本研究的旨趣為，是否可以將產品的美學部份獨立建構出一個屬性構面，有別於傳統上關於產品屬性的分類構面，讓產品美學屬性的界定與分類，能突顯其對消費者反應的喚起，進而影響其購買決策與品牌選擇。首先，本研究將產品的美學屬性建構為四個構面 (包含比例、顏色、材質和藝術融入)，接著，依前述的產品美學屬性構面發展出適用於小筆電之產品美學屬性內容和水準，分析其對於購買決策的影響，也進一步探討是否存在著小筆電之產品美學屬性最佳組合。本研究採聯合分析法，利用上述四個美學屬性做為消費者進行購買決策時的判斷取捨。在分析消費者的美學反應方面，利用生活型態變數將受訪者分群，透過集群分析的萃取與命名，分為「時尚美學群」，「節儉實用群」和「設計美學群」共三個族群。結果顯示，「時尚美學群」，「節儉實用群」和「設計美學群」所重視的產品美學屬性構面都一樣，依序為顏色、比例、藝術融入和材質，雖然這三個族群都重視相同的屬性，但他們所偏好的美學屬性水準卻是大不相同。最後，利用聯合分析結果中之成份效用值，也獲致各受測者族群間的小筆電美學屬性最佳組合。本研究在產品美學上實屬初探性嘗試，未來研究方向與建議亦有討論。

At the present time, product aesthetic attributes play an indispensible role in consumer purchase decision which is usually affected by traditionally functional demands before. Consumers’ choosing a product is not just for physical demand anymore but for psychological satisfaction, especially sensuous delight in products. Therefore, to market products triumphantly and successfully, companies today should focus on aesthetics that is used to inherently involved in product design as a vehicle for winning consumers’ preferences. 

	The study is carried out by using the questionnaire. The main purpose of this study is to examine the role of products aesthetic attributes in consumer purchase decision through utilizing a conjoint analysis among consumers for netbooks in Taiwan. First, we construct product aesthetic attributes that are proposed and built in literature, and then by means of content analysis, we establish the levels of a netbook which are searched on the representative of web sites. In forming stimuli, orthogonal design is used to reduce the number of combinations to a manageable size, and PowerPoint is utilized to design stimuli. Finally, we use stimuli established before to start importance and utility analysis.

I.	Introduction	1
1-1	Research background & motivation	1
1-2	Research purpose	3
II.	Literature review	4
2-1 Aesthetics	4
2-2 Product attributes	6
2-3 Constructing the dimensionality of product aesthetic attributes	14
2-4 Aesthetic response	18
2-5 Consumer purchase decision	19
2-6 Life style patterns	22
III.	Research approach	24
3-1 Conjoint analysis	24
3-2 Research process	25
3-3 Establishing the attributes	27
3-4 Presenting the stimuli	31
3-5 Life style variables	41
3-6 Questionnaire design	42
3-7 Sampling design and data collection	44
3-8 Pre-test	45
3-9 Analysis method	46
IV.	Result	47
4-1 Sample description	47
4-2 Reliability analysis	55
4-3 Factor analysis and cluster analysis	56
4-4 Discriminate analysis	59
4-5	Conjoint analysis	62
4-6	The best combinations of aesthetic attributes of a netbook	78
V.	Conclusion and suggestion	82
5-1 Conclusion	82
5-2 Theoretical implications	82
5-3 Managerial implications	83
5-4 Research constraints	83
5-5 Directions of future research	84
References	86
Appendix-1 Questionnaire for experiment	91
Appendix-2 Conjoint analysis for pre-test	96
Appendix-3 SPSS syntax	98

