Attractiveness
Postchoice Discomfort
a
b c
Attachment
40
Table 13: Result of Mediation Test
Description of Test: Postchoice Discomfort generated from forego attached options as a mediator of the relationship between attachment and Changed Attractiveness
Step 1 Step 2
Predictor AttPcd (a) AttAtr (b)
*Att=Attachment; Pcd=Postchoice Discomfort; Atr=Changed Attractiveness
5.3.2 Future Research
Our first suggestion for the future is to explore other postchoice discomfort such as choice difficulty. Due to the choice difficulty, people less confident to their final decision.
Thus after their make the choice, they may question the option they choose which further induce psychological discomfort and the later effects. Second, we only discuss the condition that people deliberate on the advantages of the choice options. It can apply to as under an approach-approach conflict choice (Lewin, 1933; Miller, 1944). Future research can also examine the contrasted equilibrium: avoidance-avoidance conflict choice in which people may trade-off on the options negative features.
Third, research can discover the individual characteristic could moderate the effects.
Such as, for high need for individual people (Cacioppo and Petty, 1982), could the effect psychological discomfort loom larger on them or they can avert it by their rational cognition.
The last suggestion is to examine the effect of the psychological discomfort can last. Since we only discuss the moment right after the choice is made. Applied to the concept hot emotion or wistful feeling (Kivetz and Keinan, 2006), examining the nature of the psychology affective is helpful to understand how long it can last.
41
Reference:
1. Areily, Dan, Joel Huber & Klaus Wertenbroch (2005), “When Do Losses Loom Larger than Gains?” Journal of Marketing Research, 42(May), 134-138.
2. Areily, Dan, Itamar Simonson (2003), “Buying, Bidding, Playing or Competing? Value Assessment and Dynamics in Online Auctions” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(1), 113-123.
3. Baron, Reuben M. & David A. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategy and Statistical Considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(December), 1173-1182.
4. Bettman, James R., Mary Frances Luce & John W. Payne (1998), “Constructive
Consumer Choice Processes,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25(December), 187-217 5. Bowlby, John (1979), The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds, London:
Tavistock.
6. Cappioppo, J. T., & R. E. Petty (1982), “The Need for Cognition,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
7. Carmon, Ziv & Dan Ariely (2000), “Focusing on the Foregone: Why Value Can Appear So Different to Buyers and Sellers,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27(December), 360-70.
8. Chaiken, Shelly and Yaacov Trope (1999), Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology, New York: Guilford.
9. Crites, Stephen L., Jr., Leandre R. Fabrigar, and Richard E. Petty (1994), “Measuring the Affective and Cognitive Properties of Attitudes: Conceptual and Methodological Issues,”
Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 20 (December), 619–634.
10. De neys, Wim (2006), “Dual Processing in Reasoning,” Psychological Science, 17, 428-433.
11. Dhar, Ravi & Klaus Wetenbroch (2000), “Consumer Choice Between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37(Febuary), 60-71.
12. Dhar, Ravi, Stephen M. Nowlis & Steven J. Sherman (2000), “Trying Hard or Hardly Trying: An Analysis of Context Effects in Choice,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(4), 189-200.
42
13. Drolet, Aimee & Mary Frances Luce (2004), “The Rationalizing Effects of Cognitive Load on Emotion-Based Trade-off Avoidance,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (June), 63-77.
14. Drolet, Aimee, Mary Frances Luce & Itamar Simonson (2009), “When Does Choice Reveal Preference? Moderators of Heuristic versus Goal-Based Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36(December), 137-147.
15. Edward, Kari (1990), “The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Attitude Formation and Change,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 202-216.
16. Epstein, Seymour (1994), “Integration of the Cognitive and the Psychodynamic Unconscious,” American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.
17. Garbraino, Ellen C. & Julie A. Edell (1997), “Cognitive Effort, Affect, and Choice,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 24(September), 147-158.
18. Garbarino, Ellen & M. S. Johnson (1999), “The different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust and Commitment in Customer Relationships,” Journal of Marketing, 63, 70-87.
19. Giese, Joan L. & Jane Z Sojka (1998), “The Relationship between Processing styles and Self-Control Behavioral Characteristics,” Marketing Letters, 9(4), 371-382.
20. Gilbert Daniel T., Brett W. Pelham & Douglas S. Krull (1988), “On Cognitive Busyness: When Person Perceivers Meet Persons Perceived,” Journal of Personality and Psychology, 54, 733-740.
21. Gross, Michael J. & Graham Brown (2006), “Tourism Experiences in a Lifestyle Destination Setting: The Role of Involvement and Place Attachment,” Journal of Business Research, 59(2006), 696-700.
