臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：選擇、拒絕與解釋水平對吸引效果之影響
作者：廖彥宜
作者(外文)：Yen-Yi Liao
校院名稱：國立臺灣大學
系所名稱：商學研究所
指導教授：張重昭
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2016
主題關鍵詞：吸引效果；任務型態；解釋水平；Attraction effect；Decision Task Type；Construal Level
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:10
當在選擇組合中加入一個較差的選項，會增加相對優勢選項的選擇機率，此稱為吸引效果。本研究提出決策任務型態將影響吸引效果，由於人們通常會為自己的決定尋求合理化的解釋，在選擇任務下，人們傾向於關注選項的正面特徵來幫助自己選擇一個好的選項，較差選項的加入無疑地會突顯出相對優勢選項的正面特徵，因此會誘發較高的吸引效果；然而，在拒絕任務下，由於人們傾向於關注選項的負面特徵來避免得到較差的結果，較差選項在選擇組合中的表現是各項選擇中最差的，人們會首先刪除此較差選項而留下其他兩個互有優劣的選擇，故而減弱吸引效果的發生。另外，本研究認為決策任務型態與解釋水平對吸引效果有交互作用效果。在選擇任務下，吸引效果不受解釋水平高低而影響；在拒絕任務下，低解釋水平情境下的吸引效果會顯著低於高解釋水平情境。本研究中以三項實驗來檢驗所提出的假設，且研究結果均支持假設。
The attraction effect refers to a situation in which adding an inferior alternative to a choice set increases the share of the relatively dominating alternative. This re-search posits that decision task type affect the attraction effect. People usually seek justification for their decisions. In a selection (or rejection) task, they are more likely to emphasize the positive (or negative) features of each option. The addition of an asymmetrically dominated decoy to a binary set of options undoubtedly provides an extra positive feature for the dominant option, and therefore induces a greater attrac-tion effect. Contrarily, in a rejection task condition, the decoy in the trinary set seems to be the worst option and would be eliminated first, and the remaining comparison is identical with the original binary condition. Therefore, the attraction effect may de-crease. Besides, the decision task type interacts with the construal level to affect the attraction effect. Specifically, a low construal level, compared with a high construal level, dampens the attraction effect to a greater extent in a rejection task than in a se-lection task. Results from three experiments support the proposed hypotheses.
Aaker, J. (1991). The Negative Attraction Effect? A Study of the Attraction Effect under Judgment and Choice. Advances in Consumer Research, 18(1), 462-469.
Ahn, S., Kim, J., & Ha, Y. W. (2014). Feedback Weakens the Attraction Effect in Re-peated Choices. Marketing Letters, 1-11.
Besharat, A., & Varki, S. (2014). Examining How Self-Regulation Determines Choice-Processing Strategies and Motivations Underlying Attraction Effect. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 22(4), 421-435.
Chatterjee, S., Roy, R., & Malshe, A. V. (2011). The Role of Regulatory Fit on the At-traction Effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(4), 473-481.
Chernev, A. (2005). Context Effects without a Context: Attribute Balance as a Reason for Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 213-223
Chernev, A. (2009). Choosing versus Rejecting: The Impact of Goal-Task Compatibility on Decision Confidence. Social Cognition, 27(2), 249-260.
Chang, C. C., Chuang, S. C., Cheng, Y. H., & Huang, T. Y. (2012). The Compromise Effect in Choosing for Others. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(2), 109-122.
Chuang, S. C., & Yen, H. R. (2007).The Impact of a Product’s Country-of-Origin on Compromise and Attraction Effects. Marketing Letters, 18(4), 279-291.
Connolly, T., & Reb, J. (2012). Regret Aversion in Reason-Based Choice. Theory and Decision, 73(1), 35-51.
Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (2003). The Effect of Forced Choice on Choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(2), 146-160.
Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60-71.
