東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁 到查詢結果 [ null ]

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

The Role of Response Modes in Consum...

Park, Jen Heewon.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

The Role of Response Modes in Consumer Judgment and Choice.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	The Role of Response Modes in Consumer Judgment and Choice./
作者:	Park, Jen Heewon.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2022,
面頁冊數:	119 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-04, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International84-04A.
標題:	Design. -
電子資源:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=29342295
ISBN:	9798352603857

The Role of Response Modes in Consumer Judgment and Choice.
Park, Jen Heewon.

The Role of Response Modes in Consumer Judgment and Choice. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2022 - 119 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-04, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Stanford University, 2022.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

Marketing research has predominantly focused on how and what consumers choose. However, most options considered by consumers are rejected (i.e., not chosen); yet, the study of how consumers make rejections has not received much attention. While choosing a good option and rejecting a bad option had long been regarded as nominally the same decision, a growing body of research has uncovered that these two response modes differ in their psychological processes and behavioral consequences. Recognizing this discrepancy between choice and rejection, my dissertation explores the impact of response modes on product evaluations and decisions, with a focus on contexts in which consumers make rejections.In Chapter 1, I explore how the salience of option rejection affects consumer experience and purchase. The paper addresses the following questions: Are all rejections created equal? How does explicitly (versus implicitly) rejecting options influence the ultimate purchase decision? Can the interface design elements of choice architecture influence consumers' evaluation experience and, more importantly, their likelihood of purchasing any option at all? Building on the surge of online decision interfaces, I examine the impact of interface designs-whether the interface enables explicit rejection of products during the evaluation phase-on the likelihood that consumers make a purchase instead of deferral. The findings indicate that the interfaces that strengthen (versus weaken) consumers' psychological rejection of their product options can increase purchase likelihood. Beyond broadly demonstrating the importance of decision context in consumer search, this research sheds light on the psychological implications of the alternative ways consumers reject (i.e., not choose) their options. The findings also have substantive implications for marketers and policy makers as I identify a previously unrecognized source of purchase after evaluation: decision interface design. For example, as demonstrated in my field experiment that involves high-stake decisions in the context of animal adoption, consumers who could explicitly reject animal options through the decision interface were more likely to adopt an animal after their evaluation compared to those who could not.Chapter 2 examines how the rejection mindset can lead consumers to prioritize certain attributes over others, which in turn affects their preference. In today's marketplace, objective attributes that convey the extrinsic quality of the product (e.g., customer reviews and ratings) have become more salient than ever. As a result, consumers face a dilemma when the quality information conflicts with their idiosyncratic preferences (e.g., a product with a low rating fits their taste). This paper tests the proposition that the way consumers resolve this quality-taste conflict depends on whether they respond to a choice or rejection. I posit that rejecting one's own taste is more painful and objectionable-or associated with greater loss aversion-than rejecting the criteria related to quality essentially constructed by others. As multiple online tools aim to not only highlight quality cues (e.g., number of reviews, recommendations based on algorithms) but also accommodate individual consumer taste better (e.g., customization, personalized recommendations), this line of research on "survival of taste" has important implications for practitioners in the current consumer environment.

ISBN: 9798352603857Subjects--Topical Terms:

518875
Design.

The Role of Response Modes in Consumer Judgment and Choice.
LDR:04540nmm a2200325 4500 001 2393590
005 20240414211445.5
006 m o d
007 cr#unu||||||||
008 251215s2022 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798352603857
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI29342295
035 $a (MiAaPQ)STANFORDpk878xs5144
035 $a AAI29342295
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Park, Jen Heewon. $3 3763063
245 1 0 $a The Role of Response Modes in Consumer Judgment and Choice.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2022
300 $a 119 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-04, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Huang, Szu-chi;Levav, Jonathan;Simonson, Itamar.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Stanford University, 2022.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a Marketing research has predominantly focused on how and what consumers choose. However, most options considered by consumers are rejected (i.e., not chosen); yet, the study of how consumers make rejections has not received much attention. While choosing a good option and rejecting a bad option had long been regarded as nominally the same decision, a growing body of research has uncovered that these two response modes differ in their psychological processes and behavioral consequences. Recognizing this discrepancy between choice and rejection, my dissertation explores the impact of response modes on product evaluations and decisions, with a focus on contexts in which consumers make rejections.In Chapter 1, I explore how the salience of option rejection affects consumer experience and purchase. The paper addresses the following questions: Are all rejections created equal? How does explicitly (versus implicitly) rejecting options influence the ultimate purchase decision? Can the interface design elements of choice architecture influence consumers' evaluation experience and, more importantly, their likelihood of purchasing any option at all? Building on the surge of online decision interfaces, I examine the impact of interface designs-whether the interface enables explicit rejection of products during the evaluation phase-on the likelihood that consumers make a purchase instead of deferral. The findings indicate that the interfaces that strengthen (versus weaken) consumers' psychological rejection of their product options can increase purchase likelihood. Beyond broadly demonstrating the importance of decision context in consumer search, this research sheds light on the psychological implications of the alternative ways consumers reject (i.e., not choose) their options. The findings also have substantive implications for marketers and policy makers as I identify a previously unrecognized source of purchase after evaluation: decision interface design. For example, as demonstrated in my field experiment that involves high-stake decisions in the context of animal adoption, consumers who could explicitly reject animal options through the decision interface were more likely to adopt an animal after their evaluation compared to those who could not.Chapter 2 examines how the rejection mindset can lead consumers to prioritize certain attributes over others, which in turn affects their preference. In today's marketplace, objective attributes that convey the extrinsic quality of the product (e.g., customer reviews and ratings) have become more salient than ever. As a result, consumers face a dilemma when the quality information conflicts with their idiosyncratic preferences (e.g., a product with a low rating fits their taste). This paper tests the proposition that the way consumers resolve this quality-taste conflict depends on whether they respond to a choice or rejection. I posit that rejecting one's own taste is more painful and objectionable-or associated with greater loss aversion-than rejecting the criteria related to quality essentially constructed by others. As multiple online tools aim to not only highlight quality cues (e.g., number of reviews, recommendations based on algorithms) but also accommodate individual consumer taste better (e.g., customization, personalized recommendations), this line of research on "survival of taste" has important implications for practitioners in the current consumer environment.
590 $a School code: 0212.
650 4 $a Design. $3 518875
650 4 $a Shopping carts. $3 3763064
650 4 $a Decision making. $3 517204
650 4 $a Interfaces. $2 gtt $3 834756
650 4 $a Painting. $3 524049
690 $a 0389
710 2 $a Stanford University. $3 754827
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 84-04A.
790 $a 0212
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2022
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=29342295