1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Commerce
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 定錨效果對快速消費品使用量之影響
The Effects of Anchors on Usage Amount of Fast Moving Consumer Goods
作者 江美賢
貢獻者 別蓮蒂
江美賢
關鍵詞 定錨效果
參考點
快速消費品
使用量
實驗法
日期 2013
上傳時間 1-Jul-2014 12:03:43 (UTC+8)
摘要 　　快速消費品的使用為我們每天生活中不可或缺的部分，廠商對於快速消費品產品外觀設計也推陳出新，然而與產品外觀相關的定錨，是否能刺激消費者做出不同判斷，進而影響使用量成為本研究關注主軸。社會判斷理論主張個體對刺激的判斷非固定，而會受刺激所存在的外在環境影響，並據此展開一連串針對個體對外在刺激如何形成印象並做出判斷與回應，表現在行為上的討論和理論。其中如Kahneman與Tversky在1974年提出的定錨捷思法，便認為決策者不是理性的，其判斷會受到一個初始值或初始點影響，根據此初始點調整自己的判斷和決策。
　　本研究參考定錨點之理論與概念，推論經由操弄快速消費品產品外觀的定錨，能夠影響受測者對快速消費品可用量初始點的知覺，進而影響其使用量。根據上述推論，本研究規劃兩大研究主軸，共進行三個實驗，以驗證定錨點對快速消費品使用量造成的影響。
　　本研究採取實驗法，共包含兩個研究、三個子實驗。研究一包含兩個實驗，關注的焦點在於「定錨效果對快速消費品使用量的影響」，以及界定各種可能對消費者使用量有影響的外在定錨參考；研究二進行實驗三，目的則在確認定錨對使用量的影響後，進一步關注「定錨對使用量的影響效果是否受消費者調節焦點差異影響」。
　　研究一中，實驗一選定定錨點中最容易感覺差異的「容器大小」，經由前測移除不適合受測的產品並調整實驗程序後，選用牙膏作為實驗標的，驗證牙膏的容器大小對使用量的影響。由於實驗一正式的實驗產品為牙膏，存在使用工具（牙刷）這項可能的定錨參考，也透過觀察發現剩餘量對使用量似乎會造成影響，因而在正式實驗中再加上「使用工具大小」與「剩餘量多寡」兩項變數。為利於觀察剩餘量多寡，實驗二加入透明容器進入實驗設計，並改用洗手乳作為實驗標的，分析洗手乳「容器大小」、「容器透明與否」與「剩餘量多寡」對於使用量的影響。

　　研究二關注調節焦點差異對定錨效果的影響，因此實驗三加入「調節焦點導向」變數，除了複製並小幅修正實驗二的實驗方法，以再次驗證洗手乳的「容器大小」、「容器透明與否」與「剩餘量多寡」對於使用量的影響外，進而分析依調節焦點區分為重視追求正面結果的促進導向(promotion focus)、重視避免負面結果的預防導向(prevention focus)兩群受測者，定錨效果的影響是否有差異。
　　研究一結果顯示，與產品外觀相關的定錨點對快速消費品的使用量有顯著影響，並驗證「容器大小」、「容器透明與否」與「產品剩餘量多寡」三組定錨效果。其中大容器、透明容器、剩餘量較多等「可用量較充足、較確定」的定錨點會造成使用量顯著較多；反之，小容器、非透明容器、剩餘量較少等「可用量較缺乏、較不確定」的定錨會造成使用量顯著較少。
　　研究二除了再次驗證研究一的三組定錨點與使用量的關係外，更進一步發現定錨點對不同調節焦點導向受測者的效果差異。相對於促進導向受測者，定錨效果對預防導向的受測者影響更為顯著，「容器透明與否」對預防導向者使用有顯著影響，且「容器透明與否」對「剩餘量多寡」的調節作用也會顯著影響預防導向者的使用量。
　　整體而言，本研究驗證了與產品外觀相關的定錨為能夠影響快速消費品使用量的客觀刺激，並發現「容器大小」、「容器透明與否」與「剩餘量多寡」三組定錨點與使用量間的關係，及其效果在預防導向者身上較顯著的現象。
 
