現代人對手機的依賴度越來越深，智慧型手機就像黑洞一般，強力吸入融合各種創新的技術與功能，拓展了智慧型手機的應用。其當紅的時代已經正式來臨。然而探討消費者對此產品的評價，可作為廠商預測智慧型手機未來發展的基礎。
    消費者做購物決策時，時常依賴許多線索資訊或是屬性來做產品的評價。消費者知覺行為-知覺品質與知覺價值，也同樣是藉由低層次屬性-產品線索及高層次屬性，來對一產品整體優越性的評估。關於產品線索的研究已發展至同時考慮多個產品線索，但在內部線索的選擇上始終不甚詳盡，且研究方法多為實驗設計，不符合消費者當下購物的情境。因此本研究欲以結合產品的內部及外部線索，以探討不同區隔的消費者在選擇智慧型手機時，其偏好為何?及消費者的知覺行為對偏好的影響又是為何?此外，由於消費者面臨到多個產品線索間之取捨，因此採用選擇式聯合分析法較為接近消費者現實的購物決策情境。針對回收的有效樣本260份資料，進行敘述性統計、信度與效度分析、聯合分析、ANOVA單因子分析、迴歸分析，研究結果發現：
一、	重要的產品線索確實會影響消費者的購買偏好。
二、	高涉入程度及高產品知識者，其購買偏好高於低涉入程度及低產品知識者。
三、	高產品知識者對於內部線索(作業系統)的重要性大於低產品知識者；低產品知識者對於外部線索(品牌)的重要性大於高產品知識者。
四、	消費者的知覺行為確實會正向影響其購買偏好。

Nowadays, people are becoming more and more reliant on smartphones. Smartphones are the pinnacle of technology, combining new functionalities and innovations. It is suffice to say that the era of smartphone is dawning. To be able to grasp consumers’ preferences and evaluation of this product category will allow companies to develop future smartphones with suitable functionalities.
	When consumers undergo purchase decisions, they rely on multitude of product attribute information, or product cues in order to evaluate a product. Consumers develop perceptions of quality and value based on the development of low-level attributes to high level abstraction, in order to derive an overall product evaluation. Researches in the field of product cues has developed to consider multiple cues, however, the development and choice of intrinsic cues are lacking, and the methodology employed is choice experiment, which fails to capture the purchase decision consumers face. Hence, this research attempts to combine products’ intrinsic cues and extrinsic cues in order to investigate the preferences of different consumer segments, as well as the effects of consumers’ perceptions on preferences.In addition, conjoint analysis is a suitable research tool in capturing purchase decisions consumers face when confronted with multiple product cues.260 valid surveys were returned. Descriptive analysis, reliability and validity, conjoin analysis, univariate ANOVA as well as regression analysis were conducted. The result showed that:
1.	Important product cues affect consumers preferences.
2.	High involvement and high product knowledge consumers have higher purchase preferences than low involvement and low product knowledge consumers.
3.	High product knowledge consumers place more emphasis on intrinsic cues (operating system) than low product knowledge consumers; low product knowledge consumers place more emphasis on extrinsic cues (brand) than high product knowledge consumers.
