過去「罪惡感」相關的研究，大多集中在哲學、文學、心理學、宗教學的領域，在行銷的領域則甚少提及。即使有關於「消費罪惡感」的相關文獻，也只是將「消費罪惡感」當成影響消費者行為的一個變數來應用，並沒有對「消費罪惡感」本質作探討的相關研究。 因此，本研究先由第一階段的深度訪談，仔細探查「消費罪惡感」的元素、發生時機、情緒內涵、及其對消費者行為的影響，並發展出相關的命題。接著再根據第一階段所推導的相關命題，延伸至第二階段的量表發展。 第一階段深度訪談的25位受訪者包括了學生、上班族、銀髮族，年齡分佈在22-63歲，所描述的產品共57項。根據訪談的結果顯示，「消費罪惡感」可以分解為六種情緒：「猶豫感」、「不捨感」、「擔憂感」、「心虛感」、「後悔感」、「內疚感」。另外，「消費罪惡感」發生的時點除了購買前的「預期性消費罪惡感」以及購買後的「反應性消費罪惡感」外，還包括了購買中的「進行性消費罪惡感」。其中，「預期性消費罪惡感」的主要情緒為「猶豫感」、「進行性消費罪惡感」主要的情緒為「不捨感」、「反應性消費罪惡感」的主要情緒為「後悔感」及「內疚感」。至於「消費罪惡感」對消費者行為的影響方面，當消費者產生了「預期性消費罪惡感」會使消費者的「購買意願」降低，而當消費者感受到「反應性消費罪惡感」時，在短期內對類似產品的「再購意願」會降低。 第二階段的量表發展，經過多次專家對初步發展的題項進行評估，並確認專家意見歸類準確，才進行兩次量表純化、效標關聯效度的檢測、以及量表鑑別度分析，據此確立「預期性消費罪惡感量表」及「反應性消費罪惡感量表」。本研究並根據確立的量表驗證第一階段的命題，結果顯示，不同發生時點的消費罪惡感所表現出的核心情緒與推導出的命題一致。此外，本研究亦在量表發展完成之後，進一步將其修改為衡量單一商品的「特定商品消費罪惡感量表」，並以此量表檢測消費者在某特定商品上之消費罪惡感，結果顯示，針對特定商品的「預期性消費罪惡感」與「反應性消費罪惡感」為負相關，與「一般性消費罪惡感量表」之正相關相異。 整體而言，本研究不僅對「消費罪惡感」的本質作了深入的探究，讓「消費罪惡感」之定義更加明確，且解釋了不同消費罪惡感發生時機之情緒內涵的差異，並據此發展出「消費罪惡感量表」，以為未來「消費罪惡感」相關研究之適切衡量工具。 / Guilt is a negative state that individuals experience in reaction to either a positive but undeserved event or a negative but deserved event. Despite its negative valence, guilt is considered a functional emotion, because it informs individuals that they have violated personal or social standards and motivates reparative action. In a consumption context, guilt has been linked to impulsive buying, compulsive consumption, and overspending. This guilt about consumption is usually named “Consumer Guilt.” Although previous research has defined consumer guilt, the measurement of consumer guilt is still not available in previous research. Therefore, this study focuses on the construct of consumer guilt and intends to explore when consumer guilt occurs. In order to find out the constructs, timing, and measurement of consumer guilt, 25 respondents were reminded with a shopping situation which consumers usually have the feelings of guilt. The interviewees were also requested to recall their last consumer guilt situation. This research employed the critical incident techniques and the main study contains 57 consumer guilt events. The results illustrate three major findings. First, through collecting, sorting and analyzing 56 events, the results pointed out consumer guilt had six constructs of emotion: hesitation, fear, scruple, reluctance to spend, regret, blame. Second, the past researches indicated consumer guilt can divide into two categories: reactive guilt and anticipatory guilt. This study finds that besides anticipatory consumer guilt and reactive consumer guilt, consumer guilt occurs at the point of buying. We name it proceeding consumer guilt. Third, the major construct of anticipatory consumer guilt is hesitation, the major construct of proceeding consumer guilt is reluctance to spend, and the major construct of reactive consumer guilt is regret and blame. Based on these results, we define the construct of consumer guilt to be measured, and generate items that pertain to the construct. Then determine the reliability and validity of these items. The anticipatory consumer guilt scale and the reactive guilt were developed to capture the concept of consumer guilt. The scale successfully met standards for internal reliability, content validity, criterion-related validity, and construct validity.

