本研究主要探討定錨效果內在機制中，無意識歷程與意識歷程定錨效果的區分。在實驗一中，利用快速呈現的研究典範，發現即使是在受試者沒有意識到錨點的情況下仍然會有定錨效果的發生。實驗二中則同時操弄時間壓力與意識層次，結果發現透過無意識歷程產生的定錨效果，時間壓力的有無並不會造成定錨效果大小的差異；而透過意識歷程產生的定錨效果，則在有時間壓力的情況下，會有比較大的定錨效果。實驗三則釐清以往研究所探討「錨點極端性對定錨效果的影響」中許多不一致的結果，認為以往研究結果的歧異有可能是由於所使用的量測方式不適當的原因所導致，當採用修正後的量測方式「調整指數」去重新計算定錨效果，並利用讓受試者寫下訊息的方式以了解產生訊息的性質與數量，結果發現當錨點越極端時，受試者所搜尋到目標與錨點一致的訊息就越少，定錨效果也就會越小。實驗四中同時操弄時間壓力與錨點極端性，結果發現沒有時間壓力時，錨點越極端其定錨效果越小；而當有時間壓力時，錨點極端性就不會產生效果。以上結果由無意識層次及意識層次的角度來討論所有的定錨現象。

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.

為了處理在願付價格的研究中，極端受訪者對於估計結果所造成的誤差。本文沿用Tsai(2005)所建議採用的三要素混合模型，將受訪者區分為價格再高都願意支付、願意支付合理價格以及價格再低都不願意支付等三種類型。在評估願付價格時，以加速失敗模型(accelerated failure time model，簡稱AFT model)針對願意支付合理價格的受訪者進行估計，並且在考慮不同起價點可能會造成不同程度的起價點偏誤(starting point bias)或是定錨效果(anchoring effect)的情形下，提出一個起價點偏誤調整模型來做探討。我們並以CVDFACTS中的高血壓之願付價格資料進行實證分析。分析結果發現，教育程度越高的男性對於能降低高血壓病患罹患心臟血管相關疾病之新藥願意付較高的金額。此外我們也發現在此筆資料中，不同起價點確實會造成不同程度的偏誤，經由偏誤調整後會得到較高的願付金額。 / A study of willingness-to-pay often suffers from the bias introduced by extreme respondents who are willing to or not willing to pay any price. To overcome the problem, a three-component model proposed by Tsai (2005) is adopted. Under such a circumstance, respondents are classified into three categories, i.e. respondents who are willing to pay any price, unwilling to pay any price, or willing to pay a reasonable price. The willingness-to-pay for those subjects who are willing to pay a reasonable price is again modeled by an accelerated failure time model (AFT model). In this study, we, however, propose an unified model that allows us to look into the issue related to starting point bias and anchoring effect, simultaneously. Willingness-to-pay for cardiovascular disease treatment from a longitudinal follow-up survey- CVDFACTS, is investigated using the new model. Through the use of the model, we are able to detect the effects of starting point biases, and make a proper adjustment accordingly. Our analysis indicates that male respondents with higher education level have an inclination to pay higher price for the new treatment. Besides, we also discover that starting point bias does exist in this dataset.

由於以往在願付價格的研究中，並未考慮到價格再高都願意支付的受訪者，以及價格再低都不願意支付的受訪者，因此可能會造成估計結果的偏差。本文除了沿用Tsai(2005)所建議採用的三要素混合模型，將受訪者區成價格再高都會願意付的人、願意付合理價格的人以及價格再低都不願意付的人等三類受訪者，且將願意付合理價格者的願付價格透過加速失敗模型(accelerated failure time model，簡稱AFT model)來作評估外，進一步就願意付合理價格的人可能會受到起價點的影響或是有「定錨效果」(anchoring effect)產生的問題來作探討，並就CVDFACTS的高血壓之願付價格資料來作實證分析。結果發現教育程度越高、收入越高以及男性對於能降低罹患心臟血管相關疾病新藥的願付價格也越高。此外我們也發現此筆資料確實有起價點偏誤(starting point bias)的情形。 / In the past, studies on willing-to-pay (WTP) usually assume that all the respondents are willing to pay a reasonable price for a non-market good. In reality, some of the respondents might be willing to pay a very high price, while some others unwilling to pay anything. Following Tsai(2005), we adopt a three-component mixture model to take into account these there three types of respondents and modeling those who are willing to pay a reasonable price with an accelerated failure time (AFT) model. In addition, with a slight modification, we also incorporate issues regarding “starting point bias” and “anchoring effect” into the model. An empirical study based on the data collected from “CVDFACTS” shows that males, respondents with higher educational level, and those with higher family income are willing to pay higher prices for a new hypertension treatment. In addition, it is quite likely that “starting point bias” exists in the dataset.