Table Content

Table 1: Product Attribute Classification Schemes	8
Table 2: Classifications of brand attributes	10
Table 3: Typologies of Attributes of Products	12
Table 4: The Dimensionality of Physical Product Aesthetic Attribute	14
Table 5: Life style patterns	23
Table 6: The attributes and levels in the study	28
Table 7: Ratio in proportion analysis result	29
Table 8: Color analysis result	29
Table 9: Material analysis result	30
Table 10: Art infusion analysis result	30
Table 11: Stimuli descriptions	32
Table 12: Three kinds of ratios in proportion of netbooks	34
Table 13: Four colors of netbooks	35
Table 14: Three kinds of art infusions on netbooks	36
Table 15: Life Style Variables and Questions	42
Table 16: the 25 respondents’ basic information in the pre-test	45
Table 17: Demographic data analysis	48
Table 18: The usage experience of a notebook	49
Table 19: The duration of using a notebook	50
Table 20: The maximum payment for a notebook	50
Table 21: Brand choice (multiple choices)	51
Table 22: Product awareness about a netbook	52
Table 23: The usage experience of a netbook	52
Table 24: Potential consumers of a netbook	53
Table 25: The maximum payment for a netbook	53
Table 26: The purpose of buying a netbook	54
Table 27: The fundamental factors for purchasing a netbook (multiple choices)	54
Table 28: Aesthetic payment for a netbook	55
Table 29: Factor analysis	57
Table 30: The reliability of each factor	57
Table 31: ANOVA summary	58
Table 32: The distribution of 126 respondents in every cluster	58
Table 33: Wilks’ Lambda	59
Table 34: Wilks’ Lambda	60
Table 35: The naming of every cluster	61
Table 36: The analysis of total sample	63
Table 37: The analysis of three different lifestyle clusters	65
Table 38: The analysis of male and female respondents	67
Table 39.1: The analysis of brand choice	69
Table 39.2: The willingness-to-buy for a netbook	71
Table 39.3: The analysis of the purpose of buying a netbook	73
Table 39.4: The analysis of aesthetic payment	75
Table 39.5: The analysis of function choice	77
Table 40: The best combinations of aesthetic attributes of a netbook	80


Figure Content

Figure 1: The IEPA model for identifying relevant product attributes	13
Figure 2: Research process	26
Figure 3: Stimulus card 01	37
Figure 4: Stimulus card 02………………………………………………………….. 37
Figure 5: Stimulus card 03	37
Figure 6: Stimulus card 05	37
Figure 7: Stimulus card 04	37
Figure 8: Stimulus card 06	37
Figure 9: Stimulus card 07	38
Figure 10: Stimulus card 08	38
Figure 11: Stimulus card 09	38
Figure 12: Stimulus card 10	38
Figure 13: Stimulus card 11	38
Figure 14: Stimulus card 12	38
Figure 15: Stimulus card 13	39
Figure 16: Stimulus card 14	39
Figure 17: Stimulus card 15	39
Figure 18: Stimulus card 16	39
Figure 19: Stimulus card 17	39
Figure 20: Stimulus card 18	39
Figure 21: Stimulus card 08	40
Figure 22: Stimulus card 10	40
Figure 23: Stimulus card 12	40
Figure 24: Stimulus card 13	40
Figure 25: Stimulus card 17	40
Figure 26: Scatter plot of every cluster	60
Figure 27: The importance weight of every aesthetic attribute of a netbook	63
Figure 28: Every cluster’s importance weight distribution	66
Figure 29: Male and female respondents’ importance weight distribution	68
Figure 30: Brand choice	70
Figure 31: The distribution of the maximum payment for a netbook	72
Figure 32: The distribution of the purpose of buying a netbook	74
Figure 33: Every aesthetic attribute’s distribution regarding aesthetic payment	76
Figure 34: Every aesthetic attribute’s distribution of function choice	78

References
Chinese references

方紀蘋 (2008)，美感生活型態與餐廳屬性偏好之研究，東海大學景觀學系碩士班碩士論文。
楊文壽 (2001), 行動電話手機消費者之涉入程度及購買決策相關因素之關聯性研究, 交通大學經營管理研究所碩士論文。

