進階搜尋


 
系統識別號 U0026-2007201214064400
論文名稱(中文) 整合性產品的功能屬性對消費者購前價值評估之影響-以智慧型手機為例
論文名稱(英文) The Effects of Convergent Products’ Functionalities on Consumers’ Pre-purchase Value Assessment- An Empirical Study of Smartphones
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 交通管理學系碩博士班
系所名稱(英) Department of Transportation & Communication Management Science
學年度 100
學期 2
出版年 101
研究生(中文) 林松輝
研究生(英文) Sung-Huei Lin
學號 r56994082
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 94頁
口試委員 指導教授-蔡東峻
口試委員-陳勁甫
口試委員-李奇勳
中文關鍵字 目標一致性  目標互補性  知覺性能  知覺可用性  預期效用  產品熟悉度 
英文關鍵字 Goal Congruence  Goal Complementarity  Perceived Capability  Perceived Usability  Expected Utility  Product Familiarity. 
學科別分類
中文摘要 現代的整合性產品搭載許多的功能,為的是要提供給消費者們先進的服務。而隨著科技的日新月異,消費者也逐漸開始重視與思考,到底甚麼類型的功能加入基礎產品可使得此整合性產品更能滿足他們的需求以及獲得最大的利益。因此,本研究想探討的是功能數量的多寡、功能的目標一致性、功能的目標互補性是否影響消費者在衡量整合性產品時的知覺性能與知覺可用性,並進一步探討知覺性能與知覺可用性對於消費者衡量整合性產品時的預期效用之影響。此外,本研究亦探究產品熟悉度是否在消費者評估整合性產品的過程中具有干擾效果。
  本研究在文獻回顧之後,發展研究架構來探討各構面之間的關係,本研究由實驗方法來進行探討,有效人數為142人。
本研究所獲得的重要結論如下:
1. 相較於功能數量少的整合性產品,功能數量多的整合性產品具有較高的知覺性能與較低的知覺可用性。
2. 相較於目標一致的整合性產品,目標不一致的整合性產品具有較高的知覺性能與較低的知覺可用性。
3. 相較於目標不互補的整合性產品,目標互補的整合性產品具有較高的知覺性能與知覺可用性。
4. 消費者的知覺性能可以有效預測對於整合性產品的預期效用。
5. 在消費者衡量整合性產品的知覺性能與預期效用時,消費者的產品熟悉度具有干擾的效果。
英文摘要 Many contemporary convergent products (CPs) have added numerous functionalities that can be used to provide advanced services to users. Consumers are concerned about what kind of functionalities should be added to a basic product to satisfy their needs and gain the maximum benefits. Therefore, this study examines the number of CP functionalities, the goal congruence of CP functionalities, and the goal complementarity of CP functionalities influence on consumers’ perceived capability and usability. Then, the effects of perceived capability and usability on consumers’ expected utility. Also, this study examines the moderating role of product familiarity on consumer valuation.
After reviewing related literature, we develop a research framework to examine the relationships. A total of 142 effective samples are collected and analyzed. The major findings of this study are as follow:
(1) Consumers have higher perceived capability and lower perceived usability for CPs equipped with a larger number of functionalities.
(2) Consumers have higher perceived capability and lower perceived usability for CPs equipped with goal-incongruent functionalities.
(3) Consumers have higher perceived capability and perceived usability for CPs equipped with goal-complementary functionalities.
(4) Perceived capability is found to be a strong predictor of expected utility.
(5) Product familiarity plays a moderating role in the relationship of perceived capability on expected utility.