Could the anchors relating to the appearance of product stimulate consumers to make different judgment and further affect the amount of usage? This is the focus of this study.
“Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristics”, a theory suggested by Kahneman and Tversky (1974), assumed decision-makers are irrational, they will make estimates based on an initial value or starting point and then ‘adjusting’ their judgments and decisions. This study applies the concept of “anchors” to the using behaviors of fast moving consumer goods and assumes that marketers could stimulate the perception of consumers by manipulating the anchors relating to the appearance of products and affect the usage amount of them. Due to the hypothesis, this research develops two studies consisting three experiments to verify the effects of anchors on the amount of usage on fast moving consumer goods.
Study one includes two experiments focusing on identifying the possible anchors influencing the usage amount. Study two includes the third experiment focusing on the effects of regulatory focus on anchoring effects.
Experiment one chooses “the size of container” to be the first anchor of test and toothpaste as the product for the experiment after removing unsuitable product through pretest. Due to the common behavior of using toothpaste with tool (toothbrush) simultaneously, experiment one add “the size of tool” to be another possible anchor. Moreover, experiment one finds that the “residual amount” seems to affect the usage amount. Therefore, experiment one added “the size of tool” and “residual amount” in the formal experiment. To observe and measure the residual amount easily, experiment two added “transparent container” into the experimental design and use hand soap as the product for experiment to analyze the anchoring effects of “the size of container”, “residual amount” and “transparency of container”.
Study two concerns the effects of regulatory focus on anchoring effects. Therefore, experiment three added the variable of “regulatory focus”. Aside from duplicating experiment two to verify the anchoring effects demonstrated in study one. Experiment three separates participants into the “promotion focus” and “prevention focus” groups by regulatory focus theory and analyze the difference of anchoring effects between them.
The results of study one are as following. “Bigger container”, “more residual amount” and “transparent container” which convey the “sufficient and certain” available quantity, will result in more usage amount. Otherwise, “smaller container”, “less residual amount” and “non-transparent container” which convey the “insufficient and uncertain” available quantity, will result in less usage amount.
The results of study two are as following. (1) Verified the anchoring effects on usage amount which study one assumed again. (2) Verified the difference of anchoring effects on usage amount between the promotion focus and prevention focus people. Anchoring effects are more significant on prevention focus people. Specifically, “Transparency of container” has significant effect on prevention focus people. Moreover, the moderating effect of “transparency of container” and “residual amount” to the usage amount is significant.
To sum up, one of the key findings in this study is verifying that anchors relating to the appearance of products are objective stimuli which can affect the usage amount of fast moving consumer goods and certifying the anchoring effects of “size of container”, “residual amount” and “transparency of container”. Another key finding of this study is the more significant anchoring effects on the prevention focus people than on the promotion focus people.
參考文獻 陳玉珊 （民100年），調節焦點契合之後設分析，國立政治大學企業管理學系博士論文。

Brehmer, Berndt (1988). “The Development of Social Judgment Theory,” Human Judgment the SJT View. North Holland: Elsevier, 41-74.

Brockner, Joel & Higgins, E. Tory & Low, Murray B. (2004).“Regulatory focus theory and the entrepreneurial process,” Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 203-220.

Crowe, Ellen & Higgins, E. Tory (1997).“Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations: Promotion and Prevention in Decision-Making,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117-132.

Eiser, J. Richard (1990). “Judgment and the Psychophysicists”, “The Reality of Judgment” and “Cognitive Heuristics,” Social Judgment, Milton Keynes : Open university press, 1-27, 103-115.

Epley, Nicholas & Gilovich, Thomas (2006). “The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic : why the adjustments are insufficient ,” Psychological Science, 17(4), 311-318.

Griffin, Em (2006). “Social Judgment Theory, ” A First Look at Communication Theory, 6th Ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 174-176.
Howard, Daniel J. (1992). “Gift-Wrapping Effects on Product Attitudes: A Mood-Biasing Explanation,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(3), 197-223.

Higgins, E. Tory (1987).“Self-Discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Affect,” Psychological Review, 94(3), 319-340.

Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,” Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292.

Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos (1986). “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions, The Journal of Business, 59(4), 251-278.

Kahneman, Daniel (1992). “Reference Points, Anchors, Norms, and Mixed Feelings,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,51, 296-312.

Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos (1981). “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,” Science, New Series, 211(4481), 453-458.

Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos (1974). “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science, New Series, 185(4157), 1124-1131.