4.	Consumers’ perceptions positively affect their purchase preferences.

目錄
目錄	I
表目錄	III
圖目錄	V
第壹章 緒論	1
第一節 研究背景與動機	1
第二節 研究目的	4
第三節 研究範圍與對象	4
第四節 研究流程	7
第貳章 文獻探討	8
第一節 產品線索	8
第二節 消費者知覺行為	13
第三節 涉入	20
第四節 產品知識	25
第參章 研究設計	28
第一節 研究架構與假設	28
第二節 研究方法	34
第三節 變數定義與衡量	38
第四節 建立屬性與水準值	42
第五節 問卷設計	47
第六節 資料分析方法	47
第肆章 資料分析	49
第一節 敘述性統計分析	49
第二節 信度與效度分析	51
第三節 集群分析與獨立樣本t檢定	53
第四節 屬性重要性與水準效用值	56
第五節 購買偏好	63
第六節 迴歸分析	67
第七節 假說檢定結果彙總	72
第伍章 結論與建議	73
第一節 研究結論	73
第二節 管理意涵	75
第三節 研究限制與後續研究建議	77
參考文獻	78
附錄一 問卷	89





表目錄
表2 1 知覺品質衡量構面之彙整	16
表2 2 涉入的定義彙總表	21
表2 3 涉入之分類彙總表	23
表2 4 涉入剖面量表	24
表3 1 聯合分析法之分析程序	35
表3 2 知覺品質衡量問項	39
表3 3 知覺價值衡量問項	39
表3 4 產品涉入程度衡量問項	40
表3 5 產品知識衡量問項	41
表3 6 楊銀濤先生之研究論文在智慧型手機發展趨勢的因素構面	42
表3 7 智慧型手機的產品屬性及其水準	43
表3 8 條件式價格水準(conditional pricing)	45
表3 9 本研究擬定之智慧型手機屬性與各種水準	46
表4 1 受訪者基本資料樣本分佈情形	49
表4 2連續變數描述統計量	51
表4 3涉入程度因素分析	52
表4 4正式問卷之效度檢驗	52
表4 5問卷各構面之信度分析	53
表4 6涉入程度集群數與凝聚係數增加值	54
表4 7產品知識度集群數與凝聚係數增加值	54
表4 8涉入程度各集群之樣本大小與比例	54
表4 9產品知識各集群之樣本大小與比例	55
表4 10  分組對涉入程度之差異分析	55
表4 11  分組對產品知識之差異分析	55
表4 12各屬性被全體受訪者選擇之比率及其顯著性	56
表4 13全體受訪者對各屬性主要效果之成分效用值	57
表4 14全體受訪者對各屬性水準偏好差異分析	58
表4 15假說驗證	59
表4 16全體受訪者之屬性相對重要性	60
表4 17第一個受測者之屬性相對重要性	61
表4 18不同涉入程度對屬性相對重要性之差異分析	61
表4 19不同產品知識對屬性相對重要性之差異分析	62
表4 20假說驗證彙整表	63
表4 21智慧型手機產品組合之屬性及水準	64
表4 22第一個固定選擇工作	64
表4 23第二個固定選擇工作	65
表4 24固定選擇工作之效用值	65
表4 25不同涉入程度對購買偏好(效用值)之差異分析	66
表4 26不同產品知識對購買偏好(效用值)之差異分析	66
表4 27假說驗證	67
表4 28第二個固定選擇工作之效用值	68
表4 29知覺價值迴歸分析	68
表4 30購買偏好(效用值)對知覺品質與知覺價值之階層迴歸分析彙整表	69
表4 31假說驗證	70
表4 32知覺價值迴歸分析	70
表4 33購買偏好(效用值)對知覺品質與知覺價值之階層迴歸分析彙整表	71
表4 34假說驗證	71
表4 35假說檢定結果彙總表	72

圖目錄
圖1 1 2007~2012 全球智慧型手機出貨量	5
圖1 2研究流程圖	7
圖2 1 線索利用理論預測及信任價值	9
圖2 2 知覺品質的組成要素	14
圖2 3 知覺價值形成模式	18
圖2 4消費者的價格、品質與知覺價值模型	18
圖3 1 本研究架構	28

一、中文部分
1.	王莉珍 (2007)，價格、品牌、品質、犧牲、風險、價值與購買意願之關係研究-以智慧型手機為例，南台科技大學企業管理學系研究所碩士論文。
2.	吳永仁（2008），應用聯合分析於消費者購屋屬性偏好之研究-以台南市
為例，長榮大學土地管理與開發研究所碩士論文。
3.	林憲卿 (2004)，商品標示、知覺品質與參考價格對消費者購買行為之影響,南華大學管理科學研究所碩士論文。
4.	陳頤駿 (2010)，線上購物的猶豫理由對線上購物之影響－以產品涉入程度及產品性質為調節效果，國立東華大學國際企業學系碩士論文。
5.	楊銀濤 (2009)，智慧型手機發展的趨勢研究，成功大學企業管理系研究所碩士論文。
二、英文部分
1.	Acebron, L. B., and Dopico, D. C. (2000). The importance of intrinsic and extrinsic cues to expected and experienced quality and empirical application for beef. Food Quality and Preference, 11(3), 229–238.
