進階搜尋


 
系統識別號 U0026-2007201523114100
論文名稱(中文) 包裝型式對產品經驗與親子購買決策之影響─以木質教玩具為例
論文名稱(英文) The Effects of Package Design on Product Experience and Parent-Child Purchase Decision-Making - A Case Study of Wooden Educational Toys
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 工業設計學系
系所名稱(英) Department of Industrial Design
學年度 103
學期 2
出版年 104
研究生(中文) 吳佳瑋
研究生(英文) Chia-Wei Wu
學號 P36024140
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 115頁
口試委員 指導教授-馬敏元
口試委員-陳國祥
口試委員-游曉貞
口試委員-何俊亨
中文關鍵字 兒童  教玩具  包裝設計  親子溝通  購買決策 
英文關鍵字 children  educational toy  package design  parent-child communication  purchase decision-making 
學科別分類
中文摘要 隨著孩子成長,每個階段適合的玩具都不盡相同。義大利教育學家瑪麗亞‧蒙特梭利認為,若能夠在孩子3~7歲時,提供具有吸引力、能自主反覆練習的木質教玩具,能有助於孩童感知能力的培養。因此讓孩童參與玩具的挑選,除了能更符合其喜好和需求外,也較能對孩子的成長產生助益。而在實體店鋪的選購過程中,包裝往往扮演著消費者與產品接觸時的主要媒介,在林圓舒(2013)的研究中,也提出不同的玩具包裝型式會誘發不同的手勢動作,而讓人產生不同的視、觸覺產品經驗。因此,本研究透過數量化III類將市面上常見的木質教玩具依照手勢動作進行分類,並挑選出四款不同操作手勢的木質教玩具作為實驗樣本。並透過觀察與EGM訪談,來瞭解四款教玩具透過不同包裝會帶給孩童、家長什麼樣的產品經驗,又會引發什麼樣的親子溝通和購買決策過程。
研究結果發現,對經驗尚淺、尚在學習階段的孩童來說,遊玩的樂趣是吸引其接觸、挑選某款包裝的主要原因,玩具幾乎全露在外的「半盒式」便是明顯的例子。而家長選擇時的重點則是在確認內容物品質或包裝後續的運用,因此較偏好包覆性完整、又能看到內容物的「半透明盒式」。在親子共同挑選的過程中,「半盒式」最能引起親子之間的話題。但在決定挑選與否上家長的意見仍具有相當程度的影響力,愈是家長能接受的款式,在討論過後引發決定挑選的比例也較高,「半透明盒式」與「透明挖孔盒式」便是較明顯的例子。因此在木質教玩具的展售上,藉由「半盒式」作為展示品,最有機會吸引孩童接觸、引起親子之間的話題。而作為販售的包裝款式,則可以先思考要帶給消費者怎樣的操作體驗,並在對應的操作手勢上盡量讓包裝達到較完整的包覆性,便能讓家長有較高的接受度。
英文摘要 Along with children’s development, the toys that are suitable for them at each stage vary. According to Maria Montessori, an Italian educator, if children aged 3 to 7 years old are provided with toys that are attractive and could help them play voluntarily and repeatedly, their sensory ability is believed to be developed and cultivated. Therefore, if children can be engaged in making purchase decision, the toys that are bought can not only better meet their preference and needs but also greatly benefit their development. While selecting product in a brick-and-mortar store, packaging is always considered the primary media between consumers and the product. According to 林圓舒(2013), it was discovered that different types of packaging initiated different gestures, providing people with different visual and tactile product experience. Hence, the present study adopted the analysis of Quantification III and classified the wooden educational toys that are available in the market, selecting four types of educational toys which are operated by different gestures as experimental samples. Moreover, via observation from video recordings and EGM interview, the product experience, parent-child communication and decision-making process initiated by each type of packaging were investigated.
The present study found that the pleasure of playing was the major feature that attracted children, who did not have much experience and were still learning, to contact and select the packaging. This finding was more evident in the half-sealed type of packaging, which exposed almost the entire toy to the environment. Whereas, parents put emphasis on the features of being able to confirm the quality of the content and the functions of packaging after it was unpacked. Accordingly, parents preferred the half-transparent type of packaging, which provided complete covering and allowed them to see the content. During collaborative decision-making task, the half-sealed type of packaging was found to initiate conversation between parents and children the most effectively. Nevertheless, in making a selection, parents’ opinions