淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-0107200815331900
中文論文名稱 通路來源對中古車購買意願之研究
英文論文名稱 A Study of Source Channel On Used Car Purchase Intention
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 企業管理學系碩士班
系所名稱(英) Department of Business Administration
學年度 96
學期 2
出版年 97
研究生中文姓名 蘇怡欣
研究生英文姓名 Yi-Hsin Su
學號 695610948
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2008-06-06
論文頁數 84頁
口試委員 指導教授-李月華
共同指導教授-羅惠瓊
委員-李培齊
委員-姚瞻海
委員-白滌清
中文關鍵字 中古車  通路  購買意願  聯合分析 
英文關鍵字 used cars  channel  purchase intention  conjoint analysis 
學科別分類 學科別社會科學管理學
中文摘要 台灣的中古車市場,自1995年過戶數量超越新車市場後,每年過戶數量皆穩定的成長,由此可知中古車市場商機之龐大,因此許多車廠已紛紛進入中古車市場進行經營,也漸漸成為廠商與消費者目光聚集的焦點。
但由於中古車市場資訊不對稱,且二手商品在品質方面變異性大因此更增加了消費者的知覺風險。再加上國內中古車行品質良宥不齊,中古車行之風險亦是影響中古車成交與否的重要的因素,介於現今二手車市場的現況,在許多汽車原廠紛紛投入中古車部份進行經營之情況下,消費者能否在進行選購時因透過品牌形象而釐訂中古車的知覺品質與以中古車的購買意願,並探討其之間有何關聯與影響為本研究最主要的目的。
本研究選定了幾個中古車汽車屬性,並且運用了聯合分析法來衡量最高購買意願組合偏好和屬性的相對重要性。並將消費者對中古車知覺風險,中古車接受度,以及TOYOTA汽車品牌,與聯合分析法一起進行統計分析,研究結果發現:
一、在新車有促銷方案的情況下,消費者購買中古車的意願會較低。
二、在出售中古車通路方面,原廠認證中古車和非原廠認證中古車,兩種不同的
通路會影響消費者對中古車的購買意願。
三、中古車的車況會影響消費者的購買意願。
四、對於中古車的購買知覺風險越高,消費者對中古車的購買意願越低。
五、品牌形象越好,消費者對該品牌中古車購買意願越高。
英文摘要 The used car market is growing so rapidly since 1995 that it has exceeded new car sales growth, and this growth has been stable each year. Thus, used cars market moves into spotlight as companies that have already seen its potential and opportunity are moving into the market.

However, information about used cars is asymmetric, and heterogenic in quality, therefore increasing consumer’s perceived risk

In Taiwan, the quality of used cars being sold varies greatly among sellers, making the purchase decision more dependent on the image of the seller. Thus, the purpose of this study is to identify the effect seller’s brand image has on consumer’s purchase intentions, and relationship among them.

This study I have chosen several characteristics of used car, and used conjoint analysis to measure the preferences and importance of those attributes. Finally, consumer perceived risk and acceptance on used cars, and TOYOTA brand image were used t complete the doing statistical analysis. The results are as follows:

