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 U0002-2206201123113500
中文論文名稱 產品美學與功能屬性兩難取捨之消費者選擇研究
英文論文名稱 The study of consumer choice under a trade-off tasks between product aesthetic and functional attributes
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 國際企業學系碩士班
系所名稱(英) Master's Program, Department Of International Business
學年度 99
學期 2
出版年 100
研究生中文姓名 胡家茗
研究生英文姓名 Chia-Ming HU
學號 698550273
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
口試日期 2011-05-30
論文頁數 77頁
口試委員 指導教授-黃哲盛
委員-王仕茹
委員-蔡顯童
中文關鍵字 美學  產品功能屬性  產品美學屬性  消費者美感中心性  美學偏好  合理化效果 
英文關鍵字 Product Aesthetic Attributes  Product Functional Attributes  Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetic (CVPA)  Hedonic Consumption  Aesthetic preference  Justification Effect 
學科別分類
中文摘要 過去研究中發現,消費者偏好可分為愉悅性與實用性兩種面向,而產品的美學在購買決策中通常是被歸類為愉悅性角色。然而,當研究觀點著重產品美學如何影響決策時,發現其中存在一種美麗的矛盾-通常因美學而被消費者偏好的商品,卻不會是消費者最終購買的商品,此現象即所謂的偏好反轉;但若最終購買時仍選擇較偏好的美學商品,則稱為購買決策的合理化。合理化在一些研究中曾被檢視過,但卻尚未有研究探討愉悅性商品合理化的難易性與消費者個人美學偏好的關係。本研究為此引用消費者商品美感中心性(CVPA),一種可將美感在各人心中重視程度量化的尺度,並將此尺度延伸發展功能構面問項。

本研究為了檢視高/低美學偏好消費者在購買決策上是否有差異,特地建構了五組相同價格下美學與功能無法兼具的對照產品。同時也試著找出在這種無法兼具的兩難情況下,是否有某種主導的美學或功能屬性,會使商品在必須放棄一種面向時必然勝出。

本研究發現,原先的CVPA構面中的敏銳度(acumen)面向並不適合產品功能-美學對照的問項,因此剔除該面向的題目並將其它兩個構面重組,發展了新的美學偏好尺度,依此把消費者分為高/低美學偏好群組。研究結果顯現,在判別美學商品時,無論高低美學偏好的消費者均有能力鑑別出美學商品。在美學商品的購買中,高美學偏好的消費者顯著較低美學偏好的消費者更傾向購買美學商品。而美學偏好也真實反映受測者的偏好,研究發現高美學偏好者更容易將商品美學合理化,並購買所偏好的美學商品,顯著地較低美學偏好者更少出現偏好反轉的現象。同時,也透過分析消費者重視的商品屬性與購買決策,分別歸納了美學與功能的主導屬性。
英文摘要 Previous research has shown that consumer preferences have both hedonic and utilitarian dimensions, and the aesthetic aspect of a product is normally taken as a source of hedonic consumption. While researches focus on how the product aesthetic works, there’s a paradox hidden in this issue, the preferred aesthetic product might not be the ultimate product purchased, this is what we called preference reversal. However, if the product purchased is the product preferred, we call it the justification of hedonic consumption. Justification has been examined in several researches; however none of these researches has linked the ease of hedonic good consumption justification with consumer’s inner sense of beauty. Base on this point, in this research we apply the Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics, a scale which can measure the level of product aesthetics is put in one person’s mind. And CVPA is extended by adding functional-oriented questions.

In order to examine consumers’ different purchase behavior between high/low CVPA respondents, this article conducted five trade-off decision tasks under the condition of given same price for each pair of comparable aesthetic-functional attributes. Meanwhile, we try to find out if there is any functional/ aesthetic attribute will dominate consumer choice in this kind of trade-off purchase situation.