22. Heyman, James E., Yesim Orhun & Dan Areily (2004), “Auction Fever: The Effect of Opponents and Quasi-Endowment on Product Valuations,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18, 7-21.
23. Hoch, S. J., G. F. Loewenstein (1991), “Time-inconsistent Preferences and Consumer Self-control,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17(March), 492-507.
24. Hsee, C. K. & Y. Rottenstreich (2004), “Music, Pandas and Muggers: On the affective Psychology of Value,” Journal of Experiment Psychology: General, 133(1), 23-30.
25. Kahneman, Daniel (2003), “A Perspective on Judgment and Choice: Mapping Bounded Rationality,” American Psychologist, 58(9), 697-720.
26. Kahneman, Daniel & Amos Tversky (1979), “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of
43
Decision under Risk,” Econometrica, 47(March), 263-91.
27. Kahneman, Daniel, Jack L. Knethsch & Richard Thaler (1990), “Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem,” Journal of Political Economy,
98(December), 1325-48.
28. Kahneman, Daniel & Shane Frederick (2001), “Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment,” in Heuristics of Intuitive Judgment: Extensions and Applications, ed. Thomas Gilvich, Dale Griffin & Daniel Kahneman, New York:
Cambridge University Press.
29. Kivetz, Ran & Anat Keinan (2006), “Repenting Hyperopia: An Analysis of Self-Control Regrets,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33(September), 273-282.
30. Lewin K. (1933), Environmental Forces. In C. Murchison (Ed.), A handbook of child psychology (pp. 590-625). Worcester, MA: Clark Univ. Press.
31. Luce, M. F. (1998), “Choosing to avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotional-laden Consumer Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 409-434.
32. Luce, M. F., W. Payne & J. R. Bettman (1999), “Emotional Trade-off Difficulty and Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36(May), 143-160.
33. Meyers-Levy & Herbert A. Simon (1989), “Computer Science as Empirical Inquiry:
Symbols and Search,” in Foundations of Cognitive Science: The Essential Readings, ed. Jay L. Garfield. New York: Paragon, 113-138.
34. Mikulincer, Mario, Gilad Hirschberger, Orit Nachmias & Omri Gillath (2001), “The Affective Component of the Secure Base Schema: Affective Priming with
Representations of Proximity Maintenance,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 752-772.
35. Miller, N. E. (1944), “Experimental Studies of Conflict,” In J. M. Hunt(Ed.),
Personality and the behavior disorders (Vol. 1, pp. 431-465). New York: Roland Press.
36. Mishra, Himanshu, Arul Mishra & Dhanajay Nayakankuppam (2007), “Seeing Through the Heart’s Eye: The Interference of System 1 in System 2,” Marketing Science, 26(5), 666-678.
37. Novensky, Natham & Daniel Kahneman (2005), “The Boundary of Loss Averison,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 42(May), 119-128.
38. Novensky, Natham & Daniel Kahneman (2005), “How Do Intentions Affect Loss Aversion,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42(May), 139-140.
44
39. Park, C. Whan & Deborh J. Macinnis (2006), “What’s In and What’s Out: Questions on the Boundaries of the Attitude Construct,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33(June), 16-18.
40. Peters, Ellen & Paul Slovic (2000), “The Springs of Action: Affective and Analytical Information Processing in Choice,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(12), 1465-75.
41. Pham, Michel Tuam, Joel B. Cohen, John W. Pracejus & G. David Hughes (2001),
“Affect Monitoring and the Primacy of Feelings in Judgment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28(September), 167-187.
42. Puri, Radhika, (1996), “Measuring and Modifying Consumer Impulsiveness: A
Cost-Benefit Accessibility Framework,” Journalof Consumer Psychology, 5 (2), 87–114.
43. Quattrone, G. A. (1982), “Overattribution and Unit Formation: When Behavior Engulfs the Person,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 593-607.
44. Reb, Jochen & Terry Connolly (2007), “Possession, Feelings of Ownership and the Endowment Effect,” Judgment and Decision Making, 2(April), 107-114.
45. Rook, Dennis Wand Robert J. Fisher (1995), “Normative Influences in Impulsive Buying Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research,22 (December), 305–313.
46. Rottensttreich, Yuval, Sanjay Sood & Lyle Brenner (2007), “Feeling and Thinking in Memory-Based versus Stimulus-Based Choices,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33(March), 461-469.
47. Ruiz, Salvador & Maria Sicilia (2004), “The Impact of Cognitive and/or Affective Processing Styles on Consumer Response to Advertising appeals,” Journal of Business Research, 57, 657-664.
48. Schwarz, Norbert (2001), “Feeling as Information: Implications for Affective
Influences in Information Processing,” In Theories of Mood and Cognition: A User’s Guidebook, Leonard Martin & Gerald L. Clore, eds. Mahwan, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 159-176.
