產品資訊階段性比較、抵價深度與消費者產品置換決策：消費者知覺取向

Stepwise Comparisons of Product-Related Information, Depth of Trade-Ins, and Product Replacement Decisions: The Approach of Consumer Perception

10.6504/JOM.2005.22.03.06

顧萱萱(Hsuan-Hsuan Ku)

產品資訊階段性比較 ； 抵價深度 ； 產品置換決策 ； 知覺風險 ； 知覺獲得價值 ； 知覺交易價值 ； Step wise Comparisons of Product-Related Information ； Depth of Trade-Ins ； Product Replacement Decisions ； Perceived Risk ； Perceived Acquisition Value ； Perceived Transaction Value

管理學報

22卷3期（2005 / 06 / 01）

359 - 375

繁體中文

以同廠牌舊品抵價置換新品是業者刺激重購、鼓勵忠誠的促銷策略，具有穩定銷售績效，鞏固市場地位之功效。此種決策情境增加前置與後續交易行為之間的關聯性，可促使消費者形成計畫性採購，獲得連續升級機會。而現有客戶群享有抵價置換權利時，可能會歷經兩階段產品資訊比較歷程，第一階段涉及舊品實際使用經驗與購前期望比較，當其超越期望利益時，易對該廠牌抱持肯定態度，反之，將導致嚴重的知覺風險，對新世代產品產生疑慮，而影響置換意願；第二階段將參酌將世代產品之功能與屬性資訊，瞭解其相對於舊品所擁有的附加優勢，以形成知覺利益，並配合抵價資訊，影響消費者知覺價格公平知覺、知覺交易價值與知覺獲得價值，以至於置換意願。而且，透過適當抵價額度，可將舊品剩餘價值實質化，提供現有客戶群誘因，以克服其持有舊品的心理成本。據此，本研究藉由實驗設計方法，操弄舊品實際與期望利益差異、新世代產品相對優勢，以及抵價深度等三變數，並採知覺風險與知覺價值取向，探討產品資訊階段性比較和抵價深度對消費者置換意願的影響。研究結果方面，除知覺風險並未對消費者抵價置換意願造成顯著負向影響外，其餘假設均獲支持，顯示舊品實際與期望利益差異、新世代產品相對優勢，以及抵價深度等三變數可透過知覺價值作用，影響消費者抵價置換意願，整體結構模型之適配程度亦堪稱良好。

When a consumer who already owns a durable-type product in a category faces the trade-in opportunity to upgrade to a new, higher-quality product, the replacement decision is driven by stepwise comparisons of product-related information and depth of trade-ins. The first stage of comparison is about of consumers' past usage experiences. It is decided by the degree of consistency between expected and realized product evaluations consumers hold about the old one (trade-in product). The perceived risks and benefits of the new product (the upgraded product) should be a function of the consumer past usage experience. Moreover, based on the attributes of the new product, consumer engages in the second stage of comparison to differentiate its relative advantages from the old one. The relative advantages of the new product determine on consumer's perceived benefits, and in turn, along with depth of trade-ins, would result in impact on perceived price fairness, perceived transaction value and perceived acquisition value. Consumer's replacement decision then can be guided by the perceived risk and perceived value. Through a 3×2×2 between-subject factorial design on 383 college students, this study manipulates subjects' usage experiences (positive disconfirmation, no disconfirmation, and negative disconfirmation), the relative advantages of the new product (significant versus non-significant), and depth of trade-ins (high versus low), and incorporates in perceived risk and perceived value as endogenous variables; to explore the ways consumers undergo to make replacement decisions. Pretests are utilized to select a proper product category (i.e., electronic dictionary), identify the attributes and prices of the trade-in products, and deliberate the manipulations of independent variables. The experimental stimulus is presented in print ads supplemented with scenario descriptions. Respondents’ replacement intentions and their perceptions about the various endogenous variables are measured. The results show that as expected, buyers' perceptions of benefits or risks of the upgraded products are influenced by the disconfirmation between the expected and the realized performance they experienced about the trade-in products. In the case of positive disconfirmation, buyers expect the significantly higher benefits that the upgraded products will offer. And under such circumstances, the perceived risks they encountered are less evident. However, the negative relationship between perceived risks and product replacement intentions has not been supported. In terms of the relative advantages of the upgraded product, the study demonstrates that they have positive relationships with buyers' perceptions of benefits. And in turn, buyers' perceptions of benefits result in positive influences on perceived acquisition value and perceived price fairness. Similarly, these findings hold for the influence of depth of trade-in on perceived acquisition value and on perceived price fairness. As for the relationships among perceived price fairness, perceived transaction value, and perceived acquisition value, we have found that perceived price fairness is the major antecedent of perceived transaction value when buyers lack of internal reference price of the upgraded product. The perceived transaction value then has positive influence on perceived acquisition value, and in turn on buyers' replacement intentions. Given the favorable test results, except for the relationship between perceived risks and product replacement intentions, the study suggests that firms can enhance customer loyalty by offering the trade-in opportunity under such prerequisite conditions that consumers' past usage experiences are positive, the upgraded products have significantly relative advantages, and the depths of trade-in are considerable. The perceived value then is the major variable consumers concern in making replacement decisions. For inducing consumers to make positive replacement decision, firms should think higher of product performance, pay more attentions to product innovation, and deliberate the price competency to enhance customers' perceived value.