1. When new cars are being promoted, consumer intentions on purchasing used cars are low.
2. The purchasing intentions are different for two types of distribution channels; Certified Pre-Owned car and non Certified Pre-Owned car.
3. The performance of used cars affects consumer purchasing intentions.
4. When used cars have high perceived risk, consumers will have low purchasing intentions.
5. When the brand image of used-car seller is good, consumer will have high purchasing intentions.
論文目次 目 錄
目錄………………………………………………………… Ⅰ
表目錄……………………………………………………… Ⅸ
圖目錄……………………………………………………… Ⅹ
第一章 緒論
第一節 研究背景 1
第二節 研究動機 2
第三節 研究目的 3
第二章 文獻探討
第四節 知覺風險 4
第五節 購買意願 11
第六節 品牌形象 11
第七節 評價機制 13
第八節 台灣中古車交易流通分析 15
第九節 聯合分析法……………………………………………..16
第三章 研究設計
第十節 研究架構 22
第十一節 研究假說 23
第十二節 變數定義與衡量方式 24
第十三節 研究對象 30
第十四節 資料分析方法…………………………………………. 31
第四章 資料分析
第一節 問卷效度與信度分析……………………………………33
第二節 樣本基本資料分析 34
第三節 描述性統計量 36
第四節 聯合分析與迴歸分析 36
第五節 不同組合購買意願 52
第六節 假說檢定結果彙總 53
第五章 結論與建議
第一節 研究管理意涵 54
第二節 研究貢獻與實務建議 56
第三節 研究限制 57
第四節 後續研究之建議 58
參考文獻 59
附錄一 問卷 65
附錄二 國內外中古車汽車商評鑑標準…………………...69
附錄三 信升汽車鑑價準則標準表 82
附錄四 行將企業競拍汽車鑑價準則表 83

表 目 錄
表1-1歷年新車和中古車銷售量比較 1
表2-1 聯合分析法之階段與步驟 17
表2-2 兩因素法實例 18
表2-3 兩方法的優缺點 19
表3-1知覺風險的構面與衡量題項 25
表3-2品牌印象的構面與衡量題項 26
表3-3本研究擬定之中古車屬性與各種水準 27
表3-4本研究之整體輪廓受測體一覽表 29
表3-5購買意願的構面與衡量題項 30
表4-1問卷各構面之信度分析 33
表4-2樣本資料分析 35
表4-3描述統計量 36
表4-4二手車產品之變數編碼方式 37
表4-5第1號受測者之各屬性相對重要性 38
表4-6 中古車產品之成份效用值及其相對重要性(n=108) 39
表4-7中古車產品之成份效用值及其相對重要性Group1-MBA(n1=58) 39
表4-8中古車產品之成份效用值及其相對重要性Group2-EMBA(n2=50) 39
表4-9中古車購買意願迴歸分析表(n=108) 42
表4-10解說總變異量表(n=108) 43
表4-11 成份矩陣(n=108) 43
表4-12中古車購買意願迴歸分析表(n=108) 44
表4-13中古車購買意願迴歸分析表Group1-MBA (n1=58) 46
表4-14解說總變異量表(n1=58) 46
表4-15 成份矩陣(n1=58) 47
表4-16中古車購買意願迴歸分析表Group1-MBA (n1=58) 47
表4-17中古車購買意願迴歸分析表Group2-EMBA(n2=50) 49
表4-18解說總變異量表(n2=50) 50
表4-19 成份矩陣(n2=50) 50
表4-20中古車購買意願迴歸分析表Group2-EMBA(n2=50) 50
表4-21不同組合之購買意願預測值 53
表4-22假說檢定結果彙總表 54
圖 目 錄
圖1-1歷年新車和中古車銷售量消長 1
圖2-1整體輪廓法實例 18
圖3-1 本研究之架構圖 22
圖4-1中古車產品屬性相對重要程度之比較(n=108) 40
圖4-2中古車產品屬性相對重要程度之比較Group1-MBA(n1=58). 40
圖4-3中古車產品屬性相對重要程度之比較Group1-EMBA(n2=50). 41


參考文獻 一、中文部份
1. 王昭傑(2000)。「消費者對水果醋屬性偏好之研究—聯合分析法」。國立屏東科技大學農企業管理學系碩士論文。

2. 李雙華(1998),網路購物消費者降低知覺風險之研究,大葉大學事業
經營研究所碩士論文。

3. 吳長生,(1999)「聯合分析法之行銷應用探討」商學學報,13-31頁。

4. 林晏州(2001)。遊憩區選擇行為之研究-敘述偏好模式之應用。戶
外遊憩研究,13 (1),63-86

5. 徐千祐(2007)。「中古車原廠保證等外部線索對消費者知覺風險的影響」。東吳大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。

