淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


  查詢圖書館館藏目錄
系統識別號 U0002-1807201123370600
中文論文名稱 產銷履歷認證標章對知覺品質、知覺風險、知覺價值與願付價格之影響:以黑豬肉香腸為例
英文論文名稱 The Effects of Food Traceability Certification Label on Perceived Quality, Perceived Risk, Perceived Value and Consumer Willingness To Pay Premium: The Case of Black Pork Sausage
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 99
學期 2
出版年 100
研究生中文姓名 張喬峯
研究生英文姓名 Chiao-Feng Chang
學號 698610531
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
口試日期 2011-06-13
論文頁數 107頁
口試委員 指導教授-羅惠瓊
委員-李月華
委員-張巧真
中文關鍵字 產銷履歷  品牌形象  知覺品質  知覺風險  知覺價值  條件評估法 
英文關鍵字 Perceived Quality  Perceived Risk  Perceived Value  Traceability  Brand Image  Contingent Valuation Method  WTP 
學科別分類 學科別社會科學管理學
中文摘要 加工食品已經成為一般大眾生活中所不可缺乏的一部份。然而,加工食品經過化學添加人工處理等步驟程序,其外觀與原料的本質已具有差異性,消費者無法輕易從外觀或口感辨認加工食品之品質良劣。
產銷履歷為一記錄食品從原料、生產、加工、運輸、倉儲等資訊的系統。透過此系統的認證消費者可獲得充分的食品安全資訊,提升知覺品質與降低知覺風險,最終轉換成願付價格。然而,此套認證系統尚屬新型認證,消費者對其觀感缺乏充分研究。在產銷履歷系統發展前,消費者多倚賴品牌形象做為加工食品品質的考量依據,過往文獻中也具有充分研究。然而,過往文獻缺乏同時探討產銷履歷認證與品牌形象在加工食品上對於消費者的知覺影響,同時也缺乏兩者同時對於願付價格估計的影響。因此,本研究同時探討產銷履歷與品牌形象的效應,藉以填補此文獻缺口。本研究採用條件評估法對消費者願付價格進行推論。有效問卷為623份,並對其進行敘述性統計分析、信效度分析、迴歸分析與雙元Probit分析。結果發現:
一、產銷履歷認證與品牌形象皆對消費者的知覺品質、知覺風險與知覺價值具有顯著影響。
二、產銷履歷認證與品牌形象皆對消費者的願付價格具有正向影響。
三、當消費者面對高品牌形象的產品時,其願付價格高過低品牌形象。
四、低品牌形象時,產銷履歷認證提升價格的邊際效應高過高品牌形象的產品。
英文摘要 Abstract: Food safety outbreaks world-wide has increased consumers’ concerns over the safety of food they consume. Food traceability system and traceability certification has been introduced in Taiwan to reduce risks in food purchase and consumption. However, the effect of traceability certification has not yet been explored in conjunction with brand image, a well-established quality cue. This research investigates the effects of brand image and traceability certification on consumer’s perception of quality, risk and value, as well as willingness to pay premium for black pork sausage.
A paper-based survey was conducted during the period of April, 2011, in the Metro Taipei region. 800 respondents were sampled. 623 valid samples were collected. Results indicate that a favorable brand image as well as traceability certification had positive impacts on consumer’s perceived quality and perceived value of black pork sausage, while consumer’s risk perceptions were reduced in the presence of brand image and traceability certification. Willingness to pay premium was found to be influenced by brand image, traceability certification and perceived value. Results also indicate that consumers are generally willing to pay premium for traceability certification. This willingness to pay premium margin is statistically different between high/low brand image. Conclusions and managerial implications are discussed and presented.
