Chapter 5 Conclusions and Suggestions
5.4 Suggestion for Future Research
There are several suggestions for future research in the following. In this study we only explore congruence of product image and consumer personality; maybe it could add variables of product attributes and color and explore consistency of them
31
and consumer personality respectively in the future. If users of various products or brands have different personalities and thus respond more to appeals structured to their particular needs, they might purchase the same product for different reasons. If product attributes that determine their choices are somehow related to their personality structures, specific appeals might be aimed at particular personality types.
Ideally, an entire marketing mix could be designed for different psychological segments, particularly if different types of people want different attributes in a product.
Color can also be used to differentiate a product. Many consumers have favorite colors, a phenomenon that may have been created via an association with a favorable stimulus. Color could express different meanings to dissimilar people and be used to explain human physiological response. Like The Big-Five trait, it includes extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism and so forth. The person has extraversion and agreeableness traits, he or she behaves optimistic, lively and energy. The color yellow gives people the feeling of sunshine. There is the relationship between the extraversion and agreeableness person and the color, yellow. For this reason we suggest the research will investigate toward the direction in the future. Second, we adopt Type A/B personality and product image (hard vs. soft) to research congruent relationship in this study. It could research variety of consumer‟s personalities and product images in depth and explore their relationship.
32
References
Allport, W. G. (1921). Personality and Character. Psychological Bulletin, 18(9), 441-455.
Alpert, M. I. (1972). Personality and the Determinants of Product Choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 9(1), 89-92.
Ahmad, J. & Mark, M. H. G. (2001). Consumers and Brands: A Study of the Impact of Self-image Congruence on Brand Preference and Satisfaction.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 19 (6-7).
Begley, T. M. & Boyd, D. P. (1985). The Relationship of the Jenkins Activity Survey to Type A/Behavior among Business Executives. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27(3), 316-328.
Bailey, J. A. (2003). Self-image, Self-concept, and Self-identify Revisited. Journal of the National Medical Association, 95(5).
Banister, E. N. & Hogg, M. K. (2007). Consumers and Their Negative Selves, and the Implications for Fashion Marketing. Fashion Marketing: Contemporary Issues.
Curtis, P. H., Richard, E. P. & John, T. C. (1992). Need for Cognition and Advertising:
Understanding the Role of Personality Variables in Consumer Behavior.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(3), 239-260.
Chuang, M. C. & Ma, Y. C. (2001). Expressing the Expected Product Images in Product Design of Micro-electronic Products. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 27(4), 233-245.
Dale, A. B. & Carol, M. T. (1983). The Self-Concept and Self-esteem of Early Adolescents. Theory into Practice,22(2), 91-97.
Dhar, R. & Simonson, I. (1992). The Effect of the Focus of Comparison on Consumer Preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(4), 430-440.
Eagleston, R. & Ray, H. R. (1980). The Type A Structured Interview: A Behavioral Assessment in the Rough. Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 2(4), 255-272.
33
Eugene, T. G., Philip, W. & Donn, B. (1964). A Theory of Personality Change.
Personality Change, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Ernest, D. (1985). What's In An Image? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2(1).
Grossman, R. P. & Wisenblit, J. Z. (1999). What We Know about Consumers‟ Color Choices. Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 5(3), 78-88.
Govers, P .C. M & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005). Product Personality and Its Influence on Consumer Preference. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(4), 189-197.
Harold, H. K. (1971). Personality and Consumer Behavior: A Review Journal of Marketing Research, 8(4), 409-418.
Hsu, S. H., Chuang, M.C. & Chang, C. C. (2000). A Semantic Differential Study of Designers' and Users' Product Form Perception. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 25(4), 375-391.
Hogg, M. K. & Banister, E. N. (2001). Dislikes, Distastes and the Undesired Self:
Conceptualizing and Exploring the Role of the Undesired End State in Consumer Experience. Journal of Marketing Management, 17(1-2), 73-104.