Kahneman, Daniel & Miller, Dale T. (1986). “Norm Theory: Comparing Reality to Its Alternatives” Psychological Review, 93(2), 136-153.

Sherif, Carolyn W. (1963). “Social Categorization as a Function of Latitude of Acceptance and Series Range,” Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 67(2), 148-156.

Smith, Sandi W., Atkin, Charles K., Martell, Dennis , Allen, Rebecca & Hembroff, Larry (2006). “A Social Judgment Theory Approach to Conducting Formative Research in a Social Norms Campaign,” Communication Theory,16, 141-152.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
企業管理研究所
101355045
102
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101355045
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 別蓮蒂zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 江美賢zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) 江美賢zh_TW
dc.date (日期) 2013en_US
dc.date.accessioned 1-Jul-2014 12:03:43 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 1-Jul-2014 12:03:43 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Jul-2014 12:03:43 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0101355045en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/67076-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 企業管理研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 101355045zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 102zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 　　快速消費品的使用為我們每天生活中不可或缺的部分，廠商對於快速消費品產品外觀設計也推陳出新，然而與產品外觀相關的定錨，是否能刺激消費者做出不同判斷，進而影響使用量成為本研究關注主軸。社會判斷理論主張個體對刺激的判斷非固定，而會受刺激所存在的外在環境影響，並據此展開一連串針對個體對外在刺激如何形成印象並做出判斷與回應，表現在行為上的討論和理論。其中如Kahneman與Tversky在1974年提出的定錨捷思法，便認為決策者不是理性的，其判斷會受到一個初始值或初始點影響，根據此初始點調整自己的判斷和決策。
　　本研究參考定錨點之理論與概念，推論經由操弄快速消費品產品外觀的定錨，能夠影響受測者對快速消費品可用量初始點的知覺，進而影響其使用量。根據上述推論，本研究規劃兩大研究主軸，共進行三個實驗，以驗證定錨點對快速消費品使用量造成的影響。
　　本研究採取實驗法，共包含兩個研究、三個子實驗。研究一包含兩個實驗，關注的焦點在於「定錨效果對快速消費品使用量的影響」，以及界定各種可能對消費者使用量有影響的外在定錨參考；研究二進行實驗三，目的則在確認定錨對使用量的影響後，進一步關注「定錨對使用量的影響效果是否受消費者調節焦點差異影響」。
　　研究一中，實驗一選定定錨點中最容易感覺差異的「容器大小」，經由前測移除不適合受測的產品並調整實驗程序後，選用牙膏作為實驗標的，驗證牙膏的容器大小對使用量的影響。由於實驗一正式的實驗產品為牙膏，存在使用工具（牙刷）這項可能的定錨參考，也透過觀察發現剩餘量對使用量似乎會造成影響，因而在正式實驗中再加上「使用工具大小」與「剩餘量多寡」兩項變數。為利於觀察剩餘量多寡，實驗二加入透明容器進入實驗設計，並改用洗手乳作為實驗標的，分析洗手乳「容器大小」、「容器透明與否」與「剩餘量多寡」對於使用量的影響。