論文目次 List of Tables IV
List of Figures V
1. Introduction 1
1.1. Research Background and Motives 1
1.2. Research Objectives 5
1.3. Research Scopes 6
1.4. Research Flowchart 6
2. Literature Review 8
2.1. History, Emergence, and Definition of Food Traceability 8
2.2. Current Status of Food Traceability System in the world 10
2.2.1. North America and Europe Region 10
2.2.2. Asia Region 11
2.2.3. Taiwan 12
2.3. Brand 13
2.3.1. Brand and related literatures 13
2.3.2. Brand Image 15
2.4. Perceived Quality 17
2.4.1. Perceived Quality Definition 18
2.4.2. Theories of Perceived Quality 20
2.4.3. Dimensions of Perceived Quality 23
2.5. Perceived Risk 23
2.5.1. Definition of Perceived Risk 24
2.5.2. Dimensions of Perceived Risk 25
2.6. Perceived Value 27
2.6.1. Formation of Perceived Value 27
2.6.2. Definition of Perceived Value 30
2.6.3. Perceived Value Dimensions 31
2.7. Willingness to Pay 32
2.7.1. Definition of WTP 32
2.7.2. Estimation methods of WTP 32
2.8. Contingent Valuation Method 34
2.8.1. Empirical Model 38
3. Research Methodology 43
3.1. Research Framework and Hypotheses 43
3.2. Variable Definitions 48
3.2.1. Independent Variables 48
3.2.2. Mediating Variables 49
3.2.3. Dependent Variable (Willingness To Pay) 52
3.3. Survey Design 52
3.3.1. Brand Choices 53
3.3.2. Pre-test survey 53
3.3.3. Final survey 54
3.4. Data Analysis 55
3.4.1. Descriptive Statistics 55
3.4.2. Reliability 56
3.4.3. Validity 56
3.4.4. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) 56
3.4.5. Regression Analysis 57
4. Data Analyses 58
4.1. Descriptive Analyses 58
4.1.1. Respondents Profile 58
4.1.2. Knowledge of Traceability Certification 59
4.1.3. Purchase and Consumption Frequency of pork sausage 60
4.1.4. Respondents Brand and Bid Distribution 61
4.2. Reliability and Validity 63
4.2.1. Validity 63
4.2.2. Reliability 64
4.3. Testing for Hypotheses 65
4.3.1. Independent T-Test 65
4.3.2. Regression Analysis (Perceived Value to WTP) 68
4.3.3. Estimation of WTP 70
5. Conclusions and Recommendations 76
5.1. Conclusions for Hypotheses 76
5.2. Conclusions for WTP estimation 78
5.3. Managerial Implications 79
5.4. Research Limitations and Recommendations 80
5.4.1. Research Limitations 80
5.4.2. Research Recommendations 81
References 82
Appendix I (Pre-test Survey) 93
Appendix II (Final Survey) 97
Appendix III (Forward Regression) 103

List of Tables
Table 2-1: Summary of CVM Elicitation Methods ...................................................... 37
Table 3-1: Survey items for perceived quality ............................................................. 50
Table 3-2: Survey items for perceived risk .................................................................. 50
Table 3-3: Perceived Value survey items ..................................................................... 52
Table 3-4: Brand Groups .............................................................................................. 53
Table 3-5: Results of pre-test distribution ................................................................... 54
Table 3-6: Bid Design .................................................................................................. 55
Table 4-1: Summary of Respondents Profile ............................................................... 59
Table 4-2: Summary of Knowledge of Traceability Certification ............................... 60
Table 4-3: Summary of Frequency of Purchase and Consumption ............................. 61
Table 4-4: Summary of Survey Response Distribution ............................................... 62
Table 4-5: Validity of final survey ............................................................................... 63
Table 4-6: Factor analysis for perceived risk ............................................................... 64
Table 4-7: Cronbach’s α of variables ........................................................................... 65
Table 4-8: T-test for certified traceable/uncertified groups (PQ) ................................. 66
Table 4-9: T-test for certified traceable/uncertified groups (PR) ................................. 66
