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392): 987-992.
43. Preston, S. D. 2007. The perception-action mechanism: How we see what we do and do what we see. Brain Research, 1079(1): 4-15.
44. Reich, S. E. 2023. Making Desistance Recognizable: How Ex-Offenders Can Signal Their Desistance From Crime to Employers by Strategic Design. The British Journal of Criminology, 63(5): 1274-1292.
45. Roe, S., et al. 2019. Contribution of the land sector to a 1.5 °C world. Nature Climate Change, 9(9): 817-828.
46. Schwarz, N., Bless, H., & Bohner, G. 1991. Mood and Persuasion: Affective States Influence the Processing of Persuasive Communications. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24: 161-199.
47. Singh, S. 2006. Impact of color on marketing. Management Decision, 44(7): 783-789.
48. Springmann, M., et al. 2018. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature, 562(7728): 519-525.
49. Stahlmann, A. G. 2023. The Role of Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Relationship-Specific Features in Self- and Other-Perceptions of Conflict Frequency in Adolescent Relationships with Parents and Peers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 52(3): 675-695.
50. Strahilevitz, M., & 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.
51. Traulsen, I. 2022. A Comparative Analysis of Plant-Based Milk Alternatives Part 2: Environmental Impacts. Sustainability, 14(7): 8482.
52. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481): 453-458.
53. Wertenbroch, K., & Skiera, B. 2002. Measuring Consumer Willingness to Pay at the Point of Purchase. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(2): 228-241.
54. Zagefka, H., et al. 2011. Donating to disaster victims: Responses to natural and humanly caused events. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3): 353-363.
55. Zhang, K., et al. (2023). A study on the influence of personality characteristics on household charitable donation behavior in China. PLOS ONE, 18(5): e0234567.

指導教授

林建煌(Jian-Huang Lin)

審核日期

2024-7-19

推文