2.	Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson（1987）.Dimensions of Consumer Expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411-454.
3.	Alexander Josiassen, A. Assaf (2010) Country-of-origin contingencies: their joint influence on consumer behavior. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,22 (3), 294 – 313.
4.	Anthony Pecotich, Steven Ward (2007) Global branding, country of origin and expertise: An experimental evaluation. International Marketing Review, 24(3), 271 – 296.
5.	Arora,Raj.(1982). Validation of an S-O-R Model for Situation,Enduring,and Response Components of Involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 505-516.
6.	Beatty, S. E. and Smith, S. E.(1987). External Search Effort：An Investigation Across Several Product Categories. Journal of Consumer Research 14(1), 83-95.
7.	Bloch,Peter H. and Richins,Marsha L.(1983). A theoretical Model for the Study of Product Importance Perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 47,69-81.
8.	Bloch,Peter H.(1982). Involvement Beyond the Purchase Process：Conceptual Issues and Empirical Investigation. Advances in Consumer Research, 9, 413-417.
9.	Bredahl, L. (2003). Cue utilisation and quality perception with regard to branded beef. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 65–75.
10.	Breidert, C., M. Hahsler and T. Reutterer (2006). A Review of Methods for
Measuring Willingness-to-Pay. Innovative Marketing, 1-32.
11.	Brucks, M. and Zeithaml, V. A. (2000). Price and Brand Name as Indicators of Quality Dimensions for Consumer Durables. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (3), 359–374.
12.	Brucks, Merrie.（1985）. The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(1) , 1-16.
13.	Cathy J. Cobb-Walgren, Cynthia A. Ruble and Naveen Donthu(1995) Brand Equity, Brand Preference, and Purchase Intent.Journal of Advertising,24( 3), 25-40.
14.	Celsi,Richard L. and Jerry C.Olson(1988). The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes. Journal of Consumer Research,15, 210-214.
15.	Chang, Tung-Zong ＆ Albert R., Wildt(1994). Price, Product Information, and Purchase Intention：An Empirical Study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(1) , 16-27.
16.	Chematony, L. D. and, G. McWilliam(1989). Branding Terminology the Real Dcabtc. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 7(7/8), 29-32.
17.	Clarke K. and R.W.Belk(1978). The Effect of Product Involvement and Task Definition on Anticipated Consumer Effort. Advances in Consumer Research, 5, 313-318.
18.	Dawar, Niraj and Phillip Parker (1994). Marketing Universals: Consumers’ Use of Brand Name, Price, Physical Appearance, and Retailer Reputation as Signals of Product Quality. Journal of Marketing, 58(April), 81-95.
19.	De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L. and Rayp, G. (2005) Do Consumers Care about Ethics? Willingness to Pay for Fair-Trade Coffee. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39, 363–385.
20.	Dodds, W. (1991).  In search of value: How price and store name information influence buyers’ product perceptions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 8(2), 15–24.
21.	Dodds, W. B. and Monroe, K. B. (1985). The effect of brand and price information on subjective product evaluation. Advances in Consumer Research, 12, 85-90.
22.	Dodds, W., Monroe, K. B., and Grewal, D. (1991). Effect of price, brand, and store information on buyers' product evaluations. Journal ofMarketing Research, 28, 307-319.
23.	Engel, James F., Kollat, David and Blackwell, Roger D. (1982). Consumer Behavior,4th ed.,Taipei, Hwa-Tai Co.
24.	Fon Sim Ong, Philip J. Kitchen, Shih Shiuan Chew (2010) Marketing a consumer durable brand in Malaysia: a conjoint analysis and market simulation.Journal of Consumer Marketing,27(6),507–515.