Table 4-10: T-test for high / low brand image groups (PQ) ......................................... 67
Table 4-11: T-test for high / low brand image groups (PR) ......................................... 68
Table 4-12: Mediation between Brand Image, Traceability Certification, PV and WTP
.............................................................................................................................. 69
Table 4-13: Summary of Hypotheses Test ................................................................... 70
Table 4-14: Variable Definition and Coding ................................................................ 71
Table 4-15: Parameter Estimates of Final Bivariate Probit Model .............................. 72
Table 4-16: Estimated Mean WTP of respondents ...................................................... 75

List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Research Flowchart ..................................................................................... 7
Figure 2-1: The Perceived Quality Components ......................................................... 22
Figure 2-2: Conceptualization of Perceived Value ...................................................... 27
Figure 2-3: Transaction Utility Theory ........................................................................ 28
Figure 2-4: A Means-End Model Relating Price, Quality, and Value .......................... 30
Figure 3-1: Research Framework................................................................................. 43
參考文獻 一、中文部分
1. 余宣佑(2009),我國產銷履歷制度規劃與執行面探討: 以風險社會理論為觀點,臺灣大學國家發展研究所碩士論文。
2. 吳一斌(1999),品牌卡位贏家,維德文化。
3. 林鎗元(2007),台灣茶葉生產履歷購買意願之研究,亞洲大學經營管理學系碩士論文。
4. 胡忠一(2006),我國農產品產銷履歷制度推動現況。台北:行政院農業委員會。2010年5月31日取自:http://coa.cpc.org.tw/edu/Class/doc/95/講義/95初階2/農產品產銷履歷推動現況_胡忠一科長_.pdf
5. 張雅雯 (2008),消費者對豬肉產銷履歷願付價格之研究,國立中興大學行銷所碩士論文
6. 莊英達(2009),以選擇模型評估消費者對蔬果標章的願付價格之研究,朝陽大學企業管理系碩士論文。
7. 黃俊英(1992),行銷研究,華泰文化。
8. 謝雯華(1994),環境財需求函數之估計:封閉式條件評估模型之比較分析,台灣大學農業經濟研究所碩士論文。
9. 鍾倩文(2007),消費者對進口牛肉安全的認知與期望,國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。

二、英文部分
1. Aaker, D., Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. 1991: Free press New York.
2. Ambler, T., How much of brand equity is explained by trust? Management Decision, 1997. 35(4): p. 283-292.
3. Angulo, A.M. and J.M. Gil, Risk perception and consumer willingness to pay for certified beef in Spain. Food Quality and Preference, 2007. 18(8): p. 1106-1117.
4. Baird, I. and H. Thomas, Toward a contingency model of strategic risk taking. Academy of Management Review, 1985. 10(2): p. 230-243.
5. Bauer, R., Consumer behavior as risk taking. Dynamic marketing for a changing world, 1960. 398.
6. Bernués, A., A. Olaizola, and K. Corcoran, Extrinsic attributes of red meat as indicators of quality in Europe: an application for market segmentation. Food Quality and Preference, 2003. 14(4): p. 265-276.
7. Bonner, P. G & R. Nelson (1985), “Product Attributes and Perceived Quality: Foods,” In J. Jacoby and J. C. Olson, ed., Perceived Quality, Lexington Books, pp.65-79.
8. Brucks, M., V. Zeithaml, and G. Naylor, Price and brand name as indicators of quality dimensions for consumer durables. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2000. 28(3): p. 359-374.
9. Chang, Chung-Yu (2008), “Willingness to Pay Premium for Foods Produced in Taiwan and Its Implications for Country of Origin Labeling,” Master Thesis, Department of Economics, National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan.
10. Chernatony, L. and G. Mcwilliam, Branding terminology the real debate. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 1989. 7(7): p. 29-32.
11. Choe, Y., et al., Effect of the food traceability system for building trust: Price premium and buying behavior. Information Systems Frontiers, 2009. 11(2): p. 167-179.
12. Clemens, R., Meat Traceability and Consumer Assurance in Japan, MATRIC Briefing Paper 03-MBP 5, Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center, Iowa State University, USA, 2003.
13. Cox, D., Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior. 1967: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.
14. Cunningham, S., The major dimensions of perceived risk. Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior, 1967: p. 82-108. Boston: Harvard University Press
15. de Souza Monteiro, D. and J. Caswell, The economics of implementing traceability in beef supply chains: Trends in major producing and trading countries. Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts
16 DFID UK Department For International Development Demand Assessment Seminar, December, 1997
17. Dodds, W. and K. Monroe, The effect of brand and price information on subjective product evaluations. Advances in consumer research, 1985. 12(1): p. 85-90.
18. Dodds, W.B., K.B. Monroe, and D. Grewal, Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers' Product Evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 1991. 28(3): p. 307-319.
19. Dowling, G. and R. Staelin, A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. Journal of Consumer Research, 1994. 21(1): p. 119-134.
20. Erevelles, S., The price-warranty contract and product attitudes. Journal of Business Research, 1993. 27(2): p. 171-181.
21. Erevelles, S., A. Roy, and S. Vargo, The Use of Price and Warranty Cues in Product Evaluation. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 1999. 11(3): p. 67-91.
22. Feldman, L., New legislation and the prospects for real warranty reform. The Journal of Marketing, 1976. 40(3): p. 41-47.
23. Gal-Or, E., Warranties as a Signal of Quality. Canadian Journal of Economics, 1989. 22(1): p. 50-61.
24. Gan, C. and E. Luzar, A conjoint analysis of waterfowl hunting in Louisiana. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 1993. 25(02).
25. Garretson, J. and K. Clow, The influence of coupon face value on service quality expectations, risk perceptions and purchase intentions in the dental industry. Journal of Services Marketing, 1999. 13(1): p. 59-72.
26. Garvin, D., What does product quality really mean. Sloan management review, 1984. 26(1): p. 25-43.
27. Garvin, D.A., Product quality: An important strategic weapon. Business Horizons, 1984. 27(3): p. 40-43.
28. Gellynck, X., W. Verbeke, and B. Vermeire, Pathways to increase consumer trust in meat as a safe and wholesome food. Meat Science, 2006. 74(1): p. 161-171.
29. Gerner, J. and W. Bryant, Appliance Warranties as a Market Signal? Journal of Consumer Affairs, 1981. 15(1): p. 75-86.
30. Giraud, G. and R. Halawany. Consumer's perception of food traceability in Europe. 2006.
31. Goddard, E. and T. Nilsson, Traceability -- A Literature Review. 2008.
32. Golan, E., et al., Traceability in the US food supply: dead end or superhighway. Choices, 2003. 18(2): p. 17-20.
33. Gracia, A. and G. Zeballos, Attitudes of Retailers and Consumers toward the EU Traceability and Labeling System for Beef. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 2005. 36(3): p.45-56.
35. Grewal, D., et al., The effect of store name, brand name and price discounts on consumers' evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 1998. 74(3): p. 331-352.
36. Gronholdt, L., A. Martensen, and K. Kristensen, The relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty: cross-industry differences. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 2000. 11(4): p. 509-514.
37. Grunert, K., Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 2005. 32(3): p. 369.
38. Hanemann, W., Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1984: p. 332-341.
39. Hobbs, J., Information asymmetry and the role of traceability systems. Agribusiness, 2004. 20(4): p. 397-415.
40. Hobbs, J., et al., Traceability in the Canadian red meat sector: do consumers care? Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, 2005. 53(1): p. 47-65.
41. Hobbs, J.E., Information asymmetry and the role of traceability systems. Agribusiness, 2004. 20(4): p. 397-415.
42. Holbrook, M. and K. Corfman, Quality and value in the consumption experience: Phaedrus rides again. Perceived Quality, 1985. 31: p. 31-57.
43. Homburg, C., N. Koschate, and W. Hoyer, Do satisfied customers really pay more? A study of the relationship between customer satisfaction and willingness to pay. Journal of Marketing, 2005. 69(2): p. 84-96.
44. Jacoby, J., J. Olson, and R. Haddock, Price, brand name, and product composition characteristics as determinants of perceived quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971. 55(6): p. 570-579.
45. Jo, M., Nakamoto and Nelson, EJ, 2003. The shielding effects of brand image against lower quality countries-of-origin in global manufacturing. Journal of Business Research. 56: p. 637-646.