Hsiao, K. A. & Chen, L. L. (2006). Fundamental Dimensions of Affective Responses to Product Shapes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36(6), 553-564.
John, R. H. & Steven, M. S. (1982). Intensity Measures of Consumer Preference.
Operations Research, 28(2), 278-320.
Joseph, M. S. (1982). Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review.
Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287.
Karen, A. M., Robert, L. H., William, E. B. & William, G. L. (1982). Pattern A, Achievement Striving, and Scientific Merit: Does Pattern A Help or Hinder? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 962-967.
Lai, H. H., Lin, Y. C., Yeh, C. H. & Wei, C. H. (2006). User-oriented Design for the Optimal Combination on Product Design. International Journal of Production Economics, 100(2), 253-267.
34
Matthews, K. A.; Krantz, D. S.; Dembroski, T. M.; MacDougall & James, M. (1982).
Unique and Common Variance in Structured Interview and Jenkins Activity Survey Measures of Type A Behavior Pattern. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(2), 303-313.
Marielle, E. H. C. & Jan P. L. S. (2005). The Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 63-81.
Mugge, R., Schifferstein, H. N. J. & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2006). Product Attachment and Product Lifetime: The Role of Personality Congruity and Fashion.
European Advances in Consumer Research, 7.
Nathan, C., James, M. & John. P. C., Engineering (2004). Seeing Things: Consumer Response to the Visual Domain in Product Design. Design Studies, 25, 547-577.
Oliver, P. J. & Sanjay, S. (1999). The Big-Five Trait Taxonomy: History,
Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives. Handbook of personality:
Theory and research (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford (in press).
Poiesz, T. B. C (1989). The Image Concept: Its Place in Consumer Psychology.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 10(4), 457-472.
Quester, P. G., Karunaratna, A. & Goh, L. K. (2000). Self-congruity and Product Evaluation: a Cross-cultural Study. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(6), 525 - 535
Ralph, W. (1962). Psychological Factors in Predicting Product Choice. The Journal of Marketing, 26(2), 34-40.
Robert, B. Z. & Hazel, M. (1982). Affective and Cognitive Factors in Preferences.
The Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 123-131.
Robert, R. M., Paul, T. & Costa, Jr. (1982). Self-Concept and the Stability of
Personality: Cross-Sectional Comparisons of Self-reports and Ratings.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6), 1282-1292.
Sirgy, M. J. (1985). Using Self-Congruity and Ideal Congruity to Predict Purchase Motivation. Journal of Business Research, 13(3), 195-206.
Sirgy, M. J. Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T. F. & Park, J. KS. (1997). Assessing the
35
Predictive Validity of Two Methods of Measuring Self-image Congruence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(3), 229-241.
Stephen, M. N. & Itamar, S. (1997). Attribute-Task Compatibility as a Determinant of Consumer Preference Reversals. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(2), 205-218.
Thomas, M. B., Cynthia, L. & Joseph, M. C. (2000). The Relationships of Type A Behavior and Optimism with Job Performance and Blood Pressure.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(2), 215-227.
Veryzer, R. W. (1995). The Place of Product Design and Aesthetics in Consumer Research. Advances in Consumer Research, 22.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A. & Harkness, A. R. (1994). Structures of Personality and Their Relevance to Psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(1), 18-31.
Yang, S. & Allenby, G. M. (2003). Modeling Interdependent Consumer Preferences.
Journal of Marketing Research, 282-294.