1. Agarwal, S.,R. K. Teas(2001).Perceived Value: Mediating Role of Perceived Risk.Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,9(4),1-14.
2. Blattberg, R. C.,S. A. Neslin(1990).Sales Promotion: Concepts, Methods, and Strategies.New Jersey:Prentice Hall.
3. Boyd, D. E.,S. Bhat(1998).The Role of Dual Entitlement and Equity Theories in Consumers` Formation of Fair Price Judgment: An Investigation Within a Business-to-Business Service Setting.Journal of Professional Services Marketing,17(1),1-14.
4. Cadotte, E. R.,R. B. Woodruff,R. L. Jenkins(1987).Expectations and Norms in Models of Consumer Satisfaction.Journal of Marketing Research,24(3),305-314.
5. Campbell, M. C.,R. C. Goodstein(2001).The Moderating Effect of Perceived Risk on Consumers` Evaluations of Product Incongruity: Preference for the Norm.Journal of Consumer Research,28(3),439-449.
6. Chang, Tung-Zong,A. R. Wildt(1994).Price, Product Information, and Purchase Intention: An Empirical Study.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,22(1),16-27.
7. Dick, A. S.,K. R. Lord(1998).The Impact of Membership Fees on Consumer Attitude and Choice.Psychology and Marketing,15(1),41-58.
8. Dodds, W. B.,K. B. Monroe,D. Grewal(1991).Effects of Price, Brand and Store Information on Buyers` Product Evaluations.Journal of Marketing Research,28(3),307-319.
9. Dowling, G. R.,R. Staelin(1994).A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended Risk-handling Activity.Journal of Consumer Research,21(1),119-134.
10. Engel, J.,R. D. Blackwell,P. W. Miniard(1986).Consumer Behavior.New York:CBS College Publishing.
11. Erdem, T.(1998).An Empirical Analysis of Umbrella Branding.Journal of Marketing Research,35(3),339-351.
12. Garland, H.(1990).Throwing Good Money after Bad: The Effect of Sunk Costs on the Decision to Escalate Commitment to an Ongoing Project.Journal of Applied Psychology,75(6),728-731.
13. Garland, H.,S. Newport(1991).Effects of Absolute and Relative Sunk Costs on the Decision to Persist with a Course of Action.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,48(1),55-69.
14. Grewal, D.,K. B. Monroe,R. Krishnan(1998).The Effects of Price-Comparison Advertising on Buyers` Perceptions of Acquisition Value, Transaction Value, and Behavioral Intentions.Journal of Marketing,62(2),46-59.
15. Grewal, D,R. Krishnan(1998).The Effects of Store Name, Brand Name, and Price Discounts on Consumers` Evaluations and Purchase Intentions.Journal of Retailing,74(3),331-352.
16. Heath, C.(1995).Escalation and Dc-escalation of Commitment in Response to Sunk Costs: The Role of Budgeting in Mental Accounting.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,62(1),38-54.
17. Heath, C.,M. G. Fennema(1996).Mental Depreciation and Marginal Decision Making.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,68(2),95-108.