　　研究二關注調節焦點差異對定錨效果的影響，因此實驗三加入「調節焦點導向」變數，除了複製並小幅修正實驗二的實驗方法，以再次驗證洗手乳的「容器大小」、「容器透明與否」與「剩餘量多寡」對於使用量的影響外，進而分析依調節焦點區分為重視追求正面結果的促進導向(promotion focus)、重視避免負面結果的預防導向(prevention focus)兩群受測者，定錨效果的影響是否有差異。
　　研究一結果顯示，與產品外觀相關的定錨點對快速消費品的使用量有顯著影響，並驗證「容器大小」、「容器透明與否」與「產品剩餘量多寡」三組定錨效果。其中大容器、透明容器、剩餘量較多等「可用量較充足、較確定」的定錨點會造成使用量顯著較多；反之，小容器、非透明容器、剩餘量較少等「可用量較缺乏、較不確定」的定錨會造成使用量顯著較少。
　　研究二除了再次驗證研究一的三組定錨點與使用量的關係外，更進一步發現定錨點對不同調節焦點導向受測者的效果差異。相對於促進導向受測者，定錨效果對預防導向的受測者影響更為顯著，「容器透明與否」對預防導向者使用有顯著影響，且「容器透明與否」對「剩餘量多寡」的調節作用也會顯著影響預防導向者的使用量。
　　整體而言，本研究驗證了與產品外觀相關的定錨為能夠影響快速消費品使用量的客觀刺激，並發現「容器大小」、「容器透明與否」與「剩餘量多寡」三組定錨點與使用量間的關係，及其效果在預防導向者身上較顯著的現象。
 		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Could the anchors relating to the appearance of product stimulate consumers to make different judgment and further affect the amount of usage? This is the focus of this study.
“Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristics”, a theory suggested by Kahneman and Tversky (1974), assumed decision-makers are irrational, they will make estimates based on an initial value or starting point and then ‘adjusting’ their judgments and decisions. This study applies the concept of “anchors” to the using behaviors of fast moving consumer goods and assumes that marketers could stimulate the perception of consumers by manipulating the anchors relating to the appearance of products and affect the usage amount of them. Due to the hypothesis, this research develops two studies consisting three experiments to verify the effects of anchors on the amount of usage on fast moving consumer goods.
Study one includes two experiments focusing on identifying the possible anchors influencing the usage amount. Study two includes the third experiment focusing on the effects of regulatory focus on anchoring effects.
Experiment one chooses “the size of container” to be the first anchor of test and toothpaste as the product for the experiment after removing unsuitable product through pretest. Due to the common behavior of using toothpaste with tool (toothbrush) simultaneously, experiment one add “the size of tool” to be another possible anchor. Moreover, experiment one finds that the “residual amount” seems to affect the usage amount. Therefore, experiment one added “the size of tool” and “residual amount” in the formal experiment. To observe and measure the residual amount easily, experiment two added “transparent container” into the experimental design and use hand soap as the product for experiment to analyze the anchoring effects of “the size of container”, “residual amount” and “transparency of container”.
Study two concerns the effects of regulatory focus on anchoring effects. Therefore, experiment three added the variable of “regulatory focus”. Aside from duplicating experiment two to verify the anchoring effects demonstrated in study one. Experiment three separates participants into the “promotion focus” and “prevention focus” groups by regulatory focus theory and analyze the difference of anchoring effects between them.
The results of study one are as following. “Bigger container”, “more residual amount” and “transparent container” which convey the “sufficient and certain” available quantity, will result in more usage amount. Otherwise, “smaller container”, “less residual amount” and “non-transparent container” which convey the “insufficient and uncertain” available quantity, will result in less usage amount.
The results of study two are as following. (1) Verified the anchoring effects on usage amount which study one assumed again. (2) Verified the difference of anchoring effects on usage amount between the promotion focus and prevention focus people. Anchoring effects are more significant on prevention focus people. Specifically, “Transparency of container” has significant effect on prevention focus people. Moreover, the moderating effect of “transparency of container” and “residual amount” to the usage amount is significant.
To sum up, one of the key findings in this study is verifying that anchors relating to the appearance of products are objective stimuli which can affect the usage amount of fast moving consumer goods and certifying the anchoring effects of “size of container”, “residual amount” and “transparency of container”. Another key finding of this study is the more significant anchoring effects on the prevention focus people than on the promotion focus people.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 中文摘要 ⅱ
英文摘要 ⅳ
第一章　緒論 1
第一節　研究背景與動機 1
第二節　研究目的 2
第二章　研究一<定錨點對使用量的影響> 4
第一節　文獻探討 4
一、知覺 4
二、社會判斷 6
（一）社會判斷理論 6
（二）常模理論 8
三、定錨、參考點與展望理論 10
（一）定錨與調整捷思法 10
（二）常模與定錨 11
（三）決策參考點 12
（四）展望理論 13
（五）定錨點、參考點與展望理論比較 17
第二節　實驗一前測：容器大小對使用量影響 19
一、實驗方法 20
（一）變數定義與衡量方式 20
（二）實驗素材 20
（三）受測者與實驗設計 21
（四）實驗程序 21
二、實驗結果 22
三、前測結果檢討 24
四、正式實驗修正 25
第三節　實驗一正式實驗：容器大小、使用工具大小對使用量的影響 27
一、實驗方法 28
（一）變數定義與衡量方式 28
（二）實驗素材 28
（三）受測者與實驗設計 29
（四）實驗程序 29
二、實驗結果 31
三、事後分析 34
四、實驗討論 36
第四節 實驗二:容器大小、剩餘量多寡、容器透明與否對使用量影響 39
一、實驗方法 39
（一）變數定義與衡量方式 40
（二）實驗素材 41
（三）受測者與實驗設計 42
（四）實驗程序 42
二、實驗結果 46
三、實驗討論 51
（一）容器大小的定錨效果 51
（二）容器透明與否的定錨效果 51
（三）剩餘量多寡的定錨效果 51
（四）容器透明對剩餘量多寡的調節作用 52
（五）綜合討論 52
第五節　研究一總結 54
第三章　研究二<定錨點對使用量的綜合影響－調節焦點比較> 56
第一節　研究目的 56
第二節　文獻探討 56
一、心理物理學衡量 56
二、自我差異理論 57
三、調節焦點理論 57
第三節　實驗三：調節焦點導向、容器大小、透明與否、剩餘量多寡對使用量的影響 61
一、實驗方法 61
（一）變數定義與衡量方式 61
（二）實驗素材 62
（三）受測者與實驗設計 63
（四）實驗程序 63
二、實驗結果 65
（一）定錨效果對促進導向者使用量影響分析 70
（二）定錨效果對預防導向者使用量影響分析 73
三、實驗討論 76
（一）定錨效果對促進導向者使用量影響分析 77
（二）定錨效果對預防導向者使用量影響分析 78
（三）綜合討論 79
第四節　研究二總結 81
第四章　研究貢獻與限制 82
第一節　研究結果的行銷應用 82
第二節　研究結果的學術價值 84
第三節　研究限制與未來研究建議 86
參考文獻 88
附錄1. 實驗三洗手乳實驗受測後問卷 91		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 1441715 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101355045en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 定錨效果zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 參考點zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 快速消費品zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 使用量zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 實驗法zh_TW
dc.title (題名) 定錨效果對快速消費品使用量之影響zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The Effects of Anchors on Usage Amount of Fast Moving Consumer Goodsen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 陳玉珊 （民100年），調節焦點契合之後設分析，國立政治大學企業管理學系博士論文。

