No description available.

No description available.

會計學教課書都教學生：決策之作成，應從成本效益出發，至於過去已投入的成本屬沉沒成本，非攸關，不應影響決策，讀者少有質疑，但事實究竟如何？實務上，決策者做決策時，考量之因素甚多，不會只有成本一項，不過教課書多只著重成本一項，這又與事實相左。本研究以「核四決策」為例，探討實務上決策之作成，在諸多因素中沉沒成本是否真的沒攸關性。 核四應否停建，不論在能源、社會政策等層面皆具高度爭議性。本研究結合會計領域與重大公共政策議題，藉支持/反對停建核四之觀點，辨認決策者或旁觀者所在乎之因素，如已投入興建成本、完工程度、預期尚需投入成本、經濟結果，以及核能安全、核電廠可能面臨的風險等，再探討決策者對停建核四的態度是否受沉沒成本或其他因素之影響；以及，決策者的知識背景（會計系、政治系）及政治理念是否影響決策者的上述認知。 本研究透過問卷搜集資料，發現已投入之核四興建成本（即沉沒成本）顯著影響受測者贊成停建與否的態度：當受測者越覺得沉沒成本重要，越傾向反對停建核四，有沉沒成本效果存在。本研究也發現受測者最重視的細項決策因素，為「臺灣若發生類似福島核災之核災損失」。對臺灣而言，日本福島本具時間、地理、文化上的相近性，再加上媒體敘事的渲染力，福島核災創造人民對於核災的公共想像及恐懼。在其他因素中，「非核家園」之理念亦顯著影響核四決策：當受測者越覺得「非核家園」之理念重要，越傾向贊成停建核四。本研究還發現受測者的知識背景影響其對沉沒成本的態度：評估核四決策時，政治系受測者較會計系受測者，易受沉沒成本影響，將沉沒成本視為攸關。再者，政治理念對於受測者贊成停建與否的影響，當受測者對候選人的偏好為江宜樺先生等人，其立場以反對核四停建居多；當受測者對候選人的偏好為蔡英文女士等人，其立場以贊成核四停建居多。 本研究發現臺電的溝通效果不佳，除數據之可靠性待加強外，傳遞的資訊並未針對問題的核心，例如核能安全很受受測者重視，然而臺電於說明核電廠之安全時，使用「複合式災害」來描述福島核災，複合來自地震及海嘯，而事實上福島核災係因海嘯而造成，海嘯因地震而引發；臺灣外海斷層之地理構造使臺灣核電廠區域縱有大地震時，也不會遭遇如福島般的大海嘯。 因此本研究建議臺電和行政機關，應針對核能安全及核能政策，辨認人民容易產生誤解的資訊為何，以正確的用詞精確澄清。此外，非會計背景之決策者，應加強關於沉沒成本的認知；會計背景之決策者，應抱持批判性思考的態度，質疑「沉沒成本不應該影響決策」的理論是否事實上成立。 / There is an undoubted rule always on accounting textbooks, which is, decision making should base on the cost-benefit analysis, as for the investment in the past belongs to sunk cost and is irrelevant to the decision making. However, is this legit? There are so many concerns beyond the cost when decision maker making decision, but most textbooks only focus on the cost, which is different from the turth. This research takes “the decision making in Lungmen nuclear power plant” as a case study, to examine whether sunk cost is truly irrelevant to decision making in reality. The issue that whether construction of Lungmen nuclear power plant should be suspended is highly controversial, no matter in aspect of energy, social policy and so on. First, across accounting and public issues, the researcher collects the viewpoints from pros and cons toward this issue, and identifies decision factors, for examples, the invested construction cost (which means sunk cost here), the degree of project completion, future expected cost, economic results, and nuclear safety, probable risk of nuclear power plant. Second, this research examines whether sunk cost or other factors influence decision makers’ attitude toward the issue. Third, whether knowledge backgrounds (major in accounting or political science) and political ideologies of decision makers influence their cognitions about sunk cost and the issue. By questionnaire survey, the results of this research found: First, sunk cost does influence receivers’ attitude toward the issue: the more important receivers think sunk cost is, the more they against the construction to be suspended; sunk cost effect has been observed. Second, among factors, receivers take Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster most serious. We argue that Fukushima nuclear disaster’s timing, geography and Japan’s culture are close to Taiwan, thus the disaster deepen public imagination and fear about the nuclear disaster. Third, the idea of nuclear-free homeland also influences decision making in the issue: the more important receivers think the idea is, the more they support the construction to be suspended. Forth, receivers’ knowledge backgrounds influence their cognitions about sunk cost: compared with receivers major in accounting, receivers major in political science take sunk cost as a relevant factor. Fifth, political ideologies of receivers influence their attitude toward the issue: when receivers vote to Jiang Yi-Huah etc., most of them against the construction to be suspended; when receivers vote to Tsai Ing-Wen etc., most of them support the construction to be suspended. Sixth, Taiwan Power Company doesn’t have effective communication with the public. Not only reliability of its data, but the covey of core information should be improved. For example, it describes Fukushima nuclear disaster as a “compound disaster” including earthquake and tsunami, but actually the disaster happened only due to tsunami caused by earthquake. The geological formation of offshore faults of Taiwan is different to Japan, thus there will be no Fukushima-like tsunami in Taiwan. This research suggest: First, Taiwan Power Company and executive administration should identify the information that public easily misunderstood, especially about nuclear safety and energy policy, and then clarify with proper words. Second, decision makers with non-accounting background should improve their knowledge about sunk cost. Third, decision makers with accounting background should have critical thinking about whether the theory that “sunk cost is irrelevant to decision-making” is found in reality.