49. Shiv Baba and Alexander Ferorikhin (1999), “Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26(December), 278-292.
50. Slater, J. S. (2000), “Collecting Brand Royalty: A Comparative Analysis of How Coca-Cola and Hallmark use Collecting Behavior to Enhance Brand Loyalty,” paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of Consumer Research, Salt
45
Lake City, UT.
51. Sloman, Steve A. (1996), “The Empirical Case for Two Systems of Reasoning,”
52. Sloman, Steve A. (2002), Two Systems of Reasoning. T. Gillovich, D. Griffin, D.
Kahneman, eds. Heuristic and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment.
Cambridge University Press, New York, 379-397.
53. Stanovich, K. E. & R. F. West, “Individual Differences in Rational Thoughts,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 161-188.
54. Stanovich, K.E., & R. F. West (2002), “Individual Difference in Reasoning:
Implications for the rationality Debate?” T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, D. Kahneman, eds.
Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge University Press, New York, 421-440.
55. Stanovich, K. E. (2004), A Brain at War with Itself. K. E. Stanovich, ed. The Robot’s Rebellion. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 31-80.
56. Stayman, Douglas M., Dana L. Alden & Karen M. Smith (1992), “Some Effects of Schematic Processing on Consumer Expectations and Disconfirmation Judgments,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 19(September), 240-255.
57. Thomson, Mattew, Debirah J. MacInnis & Whan Park (2005), “The Ties That Bind:
Measuring the Strength of Consumers’ Emotional Attachment to Brands,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 77-91.
58. Trope, Y. (1986), “Identification and Inferential Processes in Dispositional Attribution,”
Psychological Review, 93, 239-257.
59. Ward, Andrew & Traci Mann (2000), “Don’t Mind If I Do: Disinhibited Eating under Cognitive Load,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(April), 753-63.
60. Zajonc Robert B. (1980), “Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences,”
American Psychologist, 35(February), 151-175.
61. Zajonc, Robert B. and H. Markus (1982), “Affective and Cognitive Factors in Preferences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9(September), 123-131.
62. Zeelenberg, Marcel (1999), “Anticipated Regret, Expected Feedback and Behavioral Decision Making,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 93-106.
46
您好：
這份問卷的目的僅為學術分析之用，您所填答的各項資料絕對不會外流也無關對 錯，非常感謝您的支持與協助。
交通大學運輸科技與管理學系 中華民國 99 年 7 月
※ 本研究是針對人的 記憶力 所進行的實驗，等一下問 卷發放人員會給您看幾個文字，請把它牢牢記住，您要記 住這些字才能成為一份有效的問卷，此測驗主要是檢驗人 的記憶力，請努力記住您所看到的文字，稍後問卷將會請 您填答那些文字，現在請通知問卷發放人員您已閱讀完此 段落 (先不要翻頁)：
Appendix 1: Study 1-Load v1
47
請閱讀以下的情境，並想像您是故事中的主角