In this research we found out the acumen dimension of CVPA is not suitable for developing functional-aesthetic contrast questions. Therefore, a new Aesthetic Preference is constructed from the other two dimensions of CVPA, and divided respondents into high/low AP, and used in our hypothesis analyzation. The result shows that high aesthetic product can easily recognize by high and low AP respondents, without requiring acumen or knowledge in product aesthetic details. As for purchase intention, high AP respondents significantly willing to purchase the more aesthetic product in the purchase occasion. AP scale shows the true preference of respondents, while a consumer is highly aesthetic preferred, it’s much easier for him/her to justify the aesthetic product that he/she preferred. And some dominant functional/aesthetic attributes are also found by analysis consumer’s choice and crucial attributes rating.
論文目次 Content
Content ................................................VI
Table content ........................................VIII
Figure content ......................................... X
I. Introduction ...................................... 1
1-1 Research Background & Motivation ................... 1
1-2 Research Purpose ................................... 3
II. Literature review ................................ 4
2-1 Consumer Choice .................................... 4
2-2 Product Aesthetic .................................. 6
2-3 Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics ............12
2-4 Preference Reversal ................................15
III. Research Methodology ............................17
3-1 Research Hypotheses ................................17
3-2 Experimental Design ................................19
3-3 Sample Product Design ..............................25
3-4 Research process ...................................28
IV. Result ...........................................35
4-1 Sample description .................................35
4-2 Reliability analysis ...............................39
4-3 Scale redesign .....................................41
4-4 Aesthetic Preference (AP) ..........................41
4-5 Independent samples t test .........................42
4-6 The dominant attributes in consumer choice .........48
V. Conclusion and suggestion .........................58
5-1 Conclusion .........................................58
5-2 General discussion .................................59
5-3 Research constraints ...............................61
5-4 Directions of future research ......................62
References .............................................64
Appendix-1 Questionnaire for experiment ................69
Appendix-2 Question list of experts consultation .......77

Table Content
Table 2.1: The Dimensionality of Product Aesthetic Attribute ..................................... 8
Table 3.1: The product attributes of MP3 player considered mostly by consumers .... 20
Table 3.2: Trade-off Decision Settings of Product Attributes ..................................... 24
Table 3.3: Gender information of pretest respondents................................................. 28
Table 3.4: Age information of pretest respondents ...................................................... 29
Table 3.5: Background information of pretest respondents ......................................... 29
Table 3.6: Pretest result................................................................................................ 29
Table 3.7: Extended and adjusted CVPA questions .................................................... 31
Table 3.8: Function-oriented questions reversed from CVPA questions .................... 32
Table 4.1: Demographic data analysis ......................................................................... 36
Table 4.2: The usage experience of a MP3 player ....................................................... 37
Table 4.3: The crucial functional attributes of a MP3 player ...................................... 38
Table 4.4: The crucial aesthetic attributes of a MP3 player ........................................ 39
Table 4.5: Reliability of each dimension of adjusted CVPA questions ....................... 40
Table 4.6: Reliability of each dimension of Function-oriented CVPA questions ....... 40
Table 4.7: Reliability of each dimension of combined CVPA questions .................... 40
Table 4.8: AP group summary ..................................................................................... 42
Table 4.9: Aesthetic-salient product judgment summary ............................................ 43
Table 4.10: Statistical analysis of aesthetic-salient product judgment ........................ 43
Table 4.11: Aesthetic-salient product purchase summary ........................................... 45
Table 4.12: Statistical analysis of aesthetic-salient product purchase ......................... 45
Table 4.13: Preference reversal summary .................................................................... 47
Table 4.14: Statistical analysis of preference reversal ................................................. 47
Table 4.15: The decision summary of the whole sample ............................................. 49
Table 4.16: The crucial attributes for the whole sample .............................................. 50
Table 4.17: The decision summary of high AP respondents ....................................... 52
Table 4.18: The crucial attributes for high AP respondents ........................................ 53
Table 4.19: The decision summary of low AP respondents ........................................ 54
Table 4.20: The crucial attributes for low AP respondents ......................................... 55
Table 4.21: The dominant attributes ............................................................................ 57

Figure Content
Figure 3.1: Products of Sound effects setting .............................................................. 26
Figure 3.2: Products of With speakers or not setting ................................................... 26
Figure 3.3: Products of The number of buttons and the ease of interface setting ........ 27
Figure 3.4: Products of Controllability setting ............................................................ 27
Figure 3.5: Products of The ease of repair setting ....................................................... 28

參考文獻 Chinese references
畢忠平 (2006),聯合分析在產品開發設計上之運用-以MP3播放器為例,中國文化大學國際企業管理研究所論文。
范勻瑄 (2006),從個人差異看商品設計美感的效果--以消費者商品美感中心性(CVPA)為例,國立政治大學廣告研究所論文。
胡景婷 (2005),消費者美感反應之探討-以MP3隨身聽為例,國立中正大學企業管理所論文。
徐美瑜 (2006),影響消費者創新產品採用之因素研究-以iPod音樂隨身聽為例,朝陽科技大學企業管理系碩士班論文。
詹偉雄 (2005),《美學的經濟:台灣社會變遷的60個微型觀察》,台北:城邦。
陳沛薽 (2009),探討產品美學屬性在消費者購買決策上所扮演之角色—以台灣小筆電市場為例,淡江大學國際貿易學系國際企業學碩士班論文。
周文賢 (2004),多變量統計分析,台北:智勝文化。

English references
Attneave, F. (1959), Applications of Information Theory to Psychology. New York: Holt-Dryden.
Barsalou, Lawrence W. (1985), “Ideals, Central Tendency, and Frequency of Instantiation as Determinants of Graded Structure,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11 (October), 629-654.
Bazerman, Max H., Ann E. Tenbrunsel, and Kimberly Wade-Benzoni (1998), “Negotiating with Yourself and Losing: Understanding and Managing Competing Internal Preferences,” Academy of Management Review, 23 (2), 225–41.
Bell, Stephen S., Morris B. Holbrook, and Michael R. Solomon (1991), “Combining Esthetic and Social Value to Explain Preferences for Product Styles with the Incorporation of Personality and Ensemble Effects,” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6 (6), 243-273.
Berlyne, Daniel E. (1970), “Novelty, Complexity and Hedonic Value,” Perception and Psycophysics, 8, 279-286.
Berlyne, Daniel E. (1971), Aesthetics and Psychobiology, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Bloch, Peter H. (1995), “Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response,” Journal of Marketing, 59 (July), 16-29.
Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F.F., & Arnold, T. J. (2003), “Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 551-565.
Carpenter, Gregory S. and Kent Nakamoto (1989), “Consumer Preference Formation and Pioneering Advantage,” Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (August), 285-298.
Childers, Terry L., Michael J. Houston, and Susan E. Heckler (1985), “Measurement of Individual Differences in Visual versus Verbal Information Processing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (September), 125-134.
Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979), “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 64–73.
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P.J. (2004), “Seeing things: Consumer response to the visual domain in product design,” Design Studies, 25, 547-577.
Crozier, W. R. (1994), “Manufactured pleasures: Psychological response to design,” Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly and Rick E. Robinson (1990), The Art of Seeing, Malibu, CA: J. Paul Getty Museum.
Davis, Marian L. (1987), Visual Design in Dress, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Diefenbach, S. and Hassenzahl, M. (2008), “Give me a reason: hedonic product choice and justification,” In CHI '08 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 3051-3056.
Diefenbach, S. and Hassenzahl, M. (2009), “The “beauty dilemma”: Beauty is valued but discounted in product choice,” In Proceedings of the CHI 09 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1419-1426. ACM.
Dickson, Peter R. and James L. Ginter (1987), “Market Segmentation, Product Differentiation, and Marketing Strategy,” Journal of Marketing, 51 (April), 1-10.
Dumaine, Brian (1991), “Design That Sells and Sells and . . .” Fortune (March 11), 86-94.
Durgee, Jeffrey F. (1988), “Product Drama,” Journal of Advertising, 17 (February/March), 42-49.
Forty, Adrian (1986), Objects of Desire, New York: Pantheon Books.
Frith, C. D. & D. K. B. Nias (1974), “What Determines Aesthetic Preference?” Journal of General Psychology, 91, 163-173.
Garvin, David A. (1984), “What Does ‘Product Quality’ Really Mean?” Sloan Management Review, 26 (Fall), 25-43.
Goldman, A. (2001), The Aesthetic. In B. Gaut and D. McIver Lopes (Eds.), The
Routledge companion to aesthetics (pp. 181-192). London: Routledge.
Gordon, Peter C. and Keith J. Holyoak (1983), “Implicit Learning and Generalization of the ‘Mere Exposure’ Effect,” Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 45 (September), 492-500.
Granello, D. H., & Wheaton, J. E. (2004). Online data collection: Strategies for research. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82, 387-393.
Guielford, J.P. (1965), Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Hekkert P., Snelders D. and Piet C. W. van Wieringen (2003), “’Most advanced, yet acceptable’: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design,” British Journal of Psychology (2003), 94, 111-124.
Hlbrook and Robert B. Zirlin (1985), “Artistic Creation, Artworks, and Aesthetic Appreciation,” Advances in Non-Profit Marketing, 1, 1-54.
Holbrook, Morris B. (1986), “Aims, Concepts, and Methods for Representation of Individual Differences in Esthetic Responses to Design Features.” Journal of Consumer Research 13 (December), 337-347.
Hollins, Bill and Stuart Pugh (1990), Successful Product Design, London:Butterworths.
Holt, Steven (1985), “Design, the Ninth Principle of Excellence: The Product Half of the Business Equation,” Innovation, 4 (Fall), 2-4.
Homa Donald (1984), “On the Nature of Categories,” in The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 18, ed. Gordon H. Bower, New York: Academic Press, 49-94.
Hsee (1996), “The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals Between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67 (3), 247–57.
Hsee, C., Zhang, J., Yu, F. and Xi, Y, “Lay Rationalism and Inconsistency between Predicted Experience and Decision,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 16 (2003), 257-272.
Kivetz, R. and Simonson, I. (2002, a), “Earning the right to indulge: Effort as determinant of customer preferences toward frequency program rewards,” Journal of Marketing Research 39, 155-170.
Kivetz, R. and Simonson, I. (2002, b), “Self-control for the Righteous: Toward a Theory to Precommitment to Indulge,” Journal of Consumer Research 29, 199-217.
Kotler, Philip and G. Alexander Rath (1984), “Design: A powerful but Neglected Strategic Tool,” Journal of Business Strategy, 5 (Fall), 16-21.
Langlois, Judith H. and Lori A. Roggman (1990), “Attractive Faces Are Only Average,” Psychological Science, 1 (March), 115-121.
Lascu, Dana N. (1991), “Consumer Guilt: Examining the Potential of a New Marketing Construct,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, Rebecca Holman and Michael Solomon, eds. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 290–95.
Lawson, Bryan (1983), How Designers Think, Westfield, NJ: East-view Editions.
Lennon, Sharron J. (1990), “Effects of Clothing Attractiveness on perceptions,” Home Economics Research Journal, 18 (3), 303-310.
Loewy, Raymond (1951), Never Leave Well Enough Alone, New York: Simon & Scchuster.
Loken, Barbara and James Ward (1990), “Alternative Approaches to Understanding the Determinants of Typicality,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (September), 111-126.
Maffei, L. and A. Fiorentini (1995), Arte e Cervello. [Art and Brain], Bologna: Zanichelli.
Martindale, C. and K. Moore (1988), “Priming, Prototypicality, and Preference,” Journal of Experiemental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 661-670.
Martindale, Kathleen Moore, and Alan West (1988), “Relationship of Preference Judgments to Typicality, Novelty, and Mere Exposure,” Empirical Studies of the Arts, 6 (1), 79-96.
Medin and Edward E. Smith (1984), “Concepts and Concept Formation,” Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 113-138.
Nedungadi, Prakash and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1985), “The Prototypicality of Brands: Relationships with Brand Awareness, Preference and Usage,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, ed. Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris Holbrook, Provo UT: Association for Consumer Research, 498-503.
Nowlis, Stephen M. and Itamar Simonson (1997), “Attribute-Task Compatibility as a Determinant of Consumer Preference Reversals,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (May), 205–218.
Nunnally, J. and I. Berntein (1994), Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Okada, E.M. (2005), “Justification Effects on Consumer Choice of Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing Research 42, 43-53.
Osborne, Harold (1986), “What Makes an Experience Aesthetic?” in Possibility of the Aesthetic Experience, ed. Michael Mitias, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 117-138.
Papanek, V. (1985), “Design for the real world: Human ecology and social change (2nd ed.),” Chicago, IL: Academy Chicago Publishers.
Prelec, Drazen and George Loewenstein (1998), “The Red and the Black: Mental Accounting of Savings and Debt,” Marketing Science, 17 (1), 4–28.
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.
Reed, Stephen K. (1972), “Pattern Recognition and Categorization,” Cognitive Psychology, 3 (July), 382-407.
Robin Vande Zande. Art Eduction. Reston: Jan 2007. Vol 60, Iss. 1; pg. 39-42.
Schmitt, Bernd H. and Alex Simonson (1997), Marketing Aesthetics: The Strategic Management of Brands, Identity and Image, New York: Free Press.
Rosch (1978), “Principles of Categorization,” in Cognition and Categorization, ed. E. Rosch and B.B. Lloyd, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 27-47.
Slovic, Paul and Sarah Lichtenstein (1969), “The Relative Importance of Probabilities and Payoffs in Risk-Taking,” Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement, 78 (November, Part 2), 1–18.
Strahilevitz, M. and 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, 434-446.
Thaler, Richard H. (1980), “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 39–60.
Tractinsky, N. and Zmiri, D. (2005), “Exploring attributes of skins as potential antecedents of emotion in HCI,” In: P. Fishwick (Ed), Aesthetic Computing. MIT Press, 805-821.
Veryzer R. W. JR. and Hutchinson J. W. (1998), “The Influence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses to New Product Designs,” Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. Vol. 24 (March).
Voss Kevin E., Spangenberg Eric R., and Grohmann Bianca (2003), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XL (August), 310-320.
Whitney, Daniel E. (1988), “Manufacturing by Design,” Harvard Business Review (July-August), 83-90.
Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1988), “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence,” Journal of Marketing, 52(July), 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2013-06-28公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2013-06-28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