36
Appendix A：Questionnaire
您好：
我是國立高雄大學經營管理研究所的研究生，目前正從事有關「消費者與 產品之關係」的研究，請您協助填寫問卷，而您寶貴之意見，將成為本研 究之重要參考依據，感謝您撥冗參與本階段之研究，謝謝。敬祝
平 安
國立高雄大學經營管理研究所 指導老師： 吳毓麒 博士 研 究 生： 羅佳芸 敬上
第一部分 問卷說明
本問卷提供 2 類形容詞分別加以描述產品風格，請針對以下 2 組沙發樣本進 行評量之工作，在您認為適當描述產品風格的空格內打勾。
產品風格的定義：使用者對產品本身體驗出的一種直覺感受，此種感受藉由產品 的造型、線條等產品外觀因素所組成。
堅硬/男性/理性的風格
柔軟/女性/感性的風格
A 沙發
堅硬、男性、理性的 風格□
柔軟、女性、感性的 風格□
37
B 沙發
堅硬、男性、理性的 風格□
柔軟、女性、感性的 風格□
第二部分
請針對下列的敘述，以「ˇ」表達您的看法：
01. 我吃飯的速度比一般人快... □ □ □ □ □ 02. 我喜歡在同一時間內完成許多事情... □ □ □ □ □ 03. 我說話的速度比一般人快... □ □ □ □ □ 04. 我會掛著記著事情的完成期限... □ □ □ □ □ 05. 我的好勝心很強... □ □ □ □ □ 06. 我很有幹勁... □ □ □ □ □
背面上有試題，請繼續作答
非 不 沒 同 非 常 同 意 意 常 不 意 見 同 同 意 意
38
第三部分
A 沙發
請針對下列的敘述，以「ˇ」表達您對 A 沙發的看法：
01. A 沙發之產品風格和我個人的人格特質相符
一致... □ □ □ □ □
02. 就你個人的人格特質和 A 沙發之產品風格作
比較，彼此間有相似性... □ □ □ □ □
03. A 沙發之產品風格很像我個人的人格特質... □ □ □ □ □
背面上有試題，請繼續作答
非 不 沒 同 非 常 同 意 意 常 不 意 見 同 同 意 意
39
B 沙發
請針對下列的敘述，以「ˇ」表達您對 B 沙發的看法：
01. B 沙發之產品風格和我個人的人格特質相符
一致... □ □ □ □ □
02.就你個人的人格特質和 B 沙發之產品風格作比
較，彼此間有相似性... □ □ □ □ □ 03.B沙發之產品風格很像我個人的人格特質... □ □ □ □ □
背面上有試題，請繼續作答
非 不 沒 同 非 常 同 意 意 常 不 意 見 同 同 意 意
40
第四部分
A 沙發
請針對下列的敘述，以「ˇ」表達您對 A 沙發的看法：
01. 我認為 A 沙發很好看... □ □ □ □ □
02. 我想要擁有 A 沙發... □ □ □ □ □
03. 我認為 A 沙發吸引我... □ □ □ □ □
04. 我認為 A 是一張好的沙發... □ □ □ □ □
背面上有試題，請繼續作答
非 不 沒 同 非 常 同 意 意 常 不 意 見 同 同 意 意
41
B 沙發
請針對下列的敘述，以「ˇ」表達您對 B 沙發的看法：
01. 我認為 B 沙發很好看... □ □ □ □ □
02. 我想要擁有 B 沙發... □ □ □ □ □
03.我認為 B 沙發吸引我... □ □ □ □ □
04.我認為 B 是一張好的沙發... □ □ □ □ □
背面上有試題，請繼續作答
非 不 沒 同 非 常 同 意 意 常 不 意 見 同 同 意 意
42
第五部分 基本資料
1.請問您的性別 ○ 男 ○ 女
2.請問您的年齡 ○ 25 歲以下○ 25~34 歲 ○ 35~44 歲 ○ 45~54 歲○ 55~64 歲 ○ 65 歲以上
3.請問您的學歷 ○ 國中小以下 ○ 高中職 ○ 大專院校 ○ 研究所以上
4.請問您的月收入 ○ 15000 元以下 ○ 15000~25000 元 ○ 25000~35000 元
○ 35000~45000 元 ○ 45000~55000 元 ○ 55000 元以上
5.請問您的職業 ○ 學生 ○ 軍警公教 ○ 服務業 ○ 製造業 ○ 農林漁牧
○ 退休 ○ 其他_______________
謝謝您的填寫：感謝您的幫忙!!
