CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION
7.4 C ONCLUSION R EMARKS
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
167
we should publish more presentation ways in BMIND system.
Finally, as the summary of above-mentioned limitations, first, the future research could decrease the tedious interaction of adjusting operations. Second, the numerical presentation of derived expectation would be re-designed to become more intuitive and clear to user. For example, we would combine the diagrammatic sketch of attribute, demo video of function and so on. Finally, it can be advance into a technical persuading mechanism for any function or purpose to adjust user’s behavior or perspective. Future research may extend the focus to strengthen the adjusting power and presentation way of derived expectation. Furthermore, we want to create a mechanism that can filter users with their current stage of behavioral change cycle.
This mechanism will weed out user who still in Precontemplation stage after they finish the first procedure of BMIND system, that is, they are still not aware they need this new service. The barrier of entering second procedure of BMIND system is user who is in still Contemplation stage, in order to guarantee effeteness of system.
7.4 Conclusion Remarks
In this paper, we address the problem how to motivate use to progress behavioral change (during Contemplation stage and Preparation stage) with a psychological mechanism of the adjusting service system (second procedure of BMIND system). By leveraging mental activity and attitude of loss aversion, the mechanism assembles them by the structure of Cumulative Prospect theory, and the system coordinate with the relevant information of user as the element to construct the utility function to achieve the motivation purpose. Through this mechanism, user are willingness to try new service and provider are able to get some inspiration about adjusting and promotion.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
168
We also offer a system scenario and experiments for this method to show its practicability. We believe the method can achieve the purpose of encouraging user and provider to do behavioral change (willingness to try new service), and getting some inspiration of promotion.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
169
APPENDIX A
Number Name Gender Job Major E-mail Age Educational
Background
Spending Time on Internet/ per day
Role
1 謝 OO 男 developer 資管 wind3*****@gmail.com 20-30 歲 碩士 5-7 小時 Provider
2 楊 OO 男 學生 資管 1023*****@nccu.edu.tw 20-30 歲 碩士 7 小時以上 user
3 賴 OO 男 學生 資管 20-30 歲 碩士 3-5 小時 user
4 呂 OO 女 博士後研究 統計 itingl*****@gmail.com 30-40 歲 博士 5-7 小時 Provider
5 黃 OO 男 學生 資管 1023*****@nccu.edu.tw 20-30 歲 碩士 7 小時以上 user
6 葉 OO 男 學生 資管 bla*****@gmail.com 20-30 歲 碩士 5-7 小時 user
7 陳 OO 男 學生 資管 p037*****@gmail.com 20-30 歲 碩士 5-7 小時 user
8 林 OO 男 學生 資管 1013*****@nccu.edu.tw 20-30 歲 碩士 7 小時以上 user
9 鄭 OO 女 學生 資管 20-30 歲 碩士 3-5 小時 Provider
10 沈 OO 男 學生 資管 samu*****@gmail.com 20-30 歲 碩士 7 小時以上 user
11 胡 OO 男 20-30 歲 大學 5-7 小時 user
12 何 OO 男 學生 工業設計 shootc*****@gmail.com 20-30 歲 大學 5-7 小時 user
13 邱 OO 女 學生 商管科系 20-30 歲 大學 3-5 小時 user
14 賴 OO 男 學生 科技管理 kelvinla*****@gmail.com 20-30 歲 碩士 5-7 小時 user
15 龔 OO 女 學生 資管 20-30 歲 碩士 5-7 小時 user
16 劉 OO 女 學生 資管 haze*****@gmail.com 20-30 歲 碩士 7 小時以上 user
17 李 OO 男 學生 科智所 s58*****@hotmail.com 20-30 歲 碩士 3-5 小時 user
18 巫 OO 男 學生 資管 1023*****@nccu.edu.tw 20-30 歲 碩士 3-5 小時 user
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
170
19 劉 OO 女 學生 MBA angela00*****@hotmail.com 20-30 歲 碩士 3-5 小時 Provider
20 巫 OO 女 學生 MBA 1013*****@nccu..edu.tw 20-30 歲 碩士 3-5 小時 Provider
21 黃 O 男 學生 MBA 1013*****@nccu.edu.tw 20-30 歲 碩士 1-3 小時 Provider
22 黃 OO 女 學生 MBA 1012*****@nccu.edu.tw 20-30 歲 碩士 3-5 小時 Provider
23 葉 OO 女 網路業 MBA iir*****@gmail.com 20-30 歲 大學 7 小時以上 Provider
24 廖 OO 男 學生 physics vince*****@gmail.com 20-30 歲 碩士 7 小時以上 Provider
25 王 OO 女 學生 海洋環境資訊 20 歲以下 大學 3-5 小時 Provider
26 王 OO 女 norm*****@yahoo.com.tw 20-30 歲 碩士 1-3 小時 Provider
27 黃 OO 男 工程師 資訊工程 dan*****@storysensecomputing.com 30-40 歲 碩士 5-7 小時 Provider