46. Kalwani, M. and C. Yim, Consumer price and promotion expectations: An experimental study. Journal of Marketing Research, 1992. 29(1): p. 90-100.
47. Kandapa Thanasuta, Thanyawee Patoomsuwan, Vanvisa Chaimahawong, Yingyot Chiaravutthi, (2009) "Brand and country of origin valuations of automobiles", Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 21(3), p.355 - 375
48. Kaplan, L., G. Szybillo, and J. Jacoby, Components of perceived risk in product purchase: a cross-validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974. 59(3): p. 287-291.
49. Kelley, C., An investigation of consumer product warranties as market signals of product reliability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1988. 16(2): p. 72-78.
50. Kirmani, A. and V. Zeithaml, Advertising, perceived quality, and brand image. Brand Equity and Advertising: Advertising's Role in Building Strong Brands, 1993: p. 143-162.
51. Laitila, T., Stated preference methods. Umea University, Department of Statistics, 2000.
52. Lanseng, E. and F. Alfnes, Brand Performance in the Marketplace: An Experimental Auction Approach. 2002: Institutt for okonomi og samfunnsfag, IOS, NLH.
53. Leszinski, R. and M. Marn, Setting value, not price. The McKinsey Quarterly, 1997(1).
54. Loureiro, M., S. Hine, and A.A.E. Association, Discovering niche markets: a comparison of consumer willingness to pay for local (Colorado grown), organic, and GMO-free products. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 2002. 34(3): p. 477-488.
55. Loureiro, M. and W. Umberger, Estimating consumer willingness to pay for country-of-origin labeling. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2003. 28(2): p. 287-301.
56. Loureiro, M.L. and W.J. Umberger, A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability. Food Policy, 2007. 32(4): p. 496-514.
57. Lutz, N., Warranties as signals under consumer moral hazard. The RAND Journal of Economics, 1989. 20(2): p. 239-255.
58. Mackenzie, J., A comparison of contingent preference models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1993: p. 593-603.
59. Mitra, K., M. Reiss, and L. Capella, An examination of perceived risk, information search and behavioral intentions in search, experience and credence services. Journal of Services Marketing, 1999. 13(3): p. 208-228.
60. Molin, E., Conjoint modeling approaches for residential group preferences. 1999.
61. Monroe, K. and R. Krishnan, The effect of price on subjective product evaluations. Perceived quality: How consumers view stores and merchandise, 1985: p. 209-232.
62. Myers, J. and A. Shocker, The nature of product-related attributes. Research in Marketing, 1981. 5(5): p. 211-236.
63. Olshavsky, R., Perceived quality in consumer decision making: an integrated theoretical perspective. Perceived quality: How consumers view stores and merchandise, 1985: p. 3-29.
64. Olson, J., Price as an informational cue: Effects on product evaluations. College of Business Administration, Pennsylvania State University, 1976.
65. Olson, J. and T. Reynolds, Understanding consumers¡¦ cognitive structures: Implications for advertising strategy. Advertising and consumer psychology, 1983. 1: p. 77-90.
66. Parasuraman, A. and D. Grewal, The impact of technology on the quality-value-loyalty chain: a research agenda. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2000. 28(1): p. 168-174.
67. Perry, M. and A. Perry, Service contract compared to warranty as a means to reduce consumers¡¦ risk. Journal of Retailing, 1976. 52(2): p. 33-40.
69. Pettis, C., TechnoBrands: How to Create & Use Brand Identity to Market, Advertise & Sell Technology Products, synopsis by Steven Mulinovich of Morgan Stanley on March 6, 1997.
70. Phelps, D. and J. Westing, Marketing management. 1960: RD Irwin.
71. Priest, G., A theory of the consumer product warranty. Yale Law Journal, 1981. 90(6): p. 1297-1352.
72. Przyrembel, H., Food labelling legislation in the EU and consumers information. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 15(7-8): p. 360-365.
73. Purohit, D. and J. Srivastava, Effect of Manufacturer Reputation, Retailer Reputation, and Product Warranty on Consumer Judgments of Product Quality: A Cue Diagnosticity Framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2001. 10(3): p. 123-134.
