期刊文献+

计算难度和知识背景对消费者百分数基数忽略的影响 被引量:3

The Infl uence of Calculation Diffi culty and Knowledge Base on Consumers' Base Value Neglect
下载PDF
导出
摘要 在选择促销品时,消费者经常会出现百分数基数忽略错误,即价值判断时只基于百分数大小而忽略基数。本研究以150名大学生为被试,考察计算难度和知识背景对百分数基数忽略的影响。结果表明:仅了解百分数基数忽略现象的消费者无论计算难度高低均会出现百分数基数忽略错误;而了解促销计算原理的消费者在高难度下会出现这种错误,在低难度下则不会,且了解促销原理有助于减轻消费者在高难度下出现该错误的倾向。 BVN is a computational error in the processing of percentages. The influencing factors of BVN can be divided into three types: individual factors, stimulus factors and condition factors. In the research of individual factors, previous literature focused on the influence of individual mathematical ability but neglected the influence of knowledge base, such as mastery of the mathematical principle of promotion. About stimulus factors, researchers focused on the influence of difficulty of calculating caused by percentages changing, but neglected the difficulty of price expression. Base on the above review, this study examined the influence of knowledge base and difficulty of calculating which was manipulated by price. 150 undergraduate students participated in this study. The study used a 2 ×3 mixed design, in which the difficulty of calculating (low and high) was a within-subjects variable and knowledge base (BVN phenomenon, mathematical principle, control) was a between-subjects variable. We used the prices of products to manipulate the difficulty of calculating, the price which was 3.89 yuan/50g was set as the price of high difficulty and the price which was 5 yuan/50g was set as the price of low difficulty. In this experiment, participants were randomly assigned to three groups. All groups read the materials firstly. Material of BVN group was introducing the phenomenon of base value neglect; material of math group demonstrated how to calculate preferential benefits of the bonus back and the price discount; material of control group was irrelevant with BVN or promotion. After reading the materials, participants finished the questionnaires. The questionnaires had two situations, and in each situation, there were two brands of the same product but adopting different promotion ways. In one situation, the price of product was 5yuan/50g, whereas in the other situation, the price of product was 3.89yuan/50g. In each situation, participants were asked to rate their evaluation of the two types of the economically equivalent promotion (50% bonus back and 33% price discount) on -5 (the bonus back has more preferential benefits) to 0 (the preferential benefits of the bonus back are same to the preferential benefits of the price discount) to 5 (the price discount has more preferential benefits) scales. If the score of the participants’ evaluation is significantly less than 0, the participants neglect the base values and have the BVN mistakes. After finishing the questionnaires, participants were asked to rate the difficulty of calculating preferential benefits of the two types of promotion under the two prices of products on a 1(very easy) to 7 (very difficult) scale, so as to check the manipulation of calculation difficulty. It was showed that: (1) when consumers only learned about the phenomenon of BVN, the errors appeared regardless of high or low difficulty of calculating; (2) when consumers only learned about the mathematical principle of promotion, the errors appeared only in the condition of high difficulty, but in the condition of low difficulty, the errors was not found; (3) learning about the mathematical principle of promotion could reduce the tendency of base value neglect.
作者 张玥 辛自强
出处 《心理科学》 CSSCI CSCD 北大核心 2015年第4期973-978,共6页 Journal of Psychological Science
基金 中央财经大学高层次人才引进科研启动项目的资助
关键词 消费心理 百分数基数忽略错误 计算难度 知识背景 consumer psychology base value neglect difficulty of calculating knowledge base
  • 相关文献