28 陳 OO 女 行銷 j**@storysensecomputing.com 20-30 歲 大學 7 小時以上 Provider
29 周 OO 男 工程師 pi**@storysensecomputing.com 20-30 歲 大學 7 小時以上 Provider
30 侯 OO 男 jas*****@storysensecomputing.com 20-30 歲 碩士 7 小時以上 Provider
‧
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
172
APPENDIX C
C+A-PC readiness score Stage of Behavioral Change Cycle
subjects I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV
test1 14 17 17 18 4.6667 5.6667 5.6667 6.0000 Contemplation Contemplation Contemplation Contemplation
test2 8 10 12 11 2.6667 3.3333 4.0000 3.6667 Pre-contemplation Pre-contemplation Pre-contemplation Pre-contemplation
test3 16 17 18 18 5.3333 5.6667 6.0000 6.0000 Contemplation Contemplation Contemplation Contemplation
test4 16 22 26 26 5.3333 7.3333 8.6667 8.6667 Contemplation Preparation to Action Preparation to Action Preparation to Action test5 13 12 14 14 4.3333 4.0000 4.6667 4.6667 Pre-contemplation Pre-contemplation Contemplation Contemplation test6 20 20 19 21 6.6667 6.6667 6.3333 7.0000 Contemplation Contemplation Contemplation Preparation to Action test7 15 25 25 27 5.0000 8.3333 8.3333 9.0000 Contemplation Preparation to Action Preparation to Action Preparation to Action test8 17 22 22 22 5.6667 7.3333 7.3333 7.3333 Contemplation Preparation to Action Preparation to Action Preparation to Action test9 20 23 18 19 6.6667 7.6667 6.0000 6.3333 Contemplation Preparation to Action Contemplation Contemplation test10 12 15 15 21 4.0000 5.0000 5.0000 7.0000 Pre-contemplation Contemplation Contemplation Preparation to Action test11 12 16 16 16 4.0000 5.3333 5.3333 5.3333 Pre-contemplation Contemplation Contemplation Contemplation test12 21 18 9 11 7.0000 6.0000 3.0000 3.6667 Preparation to Action Contemplation Pre-contemplation Pre-contemplation
test13 18 16 16 17 6.0000 5.3333 5.3333 5.6667 Contemplation Contemplation Contemplation Contemplation
test14 13 14 13 13 4.3333 4.6667 4.3333 4.3333 Pre-contemplation Contemplation Pre-contemplation Pre-contemplation test15 21 25 25 25 7.0000 8.3333 8.3333 8.3333 Preparation to Action Preparation to Action Preparation to Action Preparation to Action test16 19 21 23 22 6.3333 7.0000 7.6667 7.3333 Contemplation Preparation to Action Preparation to Action Preparation to Action test17 20 23 22 23 6.6667 7.6667 7.3333 7.6667 Contemplation Preparation to Action Preparation to Action Preparation to Action test18 4 13 11 9 1.3333 4.3333 3.6667 3.0000 Pre-contemplation Pre-contemplation Pre-contemplation Pre-contemplation
‧
test19 18 21 25 26 6.0000 7.0000 8.3333 8.6667 Contemplation Preparation to Action Preparation to Action Preparation to Action test20 9 10 6 8 3.0000 3.3333 2.0000 2.6667 Pre-contemplation Pre-contemplation Pre-contemplation Pre-contemplation test21 12 15 13 20 4.0000 5.0000 4.3333 6.6667 Pre-contemplation Contemplation Pre-contemplation Contemplation test22 12 14 18 19 4.0000 4.6667 6.0000 6.3333 Pre-contemplation Contemplation Contemplation Contemplation test23 17 21 19 19 5.6667 7.0000 6.3333 6.3333 Contemplation Preparation to Action Contemplation Contemplation test24 16 17 13 18 5.3333 5.6667 4.3333 6.0000 Contemplation Contemplation Pre-contemplation Contemplation test25 10 19 18 19 3.3333 6.3333 6.0000 6.3333 Pre-contemplation Contemplation Contemplation Contemplation test26 12 12 12 13 4.0000 4.0000 4.0000 4.3333 Pre-contemplation Pre-contemplation Pre-contemplation Pre-contemplationtest27 14 17 17 17 4.6667 5.6667 5.6667 5.6667 Contemplation Contemplation Contemplation Contemplation
test28 13 17 17 18 4.3333 5.6667 5.6667 6.0000 Pre-contemplation Contemplation Contemplation Contemplation test29 9 13 13 14 3.0000 4.3333 4.3333 4.6667 Pre-contemplation Pre-contemplation Pre-contemplation Contemplation test30 11 0 -3 -3 3.6667 0.0000 -1.0000 -1.0000 Pre-contemplation Pre-contemplation Pre-contemplation Pre-contemplation
14
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
174
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
175
REFERENCE
[1] Abernathy, W. J. (1978). The productivity dilemma: Roadblock to innovation in the automobile industry. Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore, MD.
[2] Alan, R. H., Salvatore, T. M., Jinsoo, P., and Sudha, R. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS QUART, 28 (1), 75-105.
[3] Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations (AFAO) (1996). What do they want us to do now?
[4] Bandura, A. and D. C. McClelland (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
[5] Bernoulli, D. (Originally published in 1738); translated by Dr. Louise Sommer.
(1954). Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk. Econometrica (The Econometric Society. 22 (1) 23-36.
[6] C. Bonomelli (2010). Innovation and Industry Life Cycle: the Case of US Tire Industry (1901-1930).
[7] Courtney, H., J. Kirkland, et al. (1997). Strategy under uncertainty. Harvard Business Review, 75: 67-79.
[8] Design Council (2005). The design process.
http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/designprocess
[9] DiClemente CC, Schlundt D, Gemmell L. (2004). Readiness and stages of change in addiction treatment. Journal on Addictions. Mar-Apr;13(2):103-19
[10] DiClemente, C. C. and J. O. Prochaska (1998). Toward a comprehensive, transtheoretical model of change: Stages of change and addictive behaviors. Plenum Press.
[11] Dwayne D. G. (2001), Customer expectations of service. McGraw Hill.
[12] Feinberg, J. (1978). Psychological egoisms. In Reason & Responsibility:
‧
theory, research, and practice. John Wiley & Sons.
[15] Gonzalez, R. and G. Wu (1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Cognitive Psychology 38: 129–166.
[16] Hammond, K. R. (1996) Human judgment and social policy. Oxford University Press.
[17] Heskett, J. L. and L. A. Schlesinger (1994). Putting the Service-Profit Chain to Work. Harvard Business Review. 72: 164-174.
[18] Hershey, J. C. and P. J. H. Schoemaker (1985). Probability versus certainty equivalence methods in utility measurement: Are they equivalent? Management Science, 31: 1213-1231.
[19] Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation-level theory: an experimental and systematic approach to behavior. Harper & Row.
[20] Johnson, S. P., L. J. Menor, et al. (2000). A critical evaluation of the new service development process. SAGE, 1-32.
[21] Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Journal of the Econometric Society, 263-291.
[22] Kahneman D. and A. Tversky (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychological Association, 39: 341.
[23] Kahneman, D. and S. Frederick (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution
‧
[24] Kahneman, Daniel (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
[25] Kahn, B. E. and R. K. Sarin (1998). Modeling ambiguity in decisions under uncertainty. Journal of Consumer Research, 265-272.
[26] Kirkwood, C. W. (2002). Decision tree primer.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ for further details.
[27] Krzysztofowicz, R. and L. Duckstein (1980). Assessment errors in multiattribute utility functions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26(3), 326-348.
[28] Lleras, K. S. (2012). Asymmetric Gain/Loss Preferences: Beliefs and Endogenous Reference Point Determination.
[29] Logvinenko, A. D., J. Kane, et al. (2002). Is lightness induction a pictorial illusion?. PION LTD. 31: 72-82.
[30] Müller-Lyer, F. C. (1889) Optische Urteilstauschungen (optical illusions). Archiv fur Anatomie und Physiologie, Physiologische Abteilung, 2, 263-270.
[31] Parasuraman, A., V. A. Zeithaml, & L. L. Berry (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-50.
[32] Parasuraman, A., V. A. Zeithaml, et al. (1988). SERVQUAL. Journal of retailing, 64: 12-40.
[33] Patten, S.,Vollman, A., & Thurston,W. (2000).The utility of the transtheoretical model of behavior change for HIV risk reduction in injection drug users. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, 11(1), 57-66.
[34] Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making.
Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
[35] Porter, M. E. (1986). Competition in global industries. Harvard Business Press.
‧
[36] Prochaska, J., DiClemente, C., & Norcross, J. (1992). In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors. Journal of Addictions Nursing, 47(9), 1002-1114.
[37] Prochaska, J.O. Johnson, S, & Lee, P. (1998). The Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change. The Handbook of Health Behavior Change (Second Edition), 12:
38-48.
[38] Quiggin, J. (1985). Subjective utility, anticipated utility, and the Allais paradox.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 94-101.
[39] Reid Hastie and Robyn M. Dawes (2001). Rational Choice in an Uncertain World:
The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. SAGE, 195.
[40] Richard H. Thaler (1999). Mental Accounting Matters. Journal of Behavioral
[43] Scholl, B. J. and K. Nakayama (2002) Causal capture: Contextual effects on the perception of collision events. Psychological Science, 13: 493-498.
[44] Sheth J. N., B. I. Newman, et al. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption values. Journal of business research, 22: 159-170.
[45] Stanovich, K. E. and R. F. West (2000). Individual differences in reasoning:
Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and brain sciences. 23: 645-665.
[46] Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and uncertainty. 5:297-323.
[47] Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.
[48] Zeithaml, V. A. (1988) Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
179
means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52: 2-22.
[49] Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort.
Addison-Wesley Press.