本研究經由兩個系列的實驗設計以探討套票的使用行為與續購行為。其中，實驗一是以虛擬情境檢視套票型式影響消費者的使用意圖，並以受測者的規範導向做為調節變數；實驗二則更進一步地以較接近真實生活的情境來進行操弄，更明確地檢測了消費者對套票的實際使用情形以及續購行為，除仍以受測者的生理規範導向做為調節變數，另探討了套票持有的前期與後期對使用行為的調節效果。 實驗一的結果顯示透過不同套票類型所引發持有者沉入成本上的差異，可能導致受測者在套票的使用意願不同。具體來說，愈是能讓受測者感受到不使用便等同於虧損的套票，受測者的使用意願便會更高。此外，不同規範導向的受測者所重視的目標不同。積極導向動機較強的受測者，行為較易受到努力得到想要結果的動機驅策，所以比較在意結果是否能獲得之前欠缺的東西；反過來說，保守導向動機較強的受測者，行為較易受到努力保持現有結果的動機引導，所以比較在意結果是否會失去之前擁有的東西。以不同動機系統為主的不同類型受測者的行為會有很大的差異。積極導向者比較容易追尋更完美的結果，所以當競爭者推出可能是較佳的替代品時，轉換意願較高；至於保守導向者則較在意持有現有可接受的結果，所以發現可能是較佳的替代品時，則寧願使用手中持有的套票。 至於實驗二的結果則顯示受測者在套票持有的前期較易於使用套票，換言之，隨著套票持有的時間愈久，對未使用完畢套票的沉入成本感受會隨著時間降低，使用套票的可能性也就因此愈低。此外，不同的套票型式對保守導向者的影響比較大，對保守導向動機較強的受測者而言，若所持有的套票型式是較容易感受到當未使用套票時，就意謂著沉入成本無法回收時，使用套票的意願會較高。而當持有的型式是較不容易感受到套票成本的型式時，使用此套票的可能性就相對降低了。但是積極導向動機系統為主的受測者來說，套票的實體型式對使用行為的差異就不太明顯了。不同型式的套票，並不會對積極導向者產生太大使用行為上的差異。 若保守導向者持有的是較容易感受到此套票成本的型式時，在套票持有的前期與後期間的使用差距不太會有明顯的改變，也就是說，他們比較不會因為套票持有的時間較久就明顯地降低使用行為，但若持有的是比較不容易感受到成本的套票時，在套票持有的後期會比前期容易不去使用套票。至於對積極導向者來說，這項因為套票型式上的差別造成在持有套票的前期與後期使用套票上的變化就不太明顯，事實上，積極導向者無論持有何種型式的套票，在後期都會明顯的降低使用套票的行為。 當套票使用完畢後，原持有的是較不容易感受到成本的套票型式受測者，續購意願比較高。而原持有的是較容易感受到套票成本的型式時，相對上的續購意願會較低。這項影響僅對保守導向者有影響，至於對積極導向者來說，就沒有什麼明顯的差異。 研究的結果大致與研究假說一致，因此，對於理論與實務上亦據本研究的結論提一些的建議。 關鍵詞: 沉入成本效果、規範導向論、動機系統、價格組合、套票、認知評估論 / This study utilized two experimental designs in testing consumer behavior in the usage and repurchase of bundled tickets (price bundling). In the first experiment, a traditional context was employed by using respondent regulatory focus as the moderator to test the impact of bundled ticket types on consumer usage intention. In the second experiment, a more realistic context was employed to examine consumers’ real usage and repurchase behavior with the bundle. Here in addition to using respondents’ regulatory focus as pure-moderator, study two also included bundling quasi-moderator—possession phases. The results of the first study showed that the difference in sunk cost effects caused by the two types of bundling would result in different bundling utilization intentions. Moreover, respondents within different motivation systems showed significantly different behavior patterns—promotion focus respondents were more likely to seek better gains, thus when competitors provided better alternatives, these respondents were more likely to make the switch. Prevention focus respondents, on the other hand, cared more about losses, making them more likely to remain with the original service provider. The result of the second study showed that compared with the later phase, bundling usage propensity was higher in the earlier holding phase. Moreover, different forms of bundled tickets had different extent influences on prevention focus respondents. Prevention focus respondents held that separate types caused them to have higher intentions in using bundling, but they would be relatively less likely to use bundling when they were in possession of an integrated one. However, the effect of different types of bundling on the usage behavior of promotion focus respondents was not significant. Among prevention focus respondents who were more sensitive to bundled ticket costs, there is no significant difference in their utilization of bundling from earlier to later phases. However, if the bundled tickets in possession were the integrated type, they were less likely to use the tickets in the later phase than in the earlier one. Regarding promotion focus respondents, the effect of bundled ticket form in the usage of said tickets in the two phases was not significant. In fact, no matter what form the bundling took, promotion focus respondents displayed significantly less use for the bundling in the later phase. Bundling possession forms had the direct impact on repurchasing behavior. In this regard, respondents holding integrated bundling types displayed a higher incidence of repurchase behavior. This was, however, only effective when it came to prevention focus respondents; no significant difference was found regarding promotion focus respondents. The results of this study yielded suggestions for both theoretical and practical areas. Key Words: Sunk Cost Effect, Regulatory Focus Theory, Motivation Systems, Price Bundling, Bundled Ticket, Cognitive Evaluation Theory