論文目次 Chapter1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Motivation 2
1.3 Objectives 4
1.4 Research Procedure 5
Chapter 2 Literature Review 7
2.1 Convergent Products 7
2.1.1 The Definition of Convergent Products 7
2.1.2 Smartphone and Its Convergent Functionalities 8
2.2 Perceived Capability and Perceived Usability 9
2.3 The Effects of Adding Product Functionality 10
2.4 Goal Congruence 11
2.4.1 The Definition of Goal Congruence 11
2.4.2 The Effects of Goal Congruence on Perceived Capability and Perceived Usability 12
2.5 Goal Complementarity 14
2.5.1 The Definition of Goal Complementarity 14
2.5.2 The Effects of Goal Complementarity on Perceived Capability and Perceived Usability 15
2.6 Expected Utility 17
2.7 Product Familiarity 18
2.7.1 The Definition of Product Familiarity 18
2.7.2 The Moderating Role of Product Familiarity on Perceived Capability and Perceived Usability 18
Chapter3 Methodology 20
3.1 Research Framework and Hypotheses 20
3.2 Research Design 21
3.2.1 Experimental Design 21
3.2.2 Subjects 22
3.3 Procedure 23
3.4 Stimuli and Measurement 24
3.5 Data Analysis 28
3.6 Pretest 29
Chapter 4 Analysis and Results 36
4.1 Sample Characteristics 36
4.2 Manipulation Check 38
4.3 Reliability Analysis 40
4.4 Hypotheses Testing 43
4.4.1 The Influence of the Number of Functionalities on Perceived Capability and Usability 43
4.4.2 The Influence of the Goal Congruence of CP Functionalities on Perceived Capability and Usability 44
4.4.3 The Influence of the Goal Complementarity of CP Functionalities on Perceived Capability and Usability 45
4.4.4 The Effect of Perceived Capability and Usability on Expected Utility 46
4.4.5 The Moderating Effect of Product Familiarity 48
4.4.6 Hypotheses Testing Summary 51
Chapter 5 Conclusions and Suggestions 52
5.1 Conclusions 52
5.2 Implications 54
5.3 Limitations and directions for future research 56
References 58
Appendix A 62
Appendix B 73
Appendix C 85
參考文獻 1.Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of Consumer Expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(March), 411-454.
2.Arruda-Filho, E. J. M., Cabusas, J. A., & Dholakia, N. (2010). Social behavior and brand devotion among iPhone innovators. International Journal of Information Management, 30(6), 475-480.
3.Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. (1990). Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of Consumer Attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159-170.
4.Brown, C. L., & Carpenter, G. S. (2000). Why Is the Trivial Important? A Reasons-Based Account for the Effects of Trivial Attributes on Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(March), 372-385.
5.Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1981) Designing research for application. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2), 197-207.
6.Carpenter, G. S., Glazer, R., & Nakamoto, K. (1994). Meaningful Brands from Meaningless Differentiation: The Dependence on Irrelevant Attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(3), 339-350.
7.Chernev, A. (2005). Feature Complementarity and Assortment in Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 748-759.
8.Chin, J.P., Diehl, V.A., & Norman, K.L. (1988). Development of an Instrument Measuring User Satisfaction of the Human-Computer Interface. In Proceedings of the CHI’88 Conference on Human Factors in Computing ACM, NEW YORK, 213-218.
9.Choi, B. & Lee, H. (2003). An Empirical Investigation of KM Styles and Their Effect on Corporate Performance. Information & Management, 40, 403-417.
10.Coupey, E., Irwin, J. R., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Product Category Familiarity and Preference Construction. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 459-468.
11.Dowling, M., Lechner, C. & Thielmann, B. (1998). Convergence - Innovation and Change of Market Structures between Television and Online Services, Electronic Markets, 8(4) 31-35.
12.Gerson, B. (2007). CEA Forecasts $160 Billion in CE Sales for 2007-08. TWICE: This Week in Consumer Electronics, 22(24), 56.
13.Gill, T. (2008). Convergent Products: What Functionalities Add More Value to the Base? Journal of Marketing, 72(2), 46-62.
14.Gill, T., & Lei, J. (2009). Convergence in the High-Technology Consumer Markets: Not All Brands Gain Equally From Adding New Functionalities to Products. Marketing Letters, 20(1), 91-103.
15.Han, J. K., Chung, S. W., & Sohn, Y. S. (2009). Technology Convergence: When Do Consumers Prefer Converged Products to Dedicated Products? Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 97-108.
16.Heath, C., & Tversky, A. (1991). Preference and Belief: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4(1), 5-28.
17.Herr, P. M., Steven J. S., & Russell, H. F. (1983). On the Consequences of Priming: Assimilation and Contrast Effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(4), 323-340.
