How the product attribute, natural reference and evaluation mode influence willing-to- buy?
碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 商學研究所 === 88 === Abstract Will the products of comparable overall quality be more attractive when presented in isolation and evaluated separately (separate evaluation) or when juxtaposed and evaluated side by side (joint evaluation)? Hsee(1996) investigated a partic...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
Format: | Others |
Language: | zh-TW |
Published: |
2000
|
Online Access: | http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/28922897413057282664 |
id |
ndltd-TW-088NTU00318047 |
---|---|
record_format |
oai_dc |
spelling |
ndltd-TW-088NTU003180472016-01-29T04:14:50Z http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/28922897413057282664 How the product attribute, natural reference and evaluation mode influence willing-to- buy? 產品屬性、消費者評估參考點與評估情境對購買評價之影嚮 Kang Kai-Wen 康凱雯 碩士 國立臺灣大學 商學研究所 88 Abstract Will the products of comparable overall quality be more attractive when presented in isolation and evaluated separately (separate evaluation) or when juxtaposed and evaluated side by side (joint evaluation)? Hsee(1996) investigated a particular type of preference reversal (PR), existing between joint evaluation and separate evaluation, and proposed “evaluability hypothesis”. According to this hypothesis, PRs between joint and separate evaluations occur because one of the attributes involved in the options is hard to evaluate independently (hard-to-evaluate) and another attribute is relatively easy to evaluate independently (easy-to-evaluate). Hard-to-evaluate attribute means that the evaluator does not know how good a given value on the attribute is without comparisons. Easy- to-evaluate attribute means that the evaluator knows how good the value is. When two stimulus options involve a trade-off between a hard-to-evaluate attribute and easy-to-evaluate attribute, the hard-to-evaluate attribute has a lesser impact in separate evaluation than in joint evaluation, and the easy-to-evaluate attribute has a greater impact. Hsee(1998) proposed “evaluation mode effect” to explain how judgments differ between these two modes. He concluded that if the options are more attractive than the natural reference used in separate evaluation, then the two options will be judged more positively and have a higher likelihood of purchase in separate evaluation than in joint evaluation. Conversely, if the options are unattractive relative to the reference, they will be perceived more favorably and have a higher likelihood of purchase in joint evaluation than in separate evaluation. In real life, consumers would be influenced by both “evaluation mode effect” and “preference reversal effect“. This research shows that if the option is attractive relative to the reference and is superior on easy-to-evaluate attribute, its attractiveness will be enhanced under separate evaluation. Conversely, if the option is unattractive relative to the reference and is superior on hard-to-evaluate attribute, subjecting it to joint evaluation will enhance its attractiveness. And if the option is attractive relative to the reference but is superior on hard-to-evaluate attribute or the option is unattractive relative to the reference but is superior on easy-to-evaluate attribute, the attractiveness will not be different between separate evaluation and joint evaluation. Chang Chung-Chau 張重昭 2000 學位論文 ; thesis 50 zh-TW |
collection |
NDLTD |
language |
zh-TW |
format |
Others
|
sources |
NDLTD |
description |
碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 商學研究所 === 88 === Abstract
Will the products of comparable overall quality be more attractive when presented in isolation and evaluated separately (separate evaluation) or when juxtaposed and evaluated side by side (joint evaluation)? Hsee(1996) investigated a particular type of preference reversal (PR), existing between joint evaluation and separate evaluation, and proposed “evaluability hypothesis”. According to this hypothesis, PRs between joint and separate evaluations occur because one of the attributes involved in the options is hard to evaluate independently (hard-to-evaluate) and another attribute is relatively easy to evaluate independently (easy-to-evaluate). Hard-to-evaluate attribute means that the evaluator does not know how good a given value on the attribute is without comparisons. Easy- to-evaluate attribute means that the evaluator knows how good the value is. When two stimulus options involve a trade-off between a hard-to-evaluate attribute and easy-to-evaluate attribute, the hard-to-evaluate attribute has a lesser impact in separate evaluation than in joint evaluation, and the easy-to-evaluate attribute has a greater impact.
Hsee(1998) proposed “evaluation mode effect” to explain how judgments differ between these two modes. He concluded that if the options are more attractive than the natural reference used in separate evaluation, then the two options will be judged more positively and have a higher likelihood of purchase in separate evaluation than in joint evaluation. Conversely, if the options are unattractive relative to the reference, they will be perceived more favorably and have a higher likelihood of purchase in joint evaluation than in separate evaluation.
In real life, consumers would be influenced by both “evaluation mode effect” and “preference reversal effect“. This research shows that if the option is attractive relative to the reference and is superior on easy-to-evaluate attribute, its attractiveness will be enhanced under separate evaluation. Conversely, if the option is unattractive relative to the reference and is superior on hard-to-evaluate attribute, subjecting it to joint evaluation will enhance its attractiveness. And if the option is attractive relative to the reference but is superior on hard-to-evaluate attribute or the option is unattractive relative to the reference but is superior on easy-to-evaluate attribute, the attractiveness will not be different between separate evaluation and joint evaluation.
|
author2 |
Chang Chung-Chau |
author_facet |
Chang Chung-Chau Kang Kai-Wen 康凱雯 |
author |
Kang Kai-Wen 康凱雯 |
spellingShingle |
Kang Kai-Wen 康凱雯 How the product attribute, natural reference and evaluation mode influence willing-to- buy? |
author_sort |
Kang Kai-Wen |
title |
How the product attribute, natural reference and evaluation mode influence willing-to- buy? |
title_short |
How the product attribute, natural reference and evaluation mode influence willing-to- buy? |
title_full |
How the product attribute, natural reference and evaluation mode influence willing-to- buy? |
title_fullStr |
How the product attribute, natural reference and evaluation mode influence willing-to- buy? |
title_full_unstemmed |
How the product attribute, natural reference and evaluation mode influence willing-to- buy? |
title_sort |
how the product attribute, natural reference and evaluation mode influence willing-to- buy? |
publishDate |
2000 |
url |
http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/28922897413057282664 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT kangkaiwen howtheproductattributenaturalreferenceandevaluationmodeinfluencewillingtobuy AT kāngkǎiwén howtheproductattributenaturalreferenceandevaluationmodeinfluencewillingtobuy AT kangkaiwen chǎnpǐnshǔxìngxiāofèizhěpínggūcānkǎodiǎnyǔpínggūqíngjìngduìgòumǎipíngjiàzhīyǐngxiàng AT kāngkǎiwén chǎnpǐnshǔxìngxiāofèizhěpínggūcānkǎodiǎnyǔpínggūqíngjìngduìgòumǎipíngjiàzhīyǐngxiàng |
_version_ |
1718167212846481408 |