本研究以調節焦點理論為基礎，企圖於綠色風潮盛行的環保社會中，將此理論應用於綠色廣告中，旨在探討消費者之目標導向與廣告中綠色產品所傳達的利益訴求訊息間一致匹配與否，是否也如此理論應用於一般產品廣告中，將使消費者對廣告中產品的評價產生影響，並且也探討消費者預期性消費罪惡感喚起程度及人格特質的不同，是否也會影響消費者對綠色產品的評價，最後以個人道德標準為衡量指標，探討其高低程度是否會使消費者的目標導向與廣告利益訴求訊息匹配時，較不匹配時所產生較好的產品評價受到影響。 　　本研究採用實驗法，為一次性實驗，實驗中共分為八個情境之問卷，即2（受測者的預期性消費罪惡感：有、無）X2（受測者的兩種目標導向：促進焦點導向、預防焦點導向）X2（廣告所傳遞的兩種產品利益：促進焦點利益訴求、預防焦點利益訴求）。 　　結果發現調節焦點理論所強調的消費者目標導向與廣告訊息利益匹配時，會較不匹配時對該廣告產品產生較好評價的概念，於綠色廣告的溝通應用中，也能發揮同樣的效果。在消費者預期性消費罪惡感喚醒程度與個人人格特質方面，首先在預期性消費罪惡感的部分，相較無預期性消費罪惡感喚醒的情況，消費者於預期性消費罪惡感喚醒時，能產生較佳的品牌態度；其次在個人人格特質方面，相較消費者為外控人格特質的情況，消費者屬於內控人格特質時，能產生較佳的品牌態度；最後在個人道德標準程度對調節焦點匹配與否所帶來影響的部分，廣告訊息所傳達的利益與消費者調節焦點導向匹配時，其品牌態度及購買意願優於不匹配時的差異程度，於消費者具高個人道德標準的情況較低個人道德標準的情況更大。

國人自我贈禮的風氣方興未艾，但在資源的束縛與傳統價值觀的影響下，使得消費者不免陷於困窘之境，而本研究即欲探討消費者自我贈禮與消費罪惡感之間的關係。本研究目的有四：其一，瞭解國人引發自我贈禮的主要背景情境與動機，並試圖對自我贈禮加以分類，以求得主要的背景情境與動機所對應之自我贈禮類型；其二，發展消費罪惡感之構面與發生時機；其三，瞭解不同自我贈禮類型與消費罪惡感的對應關係；其四，探討在不同產品類型的影響之下，自我贈禮與消費罪惡感的對應關係是否有所不同。 本研究以關鍵事件法設計問卷，透過三次前測得到正式問卷，針對60位消費者進行訪談及問卷施測，共收集了60個自我贈禮事件。經資料分析過後，得到研究結果可歸納成四大方向： 首先在自我贈禮方面，背景情境按發生頻次多寡依序為：發生重大事件、有成就感、工作辛苦、壓力負荷、心情低落、有額外資源、週期性自我回饋；背景情境與動機之間呈現一對一的關係，分別是為了留下紀念、犒賞自己、慰勞自己、抒解壓力、愉悅自己、維持好心情、對自己好一點。另外，若依照產品導向程度的強弱以及資訊準備程度的高低針對自我贈禮進行分類，國人進行最不常發生的自我贈禮類型為「高度產品導向—低度資訊準備」—驚鴻一瞥型。 其次在消費罪惡感方面，其構面為猶豫感、金錢疼惜感、愧疚感，時機為購買之前的預期性罪惡感，購買當下的進行性罪惡感，以及購買之後的反應性罪惡感，而雖然各時機都會有各構面的成分，但預期性罪惡感最主要的構面為猶豫感，進行性罪惡感最主要的構面為疼惜感，反應性罪惡感最主要的構面為愧疚感。 接著在自我贈禮與消費罪惡感之關係方面，當消費者進行週期性自我回饋時，會感受到程度最高的預期性罪惡感；而當消費者因有成就感或心情低落時所進行之自我贈禮，其感受到的是程度最低的預期性罪惡感。至於，若是屬於高度產品導向類型者，其表現在消費罪惡感上的類型最主要為財務類罪惡感；若是屬於低度產品導向類型者，比較有可能不會產生消費罪惡感。 最後，若是受到不同產品類型影響的情況下，由於自我贈禮之禮物類型皆為奢侈品，因此以功能型與享樂型產品做為產品分類的標準。對於購買功能型奢侈品做為自我贈禮禮物的消費者而言，無論是高度產品導向或是低度產品導向類型者，其表現在消費罪惡感上，最主要的類型為財務類罪惡感；對於購買享樂型奢侈品做為自我贈禮禮物的消費者而言，若是高度產品導向類型者，其表現在消費罪惡感上，最主要的類型為財務類罪惡感；若是低度產品導向者，則傾向完全沒有罪惡感。 整體而言，本研究不僅為國人自我贈禮的背景情境與動機之先導研究，亦開啟了消費罪惡感研究之先河，並建立消費罪惡感的構面與時機，著實為後續研究奠定了相當的基礎。 / People in Taiwan have tended to buy themselves gifts recently. However, under the constraints of resources and the influence of traditional values, they would hesitate to buy or not to buy. This study focuses on this interesting theme-the relationship between consumers’ self-gift giving and consumer guilt. The objectives of this study are to explore consumers’ motivations of self-gifts, the dimensions and evolution of consumer guilt, and the relationship between consumers’ self-gift giving and consumer guilt. Product categories are also under the consideration of this study to examine the effects of different products on the relationship between consumers’ self-gift giving and consumer guilt. This research employed the critical incident techniques. A questionnaire was first designed and