Frederick, S., Lee, L., & Baskin, E. (2014). The Limits of Attraction. Journal of Mar-keting Research, 51(4), 487-507.
Ganzach, Y. (1995). Attribute Scatter and Decision Outcome: Judgment Versus Choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(1), 113-122.
Grant, S. J., & Tybout, A. M. (2008). The Effect of Temporal Frame on Information Considered in New Product Evaluation: The Role of Uncertainty. Journal of Con-sumer Research, 34(6), 897-913.
Ha, Y. W., Park, S., & Ahn, H. K. (2009). The Influence of Categorical Attributes on Choice Context Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 463-477.
Hamilton, R. Hong, J., & Chernev, A. (2007). Perceptual Focus Effects in Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 187-199.
Hedgcock, W., & Rao, A. R. (2009). Trade-Off Aversion as an Explanation for the At-traction Effect: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study. Journal of Mar-keting Research, 46(1), 1-13.
Hedgcock, W., Rao, A. R., & Chen, H. (2009). Could Ralph Nader''s Entrance and Exit Have Helped Al Gore? The Impact of Decoy Dynamics on Consumer Choice. Jour-nal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 330-343.
Heller, D., Levin, I. P., & Goransson, M. (2002). Selection of Strategies for Narrowing Choice Options: Antecedents and Consequences. Organizational Behavior and Hu-man Decision Processes, 89(2), 1194-1213.
Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alterna-tives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90-98.
Huber, J., & Puto, C. (1983). Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating attrac-tion and Substitution Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(1), 31-44.
Khan, U., Zhu, M., & Kalra, A. (2011). When Trade-Offs Matter: The Effect of Choice Construal on Context Effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(1), 62-71.
Krishnamurthy, P., & Nagpal, A. (2010). Making Choices under Conflict: The Impact of Decision Frames. Marketing Letters, 21(1), 37-51.
Laran, J., & Wilcox, K. (2011). Choice, Rejection, and Elaboration on Prefer-ence-Inconsistent Alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 229-241.
Levav, J., Kivetz, R., & Cho, C. (2010). Motivational Compatibility and Choice Conflict. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 429-442.
Levin, I. P., Schreiber, J., Lauriola, M., & Gaeth, G. J. (2002). A Tale of Two Pizzas: Building Up from a Basic Product Versus Scaling Down from a Fully-Loaded Prod-uct. Marketing Letters, 13(4), 335-344.
Levin, I. P., Huneke, M. E., & Jasper, J. D. (2000). Information Processing at Successive Stages of Decision Making: Need for Cognition and Inclusion–Exclusion Ef-fects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(2), 171-193.
Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Interpersonal Similarity as a Social Dis-tance Dimension: Implications for Perception of Others’Actions. Journal of Ex-perimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1256-1269.
Lin, C. H., Sun, Y. C., Chuang, S. C.,& Su, H. J. (2008).Time Pressure and the Com-promise and Attraction Effects in Choice. Advances in Consumer Research, 35(3), 348-352.
Malaviya, P., & Sivakumar, K. (2002). The Influence of Choice Justification and Stim-ulus Meaningfulness on the Attraction Effect. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(4), 20-29.
Malkoc, S. A., Zauberman, G., & Ulu, C. (2005). Consuming Now or Later? The Inter-active Effect of Timing and Attribute Alignability. Psychological Science, 16(5), 411-417.
Malkoc, S. A., Hedgcock, W., & Hoeffler, S. (2013). Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Failure of the Attraction Effect among Unattractive Alternatives. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(3), 317-329.
Mao, W., & Oppewal, H. (2012). The Attraction Effect is More Pronounced for Con-sumers Who Rely on Intuitive Reasoning. Marketing Letters, 23(1), 339-351.
Meloy, M. G., & Russo, J. E. (2004). Binary Choice under Instructions to Select Versus Reject. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93(2), 114-128.
Mourali, M., Böckenholt, U., & Laroche, M. (2007). Compromise and Attraction Effects under Prevention and Promotion Motivations. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 234-247.