您正在一家您常去的店用餐，正當您點好您的主菜時，老闆告訴您，因為 您時常到這間店消費，他今天想要送您一個附餐以感謝您平常對這家店的照 顧。
選擇包括了生菜沙拉以及巧克力蛋糕，於是您便面臨到一個有點衝突的抉擇。
因為生菜沙拉可以為您帶來營養均衡的好處的選擇，雖然巧克力蛋糕沒有生菜沙拉那
麼健康，但是巧克力蛋糕會你一個很享受的飯後甜點。
＊我的決定是：
＊請寫出您剛所記住的內容：
您剛剛做了個選擇, 請根據問題圈選兩邊方向哪邊比較偏向您的選擇方式：
＊我的選擇是:
＊我能做出這決定是：
＊我做出這個決定是：
＊我覺得做出這個決定是根據：
巧克力蛋糕 生菜沙拉
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
用我的意志力控制的 順從我的渴望
用我的理性認知判斷 依我的感覺做出判斷
我理性的部分 我感覺的部分
根據理性思考過的結果 依憑感覺評斷的結果
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Appendix 1: Study 1-Load v1
48
Appendix 1: Study 1-Load v1
49
您好：
這份問卷的目的僅為學術分析之用，您所填答的各項資料絕對不會外流也無關對 錯，非常感謝您的支持與協助。
交通大學運輸科技與管理學系 中華民國 99 年 7 月
※ 本研究是針對人的 記憶力 所進行的實驗，等一下問 卷發放人員會給您看幾個文字，請把它牢牢記住，您要記 住這些字才能成為一份有效的問卷，此測驗主要是檢驗人 的記憶力，請努力記住您所看到的文字，稍後問卷將會請 您填答那些文字，現在請通知問卷發放人員您已閱讀完此 段落 (先不要翻頁)：
Appendix 1: Study 1-Load v2
50
請閱讀以下的情境，並想像您是故事中的主角
您正在一家您常去的店用餐，正當您點好您的主菜時，老闆告訴您，因為 您時常到這間店消費，他今天想要送您一個附餐以感謝您平常對這家店的照 顧。
選擇包括了巧克力蛋糕以及生菜沙拉，於是您便面臨到一個有點衝突的抉擇。
因為您覺得巧克力蛋糕會是一個很享受的餐後甜點，雖然生菜沙拉沒有巧克力蛋糕那
麼可口，但是生菜沙拉卻可以為您帶來營養均衡的好處。
＊我的決定是：
＊請寫出您剛所記住的內容：
您剛剛做了個選擇, 請根據問題圈選兩邊方向哪邊比較偏向您的選擇方式：
＊我的選擇是:
＊我能做出這決定是：
＊我做出這個決定是：
＊我覺得做出這個決定是根據：
巧克力蛋糕 生菜沙拉
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
用我的意志力控制的 順從我的渴望
用我的理性認知判斷 依我的感覺做出判斷
我理性的部分 我感覺的部分
根據理性思考過的結果 依憑感覺評斷的結果
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Appendix 1: Study 1-Load v2
51
Appendix 1: Study 1-Load v2
52
Appendix 1: Study 1- Nature v1
53
Appendix 1: Study 1- Nature v1
54
您好：
這份問卷的目的僅為學術分析之用，您所填答的各項資料絕對不會外流也無關對 錯，非常感謝您的支持與協助。
交通大學運輸科技與管理學系 中華民國 99 年 7 月
請閱讀以下的情境，並想像您是故事中的主角
您正在一家您常去的店用餐，正當您點好您的主菜時，老闆告訴您，因為 您時常到這間店消費，他今天想要送您一個附餐以感謝您平常對這家店的照 顧。
選擇包括了巧克力蛋糕以及生菜沙拉，於是您便面臨到一個有點衝突的抉擇。
因為您覺得巧克力蛋糕會是一個很享受的餐後甜點，雖然生菜沙拉沒有巧克力蛋糕那
麼可口，但是生菜沙拉卻可以為您帶來營養均衡的好處。
＊我的決定是：
您剛剛做了個選擇, 請根據問題圈選兩邊方向哪邊比較偏向您的選擇方式：
＊我的選擇是:
＊我能做出這決定是：
＊我做出這個決定是：
＊我覺得做出這個決定是根據：
巧克力蛋糕 生菜沙拉
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
用我的意志力控制的 順從我的渴望
用我的理性認知判斷 依我的感覺做出判斷
我理性的部分 我感覺的部分
根據理性思考過的結果 依憑感覺評斷的結果
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Appendix 1: Study 1- Nature v2
55
Appendix 1: Study 1- Nature v2
56
模擬情境：
互不認識的 A 小姐與 B 小姐各自規畫了她們暑期要出遊的計畫，她們不約而同的 都選了巴黎以及紐約做為考慮的兩個地點。
她們兩個人對於此次的旅行都感到一樣的期待和興奮，兩人也覺得巴黎與紐約給她 們的吸引力是相等的。出發的日期近了，她們還是必頇在兩者之間選出一個。不過她們 做決定的方式卻大不相同。
A 小姐憑著過去對於紐約以及巴黎的印象及感覺做出決定，她記憶中巴黎就是漂亮 的歐洲城市，好像有許多有名建築。然後紐約就是一個很熱鬧的大城市，有很多知名景 點常常在電影裡出現。最後她根據她對兩者有的記憶與印象，以她的直覺很快的做出這 個決定。
而 B 小姐她很仔細深入地思考了有關巴黎與紐約的景點以及去這兩個地方旅行的 可能情況。去了悠閒的巴黎的話，仔細想想那裏有艾菲爾鐵塔，她可以登上艾菲爾鐵塔 眺望美麗的巴黎市景等。若去很有活力的紐約，有出名的第五大道，在那裏她可以欣賞 各式各樣的建築與店家…。於是她想了好幾天才趕緊做出決定。
Appendix 2: Study 2-Leading Story
57
Appendix 2: Study 2
58
Appendix 2: Study 2
59
Appendix 2: Study 2
60
簡 歷
姓名：林幼芝
生日：75 年 5 月 24 日
住址：桃園縣大園鄉菓林村 12 鄰 23 號 電話：(03)383-6191
E-mail：[email protected] 學歷：
民國 99 年 9 月 國立交通大學運輸科技與管理學系碩士班畢業 民國 97 年 6 月 國立交通大學運輸科技與管理學系畢業
民國 99 年 9 月 國立交通大學運輸科技與管理學系碩士班畢業 民國 97 年 6 月 國立交通大學運輸科技與管理學系畢業