25.	Franke, Nikolaus, Schreier, Martin(2008) Product uniqueness as a driver of customer utility in mass customization. Marketing Letters, 19 (2) ,93-107.
26.	Gary A. Knight (1999) Consumer preferences for foreign and domestic products.Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16 (2), 151 – 162.
27.	Garvin, D. A. (1984). What Does Product Quality Really Mean? Sloan Management Review, 26 (1), 25–43.
28.	Gerard P. Prendergast, Alex S.L. Tsang, Cherry N.W. Chan (2010) . The interactive influence of country of origin of brand and product involvement on purchase intention. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(2) , 180 – 188.
29.	Green, P. and V. Srinivasan(1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. Journal of consumer research, 5(2): 103-123.
30.	Green, P. E. and W. S. DeSarbo (1979). Componential Segmentation in the Analysis of Consumer Tradeoffs. Journal of Marketing, 43, 83-91.
31.	Gregory Colson & Jay R. Corrigan & Matthew C. Rousu (2010).The Impact of Perceived Prices on Willingness to Pay in Experimental Auctions.Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, Berkeley Electronic Press, vol. 8(1).
32.	Guieford, J. P.(1965). Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, New York: McGraw-Hill.
33.	Havlena, William J. and DeSarbo, Wayne S. (1991). On the Measurement of Perceived Consumer Risk. Decision Sciences, 22, 927-938.
34.	Holbrook, M. B. and Corfman, K. P. (1985). Quality and Value in the Consumption Experience: Phaedrus Riders Again, In J. Jacoby and J. Olson, (Eds.), Perceived Quality (pp. 31–57), MA: Lexington Books
35.	Houston, M. J. and Rothschild, M. L.(1978). Methodological Perspectives in Involvement, Research Frontiers in Marketing: Dialogues and Directions ed. S. Jain. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 184-187.
36.	Huimin Gu, Chris Ryan, Chinese clientele at Chinese hotels--Preferences and satisfaction(2008) International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27( 3), 337-345.
37.	Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, Inge Geyskens (2006) How country  characteristics affect the perceived value of web sites. Journal of Marketing ,70(3) ,136-150.
38.	Jeon, H.J., M.S. Kim, and S.Y. Sohn (2010).Conjoint and WTP analyses of future mobile phones for digital convergence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(3), 457-465.
39.	Johnson, R. and B. Orme (2003). Getting the Most from CBC, Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series, Sawtooth Software Inc., Sequim.
40.	Judy Harris and Edward A. Blair(2006)Consumer Preference for Product Bundles: The Role of Reduced Search Costs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 34,506.
41.	Kardes, F. R., Cronley, M. L., Kellaris, J. J., and Posavac, S. S. (2004). The role of selective information processing in price-quality inference. Journal of Consumer Research,31(September), 368–374.
42.	Kardes, F. R., Kim, J., and Lim, J.-S. (2001). Consumer expertise and the perceived diagnosticity of inference. Advances in Consumer Research, 19, 409–410.
43.	Kirmani, A. (1990). The effect of perceived advertising costs on brand perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 160-171.
44.	Kotler, Philip（2003）. Marketing Management, 11th ed,” Prentice-Hall Inc.
45.	Krugman,Herbert E.(1965).The Impact of Television Adversting Learning without Involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly,Fall, 29,349-356.
46.	Lanseng, E. and F. Alfnes(2002). Brand Performance in the Marketplace: An Experimental Auction Approach. Institutt for okonomi og samfunnsfag, IOS, NLH.
47.	Lastovicka, J. L., and Gardner, D. M.(1979). Consumer Involvement Profiles: A New Practical Approach to Consumer Involvement. Journal of Advertising Research, 25, 48-56.
48.	Laurent Gilles and Jean-Noel Kapferer(1985). Measuring Consumer Involvement Profiles, Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 41-53.