6. 陳世偉(2002)。「國產汽車消費者購買行為之研究」。國立台北大學企業管理研究所碩士論文 。

7. 黃俊英(2000)「多變量分析」。台北市,中國經濟企業研究所,167-195。


8. 袁志宏(2002)。「運用聯合分析法探討影響觀賞表演藝術付費意願因素之研究」。大葉大學 休閒事業管理學系碩士班論文。

9. 廖子賢(2003)。「從網路效用觀點探討網路購買意願之影響因素」。淡江大學 企業管理學系碩士論文。

10. 黃詠茂(2004)。「產品品質與形象對顧客滿意度與忠誠度之影響—以台南地區中古汽車業為例」。崑山科技大學 企業管理學系碩士論文。

11.畢威寧(技術學刊 第二十一卷 第二期 2006)。 「結合田口損失函數與層級分析法應用於中古車仲介服務之研究」。


12.鄭智峯(2007)。「台灣中古車銷售品質於評鑑制度之實證研究」。國立台北科技大學車輛工程學系碩士論文。

13. 孫清義(2004)。「CAS 台灣好米消費者偏好與推廣策略。」國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所博士論文。

二、英文部份
1. Aaker, Jennifer L.(1997), “Dimension of Brand Personality ,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.34, No.3, pp.347-356.

2. Agrawal, Jagdish and Paul S. Richardson (1996), “The Relationship between Warranty and Product Reliability,” Journal of Consumer Affairs, 30(2), pp.421-443.

3. Agrawal,Jagdish and Paul S.Richardson (1996) ,”The Relationship between Warranty and Production, Journal of Consumer Affairs,30(2),pp421-443.

4. Ajzen, Icek and Martin Fishbein(1980), “Understanding Attitude and Predicting
Social Behavior”, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

5. Akerlof, George (1970), “The Market for “Lemons” Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism,” Quaiterly Journal Economics, 84(3), pp.488-500.

6. Akaah, I. P. and P. K. Korgaonkar, “A Conjoint Investigation of the Relative
Importance of Risk Relievers in Direct Marketing,” Journal of Advertising Research 28 (4) (1988):38-44.

7. Bauer, Raymond A. (1960), “Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking,” in Dynamic Facilitate Product Adoption,” The Journal of Marketing Research, 29(May), pp.229-239.

8. Bauer, R. A. (1960), “Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking,” In R. S. Hankcock(ed.)Dynamic Marking for a Changing World, Chicago AMA Proceedings, pp.24

9. Bauer, Raymond A. (1960), “Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking,” in Dynamic Marketing for a Changing World, ed. Robert S. Hancock, Chicago: American Marketing Association, pp.389-398.

10. Baird, Inga Skromme, and Howard Thomas (1985), “Toward A Contingency
Model of Strategic Risk Taking,” The Academy of Management Review, Vol.10,
No.2, pp.230~243

11. Bearden, William and Terence Shimp(1982), The Use of Extrinsic Cues to Facilitate Product Adoption The Journal of Marketing Reasearh,29(May),pp.229-239

12. Bettman, James R. (1973), “Perceived Risk and Its Components----A Model and
Empirical Test,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.10, May, pp.184~190

13. Brucks, M. “The Effect of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research 12 (1) (1985): 1-16.

14. Bettman, James R. (1973), “Perceived Risk and Its Components----A Model and
Empirical Test,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.10, May, pp.184~190

15. Cox, D.F.(1967) Risk Taking and Information Handing in Consumer Behavior, In Cox, D.F.(ed),Boston: Harvard University Press, pp.1-19

16. Carmone, F. J., Green, P. E., & Jain, A. K. (1978). Robustness of conjoint
analysis: Some Monte Carlo results. Journal of Marketing Research, 15,
300-303.