74. Rafia Halawany1, C.B., Georges Giraud1and Burkhard Schaer2, Consumers' Acceptability and Rejection of Food Traceability Systems, a French-German Cross-Comparison. 2007.
75. Rao, A. and K. Monroe, The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers' perceptions of product quality: An integrative review. Journal of Marketing Research, 1989. 26(3): p. 351-357.
76. Regattieri, A., M. Gamberi, and R. Manzini, Traceability of food products: General framework and experimental evidence. Journal of Food Engineering, 2007. 81(2): p. 347-356.
77. Richardson, P., A. Dick, and A. Jain, Extrinsic and intrinsic cue effects on perceptions of store brand quality. The Journal of Marketing, 1994. 58(4): p. 28-36.
78. Roselius, T., Consumer Rankings of Risk Reduction Methods. The Journal of Marketing, 1971. 35(1): p. 56-61.
79. Setterstrom, A. and J. Pearson, Social Influence and Willingness to Pay for Online Video Games. Social Influence. 1: p. 1-2010.
80. Sheth, J. and M. Venkatesan, Risk-reduction processes in repetitive consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 1968. 5(3): p. 307-310.
81. Sheth, N., Newman, B., and Gross, LG., Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 1991. 22: p. 159-170.
82. Shimp, T. and W. Bearden, Warranty and other extrinsic cue effects on consumers' risk perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research, 1982. 9(1): p. 38-46.
83. Sirdeshmukh, D., J. Singh, and B. Sabol, Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges. The Journal of Marketing, 2002. 66(1): p. 15-37.
84. Steenkamp, J., Conceptual model of the quality perception process. Journal of Business Research, 1990. 21(4): p. 309-333.
85. Stone, R. and K. Gronhaug, Perceived risk: Further considerations for the marketing discipline. European Journal of Marketing, 1993. 27(3): p. 39-50.
86. Sweeney, J. and G. Soutar, Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 2001. 77(2): p. 203-220.
87. Thaler, R., Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing science, 1985. 4(3): p. 199-214.
88. Treacy, M. and F. Wiersema, Customer intimacy and other value disciplines. Harvard business review, 1993. 71: p. 84-84.
89. Ubilava, D. and K. Foster, Quality certification vs. product traceability: Consumer preferences for informational attributes of pork in Georgia. Food Policy, 2009. 34(3): p. 305-310.
90. Udell, J. and E. Anderson, The product warranty as an element of competitive strategy. The Journal of Marketing, 1968. 32(4): p. 1-8.
91. Urbany, J., Bearden, W., Ajit Kaicker, Melinda Smith-De Borrero, Transaction utility effects when quality is uncertain. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1997. 25(1): p. 45-55.
92. Van Rijswijk, W. and L. Frewer, Consumer perceptions of food quality and safety and their relation to traceability. British Food Journal, 2008. 110(10): p. 1034-1046.
93. Van Rijswijk, J. Frewer, Davide Menozzi and Giusi Faioli, Consumer perceptions of traceability: A cross-national comparison of the associated benefits. Food Quality and Preference, 2008. 19(5): p. 452-464.
94. W. Verbeke, J. Frewer, Scholderer and De Brabander, Why consumers behave as they do with respect to food safety and risk information. Analytica Chimica Acta, 2007. 586(1-2): p. 2-7.
95. Vermeir, I. and W. Verbeke, Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer “Attitude – Behavioral Intention” Gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 2006. 19(2): p. 169-194.
96. Voelckner, F., An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay. Marketing Letters, 2006. 17(2): p. 137-149.
97. Wiener, J., Are warranties accurate signals of product reliability? Journal of Consumer Research, 1985. 12(2): p. 245-250.
98. Young, S. and B. Feigin, Using the benefit chain for improved strategy formulation. The Journal of Marketing, 1975. 39(3): p. 72-74.
99. Zeithaml, V., Consumer Perceptions of Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 1988. 52: p. 2-22.
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2016-07-21公開。
  • 不同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務。


  • 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