English references
 
Attneave, F. (1959), Applications of Information Theory to Psychology. New York: Holt-Dryden. Berlyne, D. E. (1970), “Novelty, Complexity and Hedonic Value,” Perception and Psycophysics, 8, 279-286. Bettman, James R., Noel Capon, and Richard Lutz (1975), “Cognitive Algebra in Multiattribute Attitude Models,” Journal of Marketing Research, 12,151-164. -------and Michel A. Zins (1977), “Constructive Process in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 75-85. Bloch, Peter H. (1995), “Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response,” Journal of Marketing, 59 (July), 16-29. -------, Fréreric F. Brunel, and Todd J. Arnold (2003) “Individual Differences in the Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics: Concept and Measurement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29(March), 551-564. Chang, S.-S. (2001), Research Method, Tsuan Hai Press, Taichung (in Chinese). Chiu, H.-Z. (2003), Multivariate Statistical Analysis: SAS/STAT Application Method, 1st ed..Chi-Bon Culture Press, Taipei. Dahl, Darren W, Amitava Chattopdhyay and Gerald J Gorn (1999), “The Use of Visual Mental Imagery in New Product Design,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (February), 18-29. Davis, Marian L. (1987), Visual Design in Dress. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Dumaine, Brian (1991), “Design That Sells and Sells and… “Fortune (March 11), 86-94. Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D. and Miniard, P.W. (1993) in Miniard, P.W. (Ed.),
87
Consumer Behavior, 7th ed., Dryden Press, Chicago, IL.
Fishbein, A.J. and Ajzen, L. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Frith, C. D. & D. K. B. Nias (1974), “What Determines Aesthetic Preference?” Journal of General Psychology, 91, 163-173. Gil, M.J. and Sanchez, M. (1997), “Consumer Preferences for Wine Attributes: A Conjoint Analysis Approach,” British Food Journal, 99(1), 3-11. Goldman, A. (2001), The Aesthetic. In B. Gaut and D. McIver Lopes (Eds.), The Routledge companion to aesthetics (pp. 181-192). London: Routledge. Guielford, J.P. (1965), Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Green, Paul E., and V. Sirnivasan (1978), “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook,” Journal of Consumer Research, 5(September), 103-123. -------, Abba M. Krieger, and Yoram Wind (2001), “Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects,” Interfaces, 31(3), 56-73. -------and Vithala R. Rao (1971), “Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data,” Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 355-363. -------and Yoram Wind (1973), Multiattribute Decisions in Marketing. Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press. Hair, F.J., E.R. Anderson, L. R. Tatham, and C.W. Black (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis 5th ed.. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Hargaddon, Andrew and Robert L. Sutton (1997), “Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development Firm,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (December), 716-749. Hagtvedt, Henrik and Vanessa M. Patrick (2008), “Art Infusion: The Influence of Visual Art on the Perception and Evaluation of Consumer Products,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (June), 379-389. Holbrook, Morris B. (1986), “Aims, Concepts and Methods for the Presentation of Individual Differences in Esthetic Responses to Design Features,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13(December), 337-347. -------and Robert B. Zirlin (1985), “Artistic Creation, Artworks, and Aesthetic Appreciation: Some Philosophical Contributions to Nonprofit Marketing,” Advances in Nonprofit Marketing, 1, 1-54. Johnson, Michael D. (1988), “Comparability and Hierarchical Processing in
88
Multialternative Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15(December), 303-314.
Kotler, P., Ang, S.H., Leong, S.M. and Tan, C.T. (1999), Marketing Management: An Asian Perspective, 2na ed.. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. -------, Philip, and Alexander Rath (1984), “Design, a Powerful but Neglected Strategic Tool,” Journal of Business Strategy, 5(Fall), 16-21. Lancaster, K. (1971), Consumer Demand: A new Approach. Columbia University Press, New York & London. Lawson, Bryan (1983), How Designers Think, Westfield, NJ: East-view Editions. Lefkoff-Hagius, Roxanne and Charlotte H. Mason (1990), “The Role of Tangible and Intangible Attributes in Similarity and Preference Judgments”, in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, ed. Marvin E. Goldberg et al., Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 135-143. ------- (1993), “Characteristic, Beneficial, and Image Attributes in Consumer Judgments of Similarity and Preference,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20(June), 100-110. Lovejoy, V. S. and d. Beach (1997), “Intergrated Product Design for Marketability and Manufacturing,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31(4), 154-163. Lussier, Denis A. and Olshavsky, Richard W. (1974), “An Information Processing Approach to Individual Brand Choice Behavior,” paper presented at the ORSA/TIMS Joint National Meeting, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Maffei, L. and A. Fiorentini (1995), Arte e Cervello. [Art and Brain], Bologna: Zanichelli. Mantel, Susan Powell and Frank R. Kardes (1999), “The Role of Direction of Comparison, Attribute-Based Processing, and Attitude-Based Processing in Consumer Preference,” Journal of Consumer Research, 55(March), 335-351. Martindale, C. and K. Moore (1988), “Priming, Prototypicality, and Preference,” Journal of Experiemental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 661-670. McQuarrie, E.F. and Muson, J.M. (1992), “The Zaichkowsky Personal Involvement Inventory: Modification and Extension,” in Wallendorf, M. and Anderson, P. (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, 36-40. Murphy, M., C. Cowan, M. Henchion, and S. O’Reilly (2000), “Irish Consumer Preferences for Honey: a Conjoint Approach,” British Food Journal, 102(8),
89
585-598. Myers, James H. and Allan D. Shocker (1981), “The Nature of Product-related Attributes,” in Research in Marketing, 5, ed. Jagdish N. Sheth, Greenwich, CT: JAI, 211-236. Nunnally, J. and I. Berntein (1994), Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Park, C. Whan, Bernard Jaworski, J. Macinnis , and J. Deborah (1986), “Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management,” Journal of Marketing, 50(4), 135-145. Parry, Mark E. (2002), Strategic Marketing Management: A Means-End Approach, The McGraw-Hill Executive MBA Series, McGraw-Hill. Payne, John W. (1976), “Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in Decision Making: An Information Search and Protocol Analysis,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 366-387.
Peterson, Robert A. and Maria C. Merino (2003), “Consumer Information Search Behavior and the Internet,” Psychology & Marketing, 20 (2), 99-121. Plummer, Joseph T. (1972), “Life style Patterns: A New Construct for Mass Communications Research,” Journal of Broadcasting, 16 (Fall-Winter), 77-89. ------- (1974), “The Concept and Application of Life Style Segmentation,” Journal of Marketing, 38(1), 34-37. Postrel, Virginia (2003) The Substance of Style: How the Rise of Aesthetic Value is Remaking Commerce, Culture and Consciousness. New York: Harper Collins. Osborne, Harold (1986), “What Makes an Experience Aesthetic?” in Possibility of the Aesthetic Experience, ed. Michael Mitias, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 117-138. Quester, P.G. and Smart, J. (1998), “The Influence of Consumption Situation and Product Involvement over Consumer’s Use of Product Attribute,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15(3), 220-238. Raghubir, Priya and Eric A. Greenleaf (2006), “Ratios in Proportion: What Should the Shape of the Package Be?” Journal of Marketing, 70 (April), 95-107. Russ, Frederick A. (1971), “Evaluation Process Models and the Prediction of Preference,” in Proceedings, Association for Consumer Research, ed. David M. Gardner, 256-261. Schmitt, Bernd H. and Alex Simonson (1997), Marketing Aesthetics: The Strategic Management of Brands, Identity and Image. New York: Free Press.
90
Scott, Jerome E. and Peter Wright (1976), “Modeling an Organizational Buyer’s Product Evaluation Strategy: Validity and Procedural Considerations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 13, 211-224. Schewe, C.D. & R. Calantone (1978), “Pshchographic Segmentation of Tourists,” Journal of Travel Research, 16(3), 14-20. Srinivasan, V., William S. Lovejoy and David Beach (1997), “Integrated product Design for Marketability and Manufacturing,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (February), 154-163.
Suárez, Fernando F. and James m. Utterback (1995), “Dominant Designs and Survival of Firms,” Strategic Management Journal, 16 (September), 415-430. Orth, Ulrich R. & Keven Malkewitz (2008), “Holistic Package Design and Consumer Brand Impressions,” Journal of Marketing, 72, 64-81. Quester, P. G. and J. Smart (1998), “The Influence of Consumption Situation and Product Involvement over Consumers’ use of Product Attribute,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15(3), 220-238. Van der Pol, M. and M. Ryan (1998), “Using Conjoint Analysis to Establish Consumer Preferences for Fruit and Vegetables,” British Food Journal, 98 (8), 5-12. Veryzer, Robert W. and JR. J. Wesley Hutchinson (1998), “The Influence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Response to New Product Designs”, Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), 374-394. Vriens, M., G.H. Loosschilder, E. Rosbergen, and D.R. Wittink (1998), “Verbal Versus Realistic Pictorial Representation in Conjoint Analysis with Design Attributes,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(5), 455-467. Wells, W.D. &D.J. Tigert (1971), “Activities, Interests and Opinions,” Journal of Advertising Research, 24(3), 2-11. Yalch, Richardand Frédéric Brunel (1996), “Need Hierarchies in Consumer Judgments of Product Designs: Is It Tie to Reconsider Maslow Theory?” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.33, ed. Kim P. Corfman and John G. Lynch, Jr., Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.