43
Appendix B：Questionnaire in English
PART 1：
This part displays two different product images. According to your feeling, please evaluate the appropriative product image of two sofa’s samples.
The definition of product image：Image as the sum of all product meanings
conveyed to the consumer and linkages between characteristics and
feelings/emotions. It also as a combination of product aspects that are distinct from the physical product characteristics but are nevertheless identified with the product.
A sofa
hard image
□
soft image
□ Dear subjects：
I am a postgraduate and now study in National University of Kaohsiung.
This questionnaire is designed to investigate the relationship of consumer and product. Please evaluate the degree of options and check mark according to your perspectives and opinions.
Thanks very much!!
National University of Kaohsiung Institute of Business and Management Adviser：Dr. Yu-Chi Wu
Postgraduate：Chia-Yun Lo
44
B sofa
hard image
□
soft image
□
PART 2：
This part is to measure your personality. According to your understanding, please evaluate and answer each of the following items that correspond most closely to your desired response.
1. I eat faster than other people ……… □ □ □ □ □
2. I like to keep two jobs moving forward at the same
time……… □ □ □ □ □
3. Feels like hurrying speaker……… □ □ □ □ □
4. I often sets own deadlines……….. □ □ □ □ □
5. Others rate as hard-driving and competitive……….. □ □ □ □ □
6. Others agree-more energy than most people……….. □ □ □ □ □
Strongly Agree
Agree
Common
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
45
PART 3：
A sofa
This part is to measure congruency of your personality and A sofa’s product image. According to your perception, please evaluate and answer each of the following items that correspond most closely to your desired response.
1. A sofa‟s image matches my own personality……….. □ □ □ □ □
2. If you consider your own personality and compare it to the description of A sofa‟s image, to the extent are they similar? ... □ □ □ □ □
3. A sofa‟s image is like my own personality………. □ □ □ □ □
Strongly Agree
Agree
Common
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
46
B sofa
This part is to measure congruency of your personality and B sofa’s product image. According to your perception, please evaluate and answer each of the following items that correspond most closely to your desired response
1. B sofa‟s image matches my own personality……….. □ □ □ □ □
2. If you consider your own personality and compare it to the description of B sofa‟s image, to the extent are they similar? ... □ □ □ □ □
3. B sofa‟s image is like my own personality………. □ □ □ □ □
Strongly Agree
Agree
Common
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
47
PART 4：
A sofa
This part is to measure A sofa’s product evaluation. According to your perception, please evaluate and answer each of the following items that correspond most closely to your desired response
1. I think A sofa is good-looking………. □ □ □ □ □
2. I would like to have A sofa……….. □ □ □ □ □
3. I think A sofa is attractive me……….. □ □ □ □ □
4. I think A sofa is a good product………. □ □ □ □ □
Strongly Agree
Agree
Common
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
48
B sofa
This part is to measure B sofa’s product evaluation. According to your perception, please evaluate and answer each of the following items that correspond most closely to your desired response
1. I think B sofa is good-looking………. □ □ □ □ □
2. I would like to have B sofa……….. □ □ □ □ □
3. I think B sofa is attractive me……….. □ □ □ □ □
4. I think B sofa is a good product………. □ □ □ □ □
Strongly Agree
Agree
Common
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
49
PART 5：Personal Information
1. What is your gender： □ Male □ Female
2. What is your age： □ Below 25 years old □ 25-34 years old □ 35-44 years old □ 45-54 years old □ 55-64 years old □ Upon 65 years old
3. What is your education level： □ Less than senior high school □ Senior high school □ University □ Master or Above
4. How much is your monthly income：□ Below 15000 NT dollars □
15000~25000 NT dollars □ 25000~35000 NT dollars □ 35000~45000 NT dollars □ 45000~55000 NT dollars □ Upon 55000 NT dollars
5. What is your current occupation：□ Students □ Public servants □ Servicing business □ Manufacturing industry □ Agriculture □ Retirement □ Other vocations
※THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE※