自我建構與關係親疏對妥協效果之影響

The Effect of Self-construal and Relationship Closeness on Compromise Effect

李孟熹(Meng-Hsi Lee)

指導教授 ： 張重昭

國立臺灣大學/管理學院/商學研究所/碩士(2012年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2012.10765

摘要

本研究主要探討不同自我建構型態（self-construal）的消費者，在面對幫關係親疏程度不同的對象選購物品時，妥協效果的影響程度。自我建構型態可分為「獨立自我」（independent self-construal）與「相依自我」（interdependent self-construal）兩種，「獨立自我」的人渴望表達出個人的獨特屬性，用較系統性的思考方式理解、分析和處理購物資訊；另一種「相依自我」的人則將自我視為一個社會團體當中的一份子，傾向較啟發式的思考方式來處理分析所有的購物資訊。依此推論，自我建構型態會導致妥協效果的影響程度不同。
根據過去的研究，關係親疏程度與妥協效果亦存在高度相關，這是由於當消費者替較疏遠的對象購買時，不了解這些對象的品味和看法，以及對風險的忍受程度，因此傾向選擇在所有屬性性能皆表現中庸的「妥協選擇」（compromise option）。
因此本研究以過去研究為基礎，進一步以自我建構型態與關係親疏程度作為自變數，透過一2（相依自我v.s.獨立自我）x3（替自己購買v.s.替家人購買v.s.替朋友購買）x2（商品有兩個選擇【Binary】v.s.有三個選擇【Trinary】）的受測者問卷實驗設計，探討兩者交互作用下對妥協效果之影響。

關鍵字

自我建構 ； 獨立自我 ； 相依自我 ； 關係親疏 ； 妥協效果

並列摘要

This study focused on the effect of self-construal and relationship closeness on compromise effect. Self-constructed classifies individuals into two categories: independent and interdependent. The independent usually express their unique opinion, using systematic style of thinking to understand, analyze the purchasing information. While the interdependent see themselves as part of a social group and use a heuristic style of thinking to process the purchasing information.
Past research identified that the relationship closeness and compromise effects are highly correlated because when consumers buy something for someone they don’t know much, they don’t understand their tastes and views of these objects. Therefore they tend to choose the compromise option with doctrine of mean.
This research use self-construal and relationship closeness as independent variables and conduct an experiment through a 2 (interdependent vs. independent) x3 (buy for self vs. buy for a family vs. buy for a friend) x2 (there are two options [Binary] vs. three options [Trinary]) questionnaire to explore the impact of the compromise effect on the interaction of the two.

並列關鍵字

Self-construal ； Independent ； Interdependent ； Relationship closeness ； Compromise effect

參考文獻

Chang, C. C., Chuang, S. C., Cheng, Y. H., & Huang, T. Y. (2011). The compromise effect in choosing for others. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25, 109–122.

Beisswanger, A. H., Stone, E. R., Hupp, J. M., & Allgaier, L. (2003). Risk taking in relationships: Differences in deciding for oneself versus for a friend. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 121–135.

Briley, D. A., Morris, M. W., & Simonson, I. (2000). Reasons as carriers of culture: Dynamic versus dispositional models of cultural influence on decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 157–178.

Chang, C. C., & Liu, H. H. (2007). Which is the compromise option? Information format and task format as determinants. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 59–75.

Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122(1), 5-37.