49.	Lee, M., and Lou, C.-C. (1996). Consumer reliance on intrinsic and extrinsic cues in product evaluations: A conjoint approach. Journal of Applied Business Research, 12(1), 21–30.
50.	MaCorkle, Denny E. (1990). The Role of Perceived Risk in Mail Order Catalog Shopping. Journal of Marketing, 4, 26-35.
51.	Mark B. Taylor(1981). Product Involvement Concept：An Advertising Planning Point of View.Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes,94-111.
52.	McColl-Kennedy, Janet R.and Richard E. Fetter, Jr（2001）.An Empiricat Examination of the Involvement to External Search Relationship in search Relationship in Services Marketing . Journal of service Marketing ,15（2）, 82-98.
53.	Mitra, K., M. C., Reiss ＆ L. M., Capella(1999). An Examination of Perceived Risk, Information Search and Behavioral Intentions in Search, Experience and Credence Services. The Journal of Services Marketing, 13(3), 208-228.
54.	Miyazaki, A. D., Grewal, D., and Goodstein, R. C. (2005). The effect of multiple extrinsic cues in quality perceptions: A matter of consisteny. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 146–153.
55.	Monroe, K. B. (1982). The influence of price on product perceptions and product choice. Advances in Consumer Research, 9(1), 206–209.
56.	Nikolaus Franke, Peter Keinz, and Christoph J. Steger (2009) Testing the Value of Customization: When Do Customers Really Prefer Products Tailored to Their Preferences? Journal of Marketing, 73 (September), 103–121.
57.	North, E.J., de Vos, R.B. and Kotze, T. (2003) The importance of apparel product attributes for female buyers.Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer
Sciences, 31, 41-51.
58.	Olshavsky, R. W. (1985). Perceived Quality in Consumer Decision Making: An Integrated Theoretical Perspective, in Perceived Quality, Jacoby, J., and Olson, J.(eds.), Lexington Books, Massachusetts.
59.	Olson, J. C. and Jacob, J. (1972). Cue Utilization in the Quality Perception Process, In M. Venkatesan (Eds.), In Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research (pp. 167–169). IC: Association for Consumer Research..
60.	Olson, J. C. (1977). Price as an Informational Cue: Effects in Product Evaluation.In A. G. Woodside, J. N. Sheth, and P. D. Bennet (Eds.) In Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior (pp. 267–286). NY: North Holland Publishing Company.
61.	Olson,Jacob Jacoby (1973). Cue Utilization in the Quality Perception Process. Proceedings 3rd Annual Conference, M. Venkatesan, ed. Chicago: Association for Consumer Research, 167-179.
62.	Paivi Kahkonen, Hely Tuorila(1999) Consumer responses to reduced and regular fat content in different products: effects of gender, involvement and health concern.Food Quality and Preference, 10( 2), 83-91.
63.	Parasuraman, A. and Grewal, D. (2000). The impact of technology on the quality-value-loyalty chain: A research agenda. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 168-174.
64.	Park, C. W., and Lessig, V. P.（1981）.Familiarity and its Impacts on Consumer Decision Biases and Heuristics. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2) , 223-230.
65.	Park, C. W., Jaworiski, B. J., and Maclnnis, D. J.（1986）.Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management. Journal of Marketing, 50(4) , 135-145.
66.	Rao, A. R., and Monroe, K. B. (1989). The effect of price, brand name, anu store name on buyer's perceptions of product quality: An integrative re- view. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 351-357.
67.	Rao, A. R., and Olson, E. M. (1990). Information examination as a function of information type and dimension of consumer expertise: Some exploratory findings. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 361–366.
68.	Rao, Akshay R. and Kent B. Monroe (1988). The Modernizing Effect of Prior Knowledge on Cue Utilization in Product Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 253- 264.
69.	Rao, Akshay R. and Wanda A.Sieben(1992). The Effect of Prior Knowledge on Price Acceptability and the Type of Information Examined. Journal of Consumer Research, 19 ,September, 256-270.