pre-tested three times before the main field work. Through collecting, sorting and analyzing 60 self-gift giving events, the results pointed out four main parts as followed. To begin with, the results indicated that consumers will buy gifts for themselves when the important events happened, something achieved, some hard work finished, feeling stressed, being depressed, gaining some extra resources, and purchasing periodically. These situations were one-to-one corresponding to some motivations, respectively to remember, to reward, to compensate, to relieve, to revive, to keep in a good mood, and to be nice to oneself. In addition, self-gift giving behavior might be divided into four types by the degree of product-oriented (high vs. low) and the degree of information-prepared (high vs. low). However, few Taiwanese were classified by “high product-oriented and low information-prepared”, called “Glance”. Secondly, the consumer guilt had three dimensions-hesitation, anguish, and remorse. Also, it had three moments of occurrence. The anticipatory guilt occurred before purchasing; the proceeding guilt occurred when purchasing; and the reactive guilt occurred after purchasing. Although each moment of consumer guilt included three dimensions meanwhile, what’s more important, the major dimension of anticipatory guilt was hesitation, the major dimension of proceeding guilt was anguish, and the major dimension of reactive guilt was remorse. As for the relationship between consumers’ self-gift giving and consumer guilt, consumers had the highest degree of anticipatory guilt when they bought gifts for themselves under periodical purchase. However, consumers had the lowest degree of anticipatory guilt if they bought self-gifts under achievements or depression. Besides, if self-gift giving behavior was highly product-oriented, consumers would have financial consumer guilt. Moreover, if self-gift giving behavior was lowly product-oriented, consumers would have no consumer guilt. Finally, this study concerned the functional/hedonic products moderating the relation between self-gift giving and consumer guilt. For those who bought themselves functional gifts, no matter this self-gift giving behavior belonged to highly or lowly product-oriented, consumers would have financial consumer guilt. For those who bought themselves hedonic gifts, if this self-gift giving behavior was highly product-oriented, consumers would have financial consumer guilt; however, if this self-gift giving behavior was lowly product-oriented, consumers would have no consumer guilt.