No description available.

近年來大型消費性電子公司均致力發展商品外型的設計美感，試圖以具有視覺美感的商品吸引消費者的目光，以獲得更高的利潤。但本研究認為廠商在追逐商品設計美感時，也應探討消費者差異對於其美感反應的影響；以及不同商品以美感外型包裝時，對消費者的效果差異。對此，本研究以Bloch, Brunel & Arnold（2003）提出的消費者商品美感中心性（CVPA）、商品與自我一致性等概念，探討消費者對美感的心理差異，如何影響其對於商品設計美感的反應。同時並探討商品外顯性的差異，對於消費者的美感反應是否具有調節效果。 透過消費者美感中心性、商品設計美感、以及商品外顯性的2*2*2三因子實驗設計，本研究以3C商品為實驗商品，並以線上實驗的方式進行。研究結果如下： 1. 消費者重視美感的程度與商品設計美感間的一致性，會影響其對於商品設計的愉悅反應。 2. 商品呈現順序會調節不同CVPA消費者對於商品設計的愉悅、品牌興趣、自我與品牌連結、認知價值等反應。 3. 重視美感程度差異的消費者，並不會因為商品外顯性的調節而影響其美感反應。 4. 商品外顯性與商品設計美感之間具有交互效果：對於高外顯商品而言，高美感設計可有效提高消費者的認知價值，但低外顯商品若以高美感設計呈現，亦可使消費者因超乎預期的感受而倍感愉悅。 5. 消費者對於美感在認知層面的自我與品牌連結反應，會顯著受到CVPA「敏銳」面向的影響；在情感層面的美感評估、態度、愉悅等反應，則會顯著受到「價值」面向的影響；在行為層面的品牌興趣、購買意圖，則會顯著受到「反應」層面的影響。 / The role of aesthetical quality of a product has been placed much importance these years in the manufacturing industry, especially in consumer electronic industry. While developing products with aesthetical quality, it is also important to understand how consumers responded to products with high and low levels of aesthetic quality. The present study explored the moderating role of consumers’ psychological differences on their aesthetic responses, and also examined how differently they responded to products that differed on aesthetic quality and conspicuousness. This study adopted the concept of Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics developed by Bloch, Brunel & Arnold (2003) and drew upon the concept of self-product image consistency to explore how consumers’ aesthetic orientation influence their responses to products with high and low aesthetic design. Moreover, the influence of product differences has also been considered. The proposed hypotheses were tested by a three-factor on-line experiment. The results are as follows: 1. The consistency of consumers’ CVPA and products’ design aesthetics influenced consumers’ pleasant feelings. 2. The order of how the stimuli were presented moderated the consistency effect mentioned above, especially on responses such as: pleasure, brand interest, self-brand connection, and perceived value toward the product. 3. For consumers with different levels of CVPA, the products’ conspicuousness did not moderate their aesthetic responses toward the product with high and low aesthetic designs. 4. There was an interaction between “product conspicuousness” and “product design aesthetics” on consumers’ “perceived value” and “pleasant feelings” toward product designs. 5. Consumers’ aesthetic responses were influenced by different dimensions of CVPA: “Acumen” accounted for significant variance in “self-brand connection,” “Value” explained significant variance in their attitudinal responses toward the product, and “Response” significantly predicted the variance in their behavioral responses. The implications and suggestions for future studies and practitioners were also discussed.