70.	Richins,Marsha L. and Bloch Peter H.(1986). After the New Wears Off：The Temporal Contex of Product Involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 280-285.
71.	Rob Ranyard, John P. Charlton, Janis Williamson (2001) The role of internal reference prices in consumers' willingness to pay judgments: Thaler's Beer Pricing Task revisited. Acta Psychologica, 106( 3), 265-283.
72.	Schmidt, J. B., ＆ Spreng, R. A.（1996）. A Proposed Model of External Consumer Information Search. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 24(3), 246-256.
73.	Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., and Gross, B. L. (1991). Consumption Values and Market Choice, Cincinnati, Ohio: SouthWesterb Publishing Press.
74.	Shimp, T. A., and Bearden, W. (1982). Warranty and other extrinsic cue effects on consumers' risk perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 38-46.
75.	Simonson, Itamar (1989). Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (September), 158-174.
76.	Soo Cheong (Shawn) Jang, Young Namkung(2009) Perceived quality, emotions, and behavioral intentions: Application of an extended Mehrabian-Russell model to restaurants.Journal of Business Research, 62 (4), 451-460.
77.	Srinivasan, N., Jain, S. C., and Sikand, K. (2004). An experimental study of two dimensions of country-of-origin (manufacturing country and branding country) using intrinsic and extrinsic cues. International Business Review, 13, 65–82.
78.	Stone, R. N., and Gronhaug, K. (1993). Perceived Risk: Further Consideration for the Marketing Discipline. European Journal of Marketing, 27 (3), 39-50.
79.	Sweeney, J. C., and Soutar, G. N. （2001）. Consumer perceived value:The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2) , 203.
80.	Teas, R. Kenneth and Sanjeev Agarwal (2000).The Effects of Extrinsic Product Cues on Consumers’ Perceptions of Quality, Sacrifice, and Value.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (2), 278–90.
81.	Tamilselvi J., Madhavi C. (2007) Price and Intrinsic Cue Effects on Product Evaluations. International Bulletin of Business Administration,2,67-78.
82.	Umberger, W. J., Feuz, D. M., Calkins, C. R. and Killinger-Mann, K. (2002) U.S. consumer preference and willingness-to-pay for domestic corn-fed beef versus international grass-fed beef measured through an experimental auction. Agribusiness, 18, 491–504. 
83.	Verbeke, W. and Ward, R.W. (2006). Consumer interest in information cues denoting quality,traceability and origin: an application of ordered probit models to beef labels. Food Quality and Preference 17: 453-467.
84.	Völckner, F., and Hofmann, J.(2007). The price-perceived quality relationship: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its determinants. Market Letter , 18,181–196.
85.	Wilson, T. D., & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 117–142.
86.	Wim Verbeke, Iris Vermeir, Karen Brunso(2007) Consumer evaluation of fish quality as basis for fish market segmentation. Food Quality and Preference, 18(4), 651-661.
87.	Wright, Peter L.(1975). Consumer Choice Strategies：Simplifying vs. Optimizing. Journal of Marketing Research, 11(February), 60-67.
88.	Young, S. and Barbara, F. (1975). Using the Benefit Chain for Improved Strategy Formulation. Journal of Consumer Research, (8), 72–74.
89.	Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision,and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23, 59‐70.
90.	Zaichkowsky, J. L.(1986). The Emotional Aspect of Product Involvement. Advances in Consumer Research, 14, 32-35.
91.	Zaichkowsky,J.L.(1985). Measuring the Involvement Construct, Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341-352.
92.	Zeithaml, V. A and Kirmani, A. (1993). Advertising, Perceived Quality and Brand Image, In D. A. Aaker and A. L. Biel (Eds.), Brand Equity ＆ Advertising： Advertising’s Role in Building Brand (pp. 143–161). IC：Lawrence Erbaum Associates.
93.	Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer Perception of Price, Quality and Value: Ameans-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 53, 2–22.
三、網站部分
1.拓墣產業研究所http://www.topology.com.tw/tri/