参考文献22

  • 1郝辽钢.(2008).消费者对促销的反应及促销效果研究.西南交通大学博士学位论文.
  • 2凌喜欢,辛自强.时间压力和产品价格对消费者百分比差异混淆的影响[J].心理与行为研究,2014,12(1):85-90. 被引量:7
  • 3刘辑.(2010).四种促销策略对竞争品牌偏好的影响.西南交通大学博士学位论文.
  • 4孙彦,李纾,殷晓莉.决策与推理的双系统——启发式系统和分析系统[J].心理科学进展,2007,15(5):721-726. 被引量:147
  • 5Chen, H., Marmorstein, H., Tsiros, M., & Rao, A. R. (2012). When more is less: The impact of base value neglect on consumer preferences for bonus packs over price discounts. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 64-77.
  • 6Chen, H. A., & Rao, A. R. (2007). When two plus two is not equal to four: Errors in processing multiple percentage changes. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(3), 327-340.
  • 7Dehaene, S., Spelke, E., Pinel, P., Stanescu, R., & Tsivkin, S. (1999). Sources of mathematical thinking: Behavioral and brain-imaging evidence. Science, 284(5416), 970-974.
  • 8DelVecchio, D., Krishnan, H. S., & Smith, D. C. (2007). Cents or percent? The effects of promotion framing on price expectations and choice. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 158-170.
  • 9Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006). The heuristic why the adjustments are insuffiecient. Psychological Science, 17(4), 311-318.
  • 10Evans, J. S. B. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(10), 454-459.

二级参考文献69

  • 1申继亮,陈勃,王大华,Gisela Labouvie-Vief,Manfred Diehl.成人期智力的年龄特征:中美比较研究[J].心理科学,2001,24(3):344-345. 被引量:8
  • 2Sloman S A.The empirical case for two systems of reasoning.Psychological Bulletin,1996,119:3-22
  • 3Evans J S B T.Logical and human reasoning:An assessment of the deductive paradigm.Psychological Bulletin,2002,128:978-996
  • 4Evans J S B T.In two minds:dual-process account of reasoning.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,2003,7:454-459.
  • 5Stanovich K E,West R F.Individual differences in reasoning:Implications for the rationality debate.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,2000,23:645-726
  • 6Kahneman D,Frederick S.Representativeness revisited:Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment.In:Gilovich T,Griffin D,Kahneman D.Heuristics and Biases:the Psychology of Intuitive Judgment.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2002.49-81
  • 7Sloman S A.Two systems of reasoning.In:Gilovich T,Griffin D,Kahneman D.Heuristics and Biases:the Psychology of Intuitive Judgment.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2002.379-396
  • 8Tversky A,Kahneman D.External versus intuitive reasoning:The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.Psychological Review,1983,90:293-315
  • 9Evans J S B T.The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning:extension and evaluation.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2006,13:378-395
  • 10Sherman J W.On building a better process model:It is not only how many,but which ones and by which means? Psychological Inquiry,2006,17:173-184

共引文献151

同被引文献37

  • 1申继亮,陈勃,王大华,Gisela Labouvie-Vief,Manfred Diehl.成人期智力的年龄特征:中美比较研究[J].心理科学,2001,24(3):344-345. 被引量:8
  • 2孙彦,李纾,殷晓莉.决策与推理的双系统——启发式系统和分析系统[J].心理科学进展,2007,15(5):721-726. 被引量:147
  • 3Baker, D. W. (2006). The meaning and the measure of health literacy. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21 ( 8 ) , 878-883.
  • 4Ben-Zur. H., & Breznitz, S.J. (1981). The effect of time pressure on risky choice behavior. ActaPsychologica, 47 (2), 89-104.
  • 5Bruin, W. B. D., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2012). Explaining adult age differences in decision-making com- petence. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25 ( 4), 352- 360.
  • 6Burks, S. V., Carpenter, J. P., Goette, L., & Rustichini, A. (2009). Cognitive skills affect economic preferences, strategic behavior, and job attachment. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences of the United States of A- meriea, 106 (19), 7745-7750.
  • 7Dieckmann, N. F., Slovic, P., & Peters, E. M. (2009). The use of narrative evidence and explicit likelihood by decision makers varying in numeracy. Risk Analysis, 29 ( 10), 1473-1488.
  • 8French, J. W., Ekstrom, R. B., Price, L. A., (1963). Kit of reference tests for cognitive factors. Princeton, N J: Educational Testing Service.
  • 9Galesic, M., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2011). Do low-nu- meracy people avoid shared decision making? Heath Psy- chology, 30 (3), 336-341.
  • 10Han, P. K. (2009). How numeracy influences risk compre- hension and medical decision making. Psychological Bul- letin, 135 (6), 943-973.

引证文献3

二级引证文献59

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部