Mourali, M., & Nagpal, A. (2011). The Powerful Select, The Powerless Reject: Power''s Influence in Decision Strategies. Journal of Business Research, 66(7), 874-880.
Nagpal, A., & Krishnamurthy, P. (2008). Attribute Conflict in Consumer Decision Making: The Role of Task Compatibility. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(5), 696-705.
Ordóñez, L. D., Benson III, L., & Beach, L. R. (1999). Testing the Compatibility Test: How Instructions, Accountability, and Anticipated Regret Affect Prechoice Screening of Options. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(1), 63-80.
Park, C. W., Jun, S. Y., & Macinnis, D. J. (2000). Choosing What I Want Versus Re-jecting What I Do Not Want: An Application of Decision Framing to Product Option Choice Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 187-202.
Pechtl, H. (2009). Value Structures in a Decoy and Compromise Effect Experiment. Psychology & Marketing, 26(8), 736-759.
Pettibone, J. C., & Wedell, D. H. (2000). Examining Models of Nondominated Decoy Effects across Judgment and Choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81(2), 300-328.
Pocheptsova, A., Amir, O., Dhar, R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Deciding Without Resources: Resource Depletion and Choice in Context. Journal of Marketing Re-search, 46(3), 344-355.
Polman, E., & Emich, K. J. (2011). Decisions for Others Are More Creative Than Deci-sions for the Self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(4), 492-501.
Pronin, E., Olivola, C. Y., & Kennedy, K. A. (2008). Doing Unto Future Selves as You Would Do Unto Others: Psychological Distance and Decision Making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(2), 224-236.
Sen, S. (1998). Knowledge, Information Mode, and the Attraction Effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 64-77.
Shafir, E. (1993). Choosing Versus Rejecting: Why Some Options are both Better and Worse than Others. Memory & Cognition, 21, 546-556.
Simonson, I. (1989). Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158-174.
Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Ex-tremeness Aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 281-295.
Simonson, I., Bettman, J. R., Kramer, T., & Payne, J. W. (2013). Comparison Selection: An Approach to the Study of Consumer Judgment and Choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(1), 137-149.
Stephan, E., Liberman N., & Trope. Y. (2011) The Effects of Time Perspective and Level of Construal on Social Distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psycholo-gy, 47(2), 397-402.
Simonson, I. (2014). Vices and Virtues of Misguided Replications: The Case of Asym-metric Dominance. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(4), 514-519.
Todorov, A., Goren, A., & Trope, Y. (2007). Probability as a Psychological Distance: Construal and Preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 473-482.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal Construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403-421.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal Level Theory of Psychological Distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463.
Wakslak, C. J., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Alony, R. (2006). Seeing the Forest When Entry is Unlikely: Probability and the Mental Representation of Events. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 135(4), 641-653.
Wakslak, C. J., & Trope, Y. (2009). The Effect of Construal Level on Subjective Proba-bility Estimates. Psychological Sciences, 20(1), 52-58.
Yaniv, I., & Schul, Y. (1997). Elimination and Inclusion Procedures in Judgment. Jour-nal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10(3), 211-220.
Yaniv, I., & Schul, Y. (2000). Acceptance and Elimination Procedures in Choice: Non-complementarity and the Role of Implied Status Quo. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(2), 293-313.
Yang, S. & Lynn, M. (2014). More Evidence Challenging the Robustness and Useful-ness of the Attraction Effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(4), 508-513.
Zhang, Y., Mittal, V., & Feick, L. (2002). To Choose or to Reject: It Is Up to Who I Am: The Impact of Self-Construal on Decision Strategy. Asia Pacific Advances in Con-sumer Research, 5, 212-216.


 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關期刊論文
 
無相關博士論文
 
無相關書籍
 
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：503（臺灣：503，外國：0） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2344557 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：68140294
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上