17. Cunningham, Scott M. (1967), “The Major Dimensions of Perceived Risk,” in
Cox (Ed.), Risk-Taking and Information-Handling in Consumer Behavior, Boston:Harvard University Press, pp.82~108

18. Dowling, R. and Stalin, R. (1994), “A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended
Risk-Handling Activity,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.21, No.6,
pp.110~134

19. Devavrat Purohit (1997),Dual Distribution Channels: The Competition Between Rental Agencies and Dealers “The Journal of Marketing Science”

20. Dodds,William B., Kent B. Monroe, and Dhruv Grewal(1991),“The Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers’Product Evaluations,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.28(August), pp.307-319.

21. Fishbein M. and I. Ajzen (1975), “Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior,” Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

22. Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research :Issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, p. 105.

23. Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research:
issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 103-123.

24. Green, P. E., & Rao, V. R. (1971). Conjoint measurement for quantifying
judgmental data, Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 355-363.

25. Grewal Dhruv, R. Krishnan, Julie Baker and Norm Borin (1998),“The Effect of Store Name, Brand Name and Price Discounts onConsumers, Evaluations and Purchase Intentions,” Journal of Retailing, 74(3), pp.331-352.
26. Harkins, D.L. Best, R. J., & Coney, KA(1991) "Consumer Behavior: implications for Marketing strategy." IRWIN, 5th ed.

27. Jacoby, J. & Kaplan L. B. (1972), “The components of perceived risk,” Advances
in Consumer Research. M Venkatesan, ed., Chicago, pp.382~383

28. Kupiec, B., & Revell, B. (2001). Measuring consumer quality judgments,
British Food Journal, 103(1), 7-12.

29. Know &Yoon-hee Catalog.(1991) “ Non-catalog Shoppers of Apparel: Perceived Risks, Shopping Orientations, Demographics, and Motivations” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1, 13-19 (1991)

30. Leavitt, H. J. (1954), “A Note on Some Experimental Findings About the Meaning of Price,” Journal of Business, Vol. 27(July), pp.205-210.

31. Mitchell, V-W, and Greatorex M.(1993). “Risk Perception and Reduction in the Purchase of Consumer Services. “The Service Industries Journal, Vo.13. 23-27.

32. Murray, Keith B. and John L. Schlacter (1990), “The Impact of Services versus
Goods on Consumers: Assessment of Perceived risk and Variability,” Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 18, Winter, pp.51~65

33.Morwitz, Vicki G; Schmittlein, David (1992), “UsingSegmentation to Improve Sales Forecasts Based on Purchase Intent:Which "Intenders" Actually Buy?” Journal of Marketing Research;Nov. pp.391-405

34. Olson, Jerry C. and Jacob Jacoby (1972), “Cue Utilization in the Quality Perception Process,” in Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research. ed. M. Venkatesan, College Park, MD: Association for Consumer Research, pp.167-179.

35. Perry, M. & Hamm, B. (1969) “Canonical Analysis of Relations Between
Socioeconomic Risk and Personal Influence in Purchase Decisions,” Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol.6, Iss.2, pp.351~354

36. Peter, J. Paul and Lawerence 5. Tarpey (1975),”A Comparative Analysis of Three Consumer Strategies,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.2, June,pp.29-37

37. Richardson,P.S, Jain,A.K., and Dick, A. (1996),”Household Store Brand Proneness: A Framework”, Journal of Retailing,72(2),pp.159-185

38. Roselius, T. (1971), “Consumer Ranking of Risk Reduction Methods,” Journal of
Marketing, Vol.35, pp.56~61

39. Webber ,E .U , Milliam, R “Perceived Risk attitude : Relating risk perception to risky choice” Management Science,43(2): 122-143

40. Zikmund and Scott, J. L. (1973), “A Factor Analysis of the Multi-Dimensional
Nature of Perceived Risk,” Proceedings of the Southern Marketing Association,
Houston, Tex.: Southern Marketing Association, pp.207~232

論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2008-07-03公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2009-07-03起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信