消費者產品外觀價值評價與購買意願之相關性探討－以數位相機為例

Exploring the Relationships between Consumers' Value Evaluations of Product Appearance and Purchase Intention-A Case of Digital Camera Designs

10.6793/JNTCA.201210.0039

陳俊智(Chun-Chin Chen)；吳俞瑩(Yu-Ying Wu)

產品外觀 ； Kano品質模式 ； 價值評價 ； 購買意願 ； 涉入 ； 多屬性設計決策 ； product appearance ； value assessment ； purchase intention ； Kano model ； involvement

藝術學報

91期（2012 / 10 / 01）

39 - 62

繁體中文

產品在銷售過程中，與消費者最直接、頻繁的接觸即為產品外觀，因機能與技術的普同現象，產品外觀之價值感已成為影響消費者購買意願之重要因素之一。本研究以「消費型數位相機」為例，藉由二維尺度概念之Kano品質模式的應用，探討消費者對於產品外觀價值屬性評價與購買意願之相關性，同時，由於在諸多文獻中已提出涉入程度之高低為影響購買意願之重要因素，因此本研究中給由高、低涉入程度消費者之評價結果比較，以了解其需求差異性。研究歸納出消費者對於產品外觀價值之6項評價向度，包括：注目性、美感、人因、機能、類別與象微等構面、和13個價值評價屬性。透過複回歸分析結果指出，高低涉入者對於相機之購買意願，皆較重視在象徵與類別之價值評價向度，低涉入者更重視美感與人因方面的價值取向；相對地，高涉入者則較重視注目性。同時，在Kano 品質分類之結果發現，各價值屬性項目與購買意願之間確實存在不同線性與非線性之Kano品質分類之關係，高低涉入群之消費者，對於價值屬性的需求，分別被歸類為不同的品質屬性，此說明了不同消費族群對於品質需求之差異性，透過Kano品質分類之結果，可根據消費者對於品質之不同需求性（必要、一元及魅力），為不同的消費者區隔量身定作，以滿足消費族群的需求差異，提升其產品購買意願。最後，研究更提出一品質改善判定模式，整合Kano品質分類之分析、決策矩陣與產品優劣勢分析，有效地將各屬性項目之重要性、轉換為品質改善之權衡取捨，以提供設計者（決策者）多屬性設計決策之參考。

During the product sales procedure, the most direct and frequent contact with consumer s is the product appearance. Due to the equivalency of product technology and function, the value assessment elicited by product appearance has been one of the critical factors affecting consumers' purchase intention. The purpose of the study is to explore the relationship between consumers' purchase intention and value assessment of product appearance. And Kano model is used to identify the different requirements of value attributes of consumers by using digital camera designs as examples. While the effects of involvement degrees on consumers' purchase intention and value assessments are also discussed. Firstly, the factors influencing consumers' value assessment of product appearance were identified, including: attention, aesthetics, ergonomics, function, categorization and symbol value. And 13 values assessment attributes were also were identified. By using the multi-regression analysis the results indicated that the value factors, categorization and symbol, are critical for affecting consumers' purchase intention. The high-involvement consumers also care about the factor of attention. On the contrary the low-involvement consumers emphasize the aesthetics and ergonomics factors. Then the Kano's regression method was conducted. The 13 attributes were categorized as different Kano's classifications, including attractive, must-be quality, one-dimensional quality and indifferent quality. This imp lies that there exist linear and non-linear relationships between value attributes performance and consumers' purchase intention of digital camera designs. While the classification result s between high-involvement and low- involvement consumers are quite different. It indicated that based on the result of Kano categorization can help designers to better understand consumer requirements for different consumers with different involvement degree. The application of Kano model can identify the critical and high-return factors of satisfaction for increasing the consumers' purchase intention for different segmentation of consumers. Finally, a quality improvement model combining a decision matrix with the Kano c1assification results was further proposed to infer the proper allocation to each attribute for effective guiding the improvement efforts of attributes in different competitive situation in the development of a new product design, and to resolve the trade-off dilemma in multiple-attributes decision making.