18. Kalwani, M. U.,C. K. Yim(1992).Consumer Price and Promotion Expectations: An Experimental Study.Journal of Marketing Research,29(1),90-100.
19. Kaplan, L. B.,G. J. Szybille,J. Jacoby(1974).Components of Perceived Risk in Product Purchase: A Cross-Validation.Journal of Applied Psychology,59(3),287-291.
20. Lichtenstein, D. R.,R. G. Netemeyer,S. Burton(1990).Distinguishing Coupon Proneness from Value Consciousness: An Acquisition-Transaction Utility Theory Perspective.Journal of Marketing,54(3),54-67.
21. Lichtenstein, D. R.,W. O. Bearden(1989).Contextual Influences on Perceptions of Merchant-Supplied Reference Prices.Journal of Consumer Research,16(1),55-66.
22. Lovelock, C. H.(1996).Services Marketing.New York:Prentice Hall.
23. Mayhew, G. E.,R. S. Winer(1992).An Empirical Analysis of Internal and External Reference Prices Using Scanner Data.Journal of Consumer Research,19(1),62-70.
24. Monroe, K. B.,J. D. Chapman(1987).Advances in Consumer Research.Provo, UT:Association for Consumer Research.
25. Narasimhan, C.(1984).A Price Discrimination Theory of Coupons.Marketing Science,3(2),128-146.
26. Okada, E. M.(2001).Trade-ins, Mental Accounting, and Product Replacement Decisions.Journal of Consumer Research,27(4),433-446.
27. Roselius, T.(1971).Consumer Rankings of Risk Deduction Methods.Journal of Marketing,35(1),56-61.
28. Stone, R. N.,K. Gronhaug(1993).Perceived Risk: Further Considerations for the Marketing Discipline.European Journal of Marketing,27(3),39-50.
29. Thaler, R.(1985).Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice.Marketing Science,4(3),199-214.
30. Tversky, A.,D. Kahneman(1974).Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.Science,185,1124-1131.
31. Urbany, J. E.,W. O. Bearden,A. Kaicker,M. Smith-de Borrero(1997).Transaction Utility Effects When Quality is Uncertain.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,25(1),45-55.
32. Urbany, J. E.,W. O. Bearden,D.C. Weilbaker(1988).The Effect of Plausible and Exaggerated Reference Prices on Consumer Perceptions and Price Search.Journal of Consumer Research,15(1),95-110.
33. Wansink, B.,R. J. Kent,S. J. Hoch(1998).An Anchoring and Adjustment Model of Purchase Quantity Decisions.Journal of Marketing Research,35(1),71-81.
34. Yadav, M. S.(1994).How Buyers Evaluate Product Bundles: A Model of Anchoring and Adjustment.Journal of Consumer Research,21(2),342-353.
35. Zaltman, G.,M. Wallendorf(1983).Consumer Behavior.New York:Wiley.
36. Zeithami, V. A.(1988).Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence.Journal of Marketing,52(3),2-22.
37. Zeithaml, V. A.,L. L. Berry,A. Parasuraman(1988).Communication and Control Processes in the Delivery of Service Processes.Journal of Marketing,52(2),35-49.

1. 梁德馨、尤晴韻(2008)。OK地區文化產業發展民眾評估指標之建構。數據分析，3(4)，1-34。