Brehmer, Berndt (1988). “The Development of Social Judgment Theory,” Human Judgment the SJT View. North Holland: Elsevier, 41-74.

Brockner, Joel & Higgins, E. Tory & Low, Murray B. (2004).“Regulatory focus theory and the entrepreneurial process,” Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 203-220.

Crowe, Ellen & Higgins, E. Tory (1997).“Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations: Promotion and Prevention in Decision-Making,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117-132.

Eiser, J. Richard (1990). “Judgment and the Psychophysicists”, “The Reality of Judgment” and “Cognitive Heuristics,” Social Judgment, Milton Keynes : Open university press, 1-27, 103-115.

Epley, Nicholas & Gilovich, Thomas (2006). “The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic : why the adjustments are insufficient ,” Psychological Science, 17(4), 311-318.

Griffin, Em (2006). “Social Judgment Theory, ” A First Look at Communication Theory, 6th Ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 174-176.
Howard, Daniel J. (1992). “Gift-Wrapping Effects on Product Attitudes: A Mood-Biasing Explanation,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(3), 197-223.

Higgins, E. Tory (1987).“Self-Discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Affect,” Psychological Review, 94(3), 319-340.

Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,” Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292.

Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos (1986). “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions, The Journal of Business, 59(4), 251-278.

Kahneman, Daniel (1992). “Reference Points, Anchors, Norms, and Mixed Feelings,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,51, 296-312.

Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos (1981). “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,” Science, New Series, 211(4481), 453-458.

Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos (1974). “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science, New Series, 185(4157), 1124-1131.

Kahneman, Daniel & Miller, Dale T. (1986). “Norm Theory: Comparing Reality to Its Alternatives” Psychological Review, 93(2), 136-153.

Sherif, Carolyn W. (1963). “Social Categorization as a Function of Latitude of Acceptance and Series Range,” Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 67(2), 148-156.

Smith, Sandi W., Atkin, Charles K., Martell, Dennis , Allen, Rebecca & Hembroff, Larry (2006). “A Social Judgment Theory Approach to Conducting Formative Research in a Social Norms Campaign,” Communication Theory,16, 141-152.		zh_TW