1. 侯嘉政、傅柏霖(2008)。產品涉入與品牌涉入對品牌忠誠度之影響─以數位相機為例。行銷評論，5(1)，27-56。
   連結：
2. (1994).Service Quality: New Direction in Theory and Practice.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.
3. Anderson, E.W.,Sullivan, M.W.(1993).The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms.Marketing Science,12,124-143.
4. Baxter, M.(1995).Product design: A practical guide to systematic methods of new product development.
5. Belk, R.W.(1988).Possessions and the extended self.J. Consum. Res.,15,139-168.
6. Bloch, P.H.(1995).Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response.Journal of Marketing,59,16-29.
7. Boote, W.(1981).Market segmentation by personal values and salient product attributes.Journal of Advertising Research,28-36.
8. Creusen, M.E.H.(1998).Product appearance and consumer choice.Delft:Delft University of Technology.
9. Dawar, Niraj,Parker, Philip(1994).Marketing Universals: Consumers' Use of Brand Name, Price, Physical Appearance, and Retailer Reputation as Signals of Product Quality.Journal of Marketing,58(2),81-95.
10. Dodds. W. B.,Monroe, K. B.,Grewal, D.(1991).Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers' Product Evaluations.Journal of Marketing Research,28,307-319.
11. Engel, J.F.,Kollat, D. T.,Blackwell, R. D.(1968).Consumer Behavior.NY:Holt Rinehart and Winston.
12. Fishbein, M.,Ajzen, I.(1975).Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory' and research.Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.
13. Garber, Lawrence L., Jr.(ed.),Kardes, Frank R.(ed.),Sujan, Mita(ed.)(1995).The Package Appearance in Choice.Advances in Consumer Research,Provo, UT:
14. Govers, C. M. P.(1996).What and how of quality function deployment (QFD).Proceedings of the eighth International Working Seminar on Production Economics,46(7),275-285.
15. Greenbaum, T. L.(1993).The Handbook for Focus Group Research.NY:Lexington Books.
16. Jane, A. C.,Dominguez, S. M.(2003).Citizens' role in health services: Satisfaction behavior: Kano's model, part 1.Quality Management in Health Care,12(1),64-71.
17. Kano, N.,Seraku, N.,Takanashi, F.,Tsjui, S.(1984).Attractive Quality and Must-be Quality.Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control,14(2),39-48.
18. Kapferer, J.,Laurent, G.(1985).Consumer Involvement Profiles: A New Practical Approach to Consumer Involvement.Journal of Advertising Research,25(6),48-56.
19. Kardes, Frank R.(ed.),Sujan, Mita(ed.)(1995).Advances in Consumer Research.Provo, UT:Association for Consumer Research.
20. Keng,Yang, C(1993).Personal values, demographic and consumption behavior: a study of Taiwanese consumer.Journal of International Consumer Marketing,6(1),27-48.
21. Knox, S.,Walker, D.(2003).Empirical Developments in the Measurement of Involvement. Brand Loyalty and Their Relationship in Grocery Markets.Journal of Strategic Marketing,11,271-286.
22. Lerner, J. S.,Small, D. A.,Loewenstein, G.(2004).Heart strings and purse strings.Psychological Science,15(5),337-341.
23. Lin, L.,Hsu, T.,Huang, L.(2011).Application of fuzzy measures in the product appearance value assessment.Appl. Soft Compu.,11(2),1867-1875.
24. Matzler, K.,Hinterhuber, H. H.(1998).How to make product development projects more successful by integrating Kano's model of customer satisfaction into quality function deployment.Technovation,18(1),25-38.
25. Mittal, B. I.,Lee, M. S.(1989).A causal Model of Consumer Involvement.Journal of Economic Psychology,10,363-389.
26. Monore, K. B.,Krishnan, R.(1985).The asymmetric impact of negative and positive attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions.Journal of Marketing,62(1),33-47.
27. Moorman, C.,Zaltman, Gerald,Deshpande, Rohit(1992).Relationships Between Providers and Users of Market Research-The Dynamics of Trust Within and Between Organizations.Journal of Marketing Research,29,314-28.
28. Nicosia, F. M.(1966).Consumer Decision Process: Marketing and Advertising Implications.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall.
29. Patterson, P. G.,Spreng, R. A.(1997).Modelling the Relationship between Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Repurchase Intentions in a Business-to-Business, Services Context: An Empirical Examination.International Journal of Service Industry Management,8(5),414-434.
30. Rijsdijk, S.A.,Hultink, E.J.(2002).The Impact of Product Smartness on Consumer Satisfaction through Product Advantage, Computability, and Complexity.Proceedings of the 13th PDMA Research Conference,Orlando, USA.:
31. Robbins, Stephen P.(2005).Organizational behiaovr.NJ.:Prentice Hall Inc..
32. Rokeach, M.(1973).The Nature of Human Values.New York:Free Press.
33. Rose, G. M.,Shoham, A.,Kahle, L.R.,Batra, R.(1994).Social values, conformity, and dress.Journal of Applied Social Psychology,24(17),1501-19.
34. Roy,Cornwell(2003).Roy & Cornwell(2003).Sponsorship-linked marketing: Opening the black box.
35. Schiffman, L. G.,Kanuk, L. L.(2000).Consumer Behavior.Prentice Hall.Inc..
36. Schwartz, S.H.,Bilsky, W.(1987).Toward a universal psychological structure of human values.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,53,550-562.
37. Shen, X. X.,Tan, K. C.,Xie, M.(2000).An integrated approach to innovative product development using Kano's model and QFD.European Journal of Innovation Management,3(2),91-99.
38. Solomon, Michael R.(1983).The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective.Journal of Consumer Research,10(3),319-329.
39. Strauss, J.,Frost, R.(2001).E-Marketing.Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.
40. Sweeney, J.C.,Soutar, G.N.(2001).Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item scale.Journal of Retailing,77,203-220.
41. Taylor, S. A.,Baker, T. L.(1994).An assessment of the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers' purchase intentions.Journal of Retailing,70(2),163-178.
42. Ting. S. C.,Chen, C. N.(2002).The asymmetrical and non-linear effects of store quality attributes on customer satisfaction.Total Quality Management,13(4),547-569.
43. Zaichkowsky, J. L.(1985).Measuring the Involvement Construct.Journal of Consumer Research,12,341-352.
44. Zeithaml, Valaric A.,Parasuraman, A.,Malhotra, Arvind(2002).Service quality delivery through Web sites A critical review of extant knowledge.Academy of Marketing Science,30(4),369.
45. 王月青(2001)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北，國立台灣科技大學設計研究所。
46. 林彥呈、管倖生(2000)。產品色彩與造型搭配相關性之研究。工業設計，28(2)，148-153。
47. 彭麟婷(2009)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺南，國立成功大學工業設計研究所。
48. 楊祖賜(2006)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北，大同大學工業設計研究所。

1. 張博勛(2017)。探討線上遊戲使用者消費行為分析—以英雄聯盟為例。義守大學資訊管理學系學位論文。2017。1-72。