were still quite decisive. The percentage of selecting the packaging was higher if it was the one that won parents’ acceptance. This finding was more evident in the half-transparent type and sealed and transparent type with a hole. Consequently, while showcasing wooden educational toys, the half-sealed type of packaging, which can best catch children’s eyes and initiate parent-child communication, is recommended. Finally, it is essential to consider what kinds of operational experience that consumers expect from the packaging and manage to equip it with as complete covering as possible. This way, the packaging is overall more likely to win parents’ acceptance.
論文目次 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background Information 1
1.2 Purpose of the Study 3
1.3 Research Framework 4
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1 Educational Toy and Child Development 5
2.1.1 Definition of Educational Toy 5
2.1.2 Educational Toy and Child Development 5
2.1.3 Wooden Educational Toys 7
2.1.4 Brief Summary 9
2.2 Toys and Purchase Decision-Making 9
2.2.1 Children’s Purchase Decision-Making 9
2.2.2 Parent-Child Collaborative Purchase Decision-Making 10
2.2.3 Brief Summary 13
2.3 Packaging and Product Experience 13
2.3.1 Commercial and Toy Packaging 13
2.3.2 Visual Experience of Product 15
2.3.3 Tactile Experience of Product 16
2.3.4 Brief Summary 17
2.4 Summary 17
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 19
3.1 Experimental Design and Structure 19
3.2 Experimental Preparation 20
3.2.1 Participants 20
3.2.2 Samples of Wooden Educational Toys 20
3.2.3 Samples of Toy Packaging 24
3.2.4 Experimental Environment 25
3.3 Experimental Design and Process 26
3.3.1 Participants 26
3.3.2 Experimental Methods 26
3.3.3 Experimental Procedures 27
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 28
4.1 Visual Product Experience Triggered by Each Type of Packaging 28
4.1.1 Sealed 28
4.1.2 Sealed with a hole 29
4.1.3 Half-transparent 30
4.1.4 Half-sealed 30
4.1.5 Sealed and transparent with a hole 31
4.1.6 Summary 32
4.2 Tactile Product Experience Triggered by Each Type of Packaging 32
4.2.1 Sealed 33
4.2.2 Sealed with a hole 34
4.2.3 Half-transparent 36
4.2.4 Half-sealed 37
4.2.5 Sealed and transparent with a hole 39
4.2.6 Summary 40
4.3 The Suitable Type of Packaging for Each Type of Educational Toy 42
4.3.1 Hamburger Castanets 42
4.3.2 Potato Maracas 43
4.3.3 Wobbling Boat 45
4.3.4 Fish Xylophone 47
4.3.5 Summary 48
4.4 The Purchase Decision-Making Influenced by Types of Packaging 49
4.4.1 Independent Decision-Making 49
4.4.2 Collaborative Decision-Making 55
4.4.3 Summary 61
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 63
5.1 Conclusions 63
5.1.1 The Impact of Packaging on Product Experience 63
5.1.2 The Impact of Packaging on Purchase Decision-Making 64
5.1.3 The Suitable Type of Packaging for Each Type of Educational Toy 65
5.2 Recommendations 66
REFERENCES 68
Appendix A HAND-OBJECT INTERACTION OF EDUCATIONAL TOYS 70
Appendix B QUANTIFICATION III OF WOODEN EDUCATIONAL TOYS 71
Appendix C TIMES OF SELECTION OF TOY PACKAGING 84
Appendix D PREFERENCE SCORES OF TOY PACKAGING 86
Appendix E TIME LENGTH OF CONTACTING TOY PACKAGING 88
Appendix F DATA OF EGM INTERVIEW 92
Appendix G T-TEST 111
參考文獻 Breckler, S. J., & Wiggins, E. C. (1991). Cognitive responses in persuasion: Affective and evaluative determinants. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(2), 180-200.

De Groot, I. M., Antonides, G., Read, D., & Raaij, W. (2009). The effects of direct experience on consumer product evaluation. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(3), 509-518.

Desmet, P. M., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product experience. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 57-66.

Elkind, D. (2006). Power of Play: How Spontaneous, Imaginative Activities Lead to Happier, Healthier Children: Da Capo Press.

Hoch, S. J., & Loewenstein, G. F. (1991). Time-inconsistent preferences and consumer self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 492-507.

Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. J., & Metzger, V. A. (1985). Identifying objects by touch: An “expert system”. Perception & Psychophysics, 37(4), 299-302.

Ludden, G. D., Schifferstein, H. N., & Hekkert, P. (2009). Visual-tactual incongruities in products as sources of surprise. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27(1), 61-87.

Madar, A., Boscor, D., Baltescu, C.-A., & Neacşu, N.-A. (2012). Wooden Versus Plastic Toys. Annals-Economy Series, 4, 162-166.

Mann, D. (1996). Serious play. The Teachers College Record, 97(3), 446-469.

Millar, M. G., & Tesser, A. (1989). The effects of affective-cognitive consistency and thought on the attitude-behavior relation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(2), 189-202.

Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003). To have and to hold: The influence of haptic information on product judgments. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 35-48.

Schifferstein, H. N., & Cleiren, M. (2005). Capturing product experiences: a split-modality approach. Acta psychologica, 118(3), 293-318.

Schifferstein, H. N., & Desmet, P. M. (2007). The effects of sensory impairments on product experience and personal well-being. Ergonomics, 50(12), 2026-2048.
Schmitt, B. H. (2000). Experiential marketing: How to get customers to sense, feel, think, act, relate: Simon and Schuster.

Smith, G. E., & Nagle, T. T. (1995). Frames of reference and buyers' perception of price and value. California Management Review, 38, 98-116.

Smith, R. E., & Swinyard, W. R. (1983). Attitude-behavior consistency: The impact of product trial versus advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 257-267.

王川華. (2000). 玩具也可以是教具: 蒙特梭利.

林圓舒. (2013). 以使用者經驗探討玩具產品包裝與使用者之互動性. 臺中科技大學商業設計系碩士班學位論文.

金子修也. (1989). パッケージ・デザイン: 夜も地球もパッケージ: 鹿島出版会.

高橋弘子. (1995). 日本のシュタイナー幼稚園: 水声社.

許勝雄. (1996). 手部動作分類研究. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers, Vol.13(No.2), 10.

陳俊宏, & 楊東民. (2000). 視覺傳達設計概論, 台北: 全華科技圖書.

劉翠華. (2007). 幼兒教玩具設計與運用. 楊智, 台北.

網路資料

The Family Room Strategic Consulting Group, LLC, (2013). Toy & Game Family Descision Making Study--A White Paper prepared for the Toy Industry Association. Retrieved 10/20, 2014, from http://www.toyassociation.org/app_themes/tia/pdfs/resources/
reports/familydecisionmaking-whitepaper.pdf

日本GFK(Gesellschaft für KonSumforschung). (2014).「玩具購入や子どもの生活に関する意識調査」 - 子ども主体のおもちゃ選び、基準は好きなキャラクター.Retrieved 10/5, 2014, from http://www.gfk.com/jp/news-and-events/
press-room/press-releases/Pages/Purchasing-behaviourToy.aspx
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2016-07-24起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2016-07-24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