18.Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92-101.
19.Hoyer, W. D., & Macinnis, D. J. (2009), Consumer Behavior(5thed.). USA.
20.Hurst, K. (1999). Engineering Design Principles. Halsted Press, New York.
21.Johnson, E. J., & Russo, E. (1984). Product Familiarity and Learning New Information. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(1), 542–550.
22.Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The Role of Feasibility and Desirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Decisions: A Test of Temporal Construal Theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5-18.
23.López-Nicolás, C., Molina-Castillo, F. J., & Bouwman, H. (2008). An assessment of advanced mobile services acceptance: Contributions from TAM and diffusion theory models. Information & Management, 45(6), 359-364.
24.Martin, I. M. & Stewart, D. W. (2001). The Differential Impact of Goal Congruency on Attitudes, Intentions, and the Transfer of Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(4) ,471-484.
25.Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M. D., et al. (1995). Microeconomic Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
26.Mclaughlin, J., Rosen, P., Skinner, D., & Webster, D. (2000). Developing Usability and Utility: a Comparative Study of the Users of New IT. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 12 (3), 413-423.
27.Meyers-Levy, J., & Tybout, A. M. (1989). Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (1),39-54.
28.Mukherjee, A., & Hoyer, W. D. (2001). The Effect of Novel Attributes on Product Evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 462-472.
29.Nambisan, S. (2002). Complementary Product Integration by High-Technology New Ventures: The Role of Initial Technology Strategy. Management Science, 48(3), 382-398.
30.Nielsen, Jacob (1993), Usability Engineering. San Diego: Academic Press.
31.Nowlis, S. M., & Simonson, I. (1996). The Effect of New Product Features on Brand Choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(1), 36-46.
32.Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification Effects on Consumer Choice of Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 43-53.
33.Olson, J. C. & Thomas, J. R. (1983). Understanding Consumer’s Cognitive Structures: Implications for Advertising Strategy. Advertising and Consumer Psychology, L. Percy and A.G. Woodside, eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 77-90.
34.Paulhus, D., Robinson, J., Shaver, P., & Wrightman, L. (1991). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes Series, 1, 17-59.
35.Reinhardt, A., Tashiro, H., & Elgin, B. (2004). The Camera Phone Revolution. BusinessWeek, (3878), 52.
36.Ryu, Y. S. & Smith-Jackson T. L. (2006). Reliability and Validity of the Mobile Phone Usability Questionnaire. Journal of Usability Studies, 2(1), 39-53.
37.Sengupta, S. (1998). Some Approaches to Complementary Product Strategy. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(4), 352-367.
38.Strahilevitz, M. A., & Loewenstein, G. (1998). The Effect of Ownership History on the Valuation of Objects. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 276-289.
39.Sujan, M., & Bettman, J. R. (1989.) The Effects of Brand Positioning Strategies on Consumers’ Brand and Category Perceptions: Some Insights from Schema Research. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(4), 457-467.
40.The Economist (2005), The Device That Ate Everything? (March 12), 16.
41.Thompson, D. V., Hamilton, R. W., & Rust, R. T. (2005). Feature Fatigue: When Product Capabilities Become Too Much of a Good Thing. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(4), 431-442.
42.Thompson, D.V., & Norton, M.I. (2011). The Social Utility of Feature Creep. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3). 555-565.
43.Varian, H. R. (2002). Microeconomic Analysis. New York: W. W. North & Company Inc.
44.Wertenbroch, K., & Dhar, R. (2000). Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60-71.
45.Wind, J., & Mahajan, V. (1997). Issues and Opportunities in New Product Development: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 1-12.
46.Yoffie, David A. (1997), Competing in the Age of Digital Convergence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
47.Zhou, K.Z., & Nakamoto, K. (2007). How do Enhanced and Unique Features Affect New Product Preference? The Moderating Role of Product Familiarity. Journal of the Academy Marketing Science, 35(1), 53-62.
48.Ziamou, P., & Ratneshwar, S. (2003). Innovations in Product Functionality: When and Why Are Explicit Comparisons Effective? Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 49-61.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2015-07-27起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2015-07-27起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw