外文翻譯---消費(fèi)者關(guān)于廣告價(jià)格比較的認(rèn)知

1、<p>　　畢業(yè)論文（設(shè)計(jì)）外文翻譯</p><p><b>　　一、外文原文</b></p><p>　　標(biāo)題：Consumer Perceptions of Comparative Price Advertisements</p><p>　　COMPARATIVE PRICE ADVERTISEMENT</p>&

2、lt;p>　　Most retail advertisements offer merchandise at "special price." Often this "special price" is compared with a previous price, a manufacturer's price, a rival seller's price, the pri

3、ce of similar merchandise, or an area price. The general implication of these advertisements is the consumer can pay a lower than normal price for the merchandise if he/she will purchase it from the advertiser. The selle

4、r promotes a "special price" in the advertisement in the belief that more consumers will purchase </p><p>　　Seller's Decision Problems</p><p>　　The decision to promote a lower pric

5、e produces two decision problems for the seller.</p><p>　　1. How much to reduce the price.</p><p>　　2. How to communicate the fact that the price has been lowered.</p><p>　　The firs

6、t decision problem poses two additional concerns. If the price reduction is too small, consumers may perceive little price difference between the two offers and therefore may believe the price reduction does not warrant

7、a purchase effort. If the price reduction is too large, consumers may perceive that the offer is not bona fide. For example, they may not believe the larger reference price is an actual price, or they may wonder about th

8、e "quality" of the sale item (Monroe 1979, p. 45).</p><p>　　The second decision problem relates to the format the seller may use to present the comparative offer. Recognizing that too little differ

9、ence in price may not stimulate purchase behaviour, the seller must communicate the value being offered. Often, therefore, the special price is compared with a usual or regular price, a manufacturer's suggested price

10、, or some other reference price. In addition, the reduction may be promoted with a statement of either the relative savings (percentage) or absolu</p><p>　　Regulatory Considerations</p><p>　　Be

11、cause price advertisements may deceive consumers, the Federal Trade Commission adopted a set of guidelines in 1958 entitled "Guides Against Deceptive Pricing," referring specifically to comparative or compariso

12、n pricing. By 1962, the Commission was concerned with the possibility of many lawsuits arising because of the 1958 guides. Therefore, revised guides were prepared and adopted in 1964 and are still in force. The 1964 guid

13、es are shorter (five in number), more general, and are written in a </p><p>　　Currently, little empirical evidence is available on how consumers perceive comparative price offers. Consequently, neither the s

14、eller nor the public policy maker has reliable evidence on how to formulate either pricing policy or public regulations on comparative price advertising. In 1978, the staff at the Federal Trade Commission proposed that c

15、onsumer perception and behavior studies be conducted to provide data for developing an enforcement approach for comparative price advertising. Such res</p><p>　　PERCEPTION OF COMPARA TZVE PRICES</p>&

16、lt;p>　　The two decision problems related to promoting a lower price can be analyzed in terms of perception psychology. That is, the consumer's perception of a comparative price advertisement derives from his/her i

17、nterpretation of the price differences and from his/her interpretation of the words used to connote the lower price. It is known that consumers do not evaluate prices singly, but rather judge prices in reference to stand

18、ards that may be objective or subjective (Monroe 1973). Thus, a comparativ</p><p>　　To ensure that the consumer accepts the higher price as a standard, the seller includes such words as "formerly,"

19、 "usually," and "manufacturer's suggested" to describe the higher price. A seller can use words in a variety of ways to ensure the consumer perceives the higher price, and some of these ways may l

20、ead buyers to perceive that an offer is better than it actually is. In public policy, the concern is whether the semantic effect of a comparative price offer deceives consumers into believing</p><p>　　TYPES

21、OF COMPARATIVE PRICING FORMATS</p><p>　　The Federal Trade Commission has categorized the alternative comparative price advertising formats into three groups: 'former" prices, comparative 'trade

22、area" prices, and comparative devalue" prices.</p><p>　　Trade Area Prices</p><p>　　Trade area comparison advertisements compare the advertised price with prices of the same article sol

23、d by other retailers. Two general formats are used. In manufacturer's suggested price advertisements the seller presents the price offered by comparing it with a higher price suggested (listed) by the manufacturer, f

24、or example, "XYZ Instant Camera-manufacturer's suggested price $34.95, our price $25.95." Using the usually sold at XXX format, the seller compares the price offered with a usual pric</p><p>　　

25、Former Price Comparisons</p><p>　　In this type of advertisement the seller compares the price offered with the seller's former mgher) price. When "former" is used to refer to a price, the issue

26、 related to deception is whether the "former" price is true in the sense the seller did intentionally sell the item at the former price.</p><p>　　Comparable Value Comparisons</p><p>　　

27、In advertisements of this type the seller compares the product and price with similar products and their prices either in the store or offered by other sellers. Although the "sale item" is not exactly like the

28、referenced (higher-price) item, the advertisement implies that it is of similar quality.</p><p>　　Policy Research Issues</p><p>　　In its recommendations on the 1974 proposed pricing guides the F

29、TC's staff argued for empirical evidence to support or disconfirm several assumptions about "consumer conduct and perceptions." The staff recommended investigating three forms of behavioral response: percep

30、tions, information search, and actual purchase behavior. Concern also was expressed about whether empirical evidence on perceptions, information search, and purchase behavior would be generalizable to all consumers, all

31、product an</p><p>　　communicating the size of discount. The empirical issues isolated by the staff can be summarized by the following questions.</p><p>　　Perception. Do consumers believe the ref

32、erence advertised prices are "true"? Do consumers perceive that a "better value" is available if the size of the discount is relatively larger, even if the offer price is higher than "sale"

33、prices in the area?</p><p>　　Information search. Do consumers reduce information search and information acquisition because of the offer?</p><p>　　Purchase behavior. Do consumers express a willi

34、ngness or intent to purchase after seeing the advertisement? Does the offer induce consumers to consider purchasing a higher-priced product than would otherwise be purchased? Does the offer influence consumers to purchas

35、e an item sooner than desired?</p><p>　　Generalizability. Do behavioral responses differ by type of product and/or price level? Do behavioral responses differ if the size of discount is expressed in relative

36、 terms (i.e., percentage off) rather than absolute dollars and cents? Are certain types of consumers more prone to misperceive comparative offers? Are certain types of comparative offers more likely to induce mispercepti

37、ons?</p><p>　　AVAILABLE RESEARCH EVIDENCE</p><p>　　Perception basically involves the process of categorization.In this process buyers make frequent use of cues. Some of these cues are prices tha

38、t influence buyers' judgments of whether the difference between a reference price and a comparative price is significant. Olson's (1973, 1977) dichotomy of intrinsic and extrinsic cues provides a conceptual way o

39、f understanding these cues within the framework of comparative price advertising.</p><p>　　According to Olson (1973, p. 46), "any informational stimulus or cue may be considered to be derived either fro

40、m the actual physical product (i.e., the cue is intrinsic to the product or brand) or from productrelated attributes not actually a part of the physical product (i.e., the cue is extrinsic to the product or brand)."

41、 Extending this dichotomy to the evaluation of a comparative price advertisement, we propose that two types of cues are present. Price cues include the reference price (impli</p><p>　　Monroe (1979, p. 44-5)

42、suggests that the perception of a sale (comparative price offer) may be conceptualized within the framework of assimilation-contrast theory. If the sale (lower) price is perceived as a reasonable substitute for the refer

43、ence (higher) price, buyers may perceive a bargain (assimilation effect). If the buyers perceive the sale price as belonging to another product-price category, they may not believe that the sale price is a reduction from

44、 the advertised</p><p>　　reference price (contrast effect). Thus, to ensure the attainment of an assimilation effect the seller uses a variety of semantic cues to foster the perceptions</p><p>　

45、　of a bargain.</p><p>　　Fry and McDougall (1974) studied buyers' perceptions of advertised regular and sales prices and found that the acceptance of the advertised regular price tended to decrease as the

46、 size of the discount increased (25% vs. 50%, or 11% vs. 44% or 40%). Acceptance of the sales price as the "lowest price in town" increased as the size of the discount increased. For the data that permit holdin

47、g the effects of product, brand, and store constant, the assimilation-contrast hypothesis seems to be supported</p><p>　　Barnes (1975) varied the price and semantic cues for a retail advertisement for housec

48、oats, using as cues:</p><p>　　1. Special, $1 1.98.</p><p>　　2. 25%off, $11.98.</p><p>　　3. xxx's reg. price $15.98, sale price $1 1.98.</p><p>　　Analysis of varianc

49、e indicated significant effects due to the type of presentation form. Condition 3 was the most positively evaluated presentation.</p><p>　　Keiser and Krum (1976) compared adult respondents'</p>&l

50、t;p>　　reactions to an advertisement for a deodorant. The comparison involved assessing respondents' acceptance of an advertisement using condition 3 versus their acceptance of an advertisement using condition 2. F

51、or condition 2 the semantic cue used was "1/2 price sale." The condition 3 advertisement was found to be more likely to create a perception of a true reduction in price. Willingness to buy was not significantly

52、 different for the two versions.</p><p>　　Sewall and Goldstein (1979) queried 1 14 catalog store shoppers about their understanding of comparison (reference) pricing used by catalog showroom retailers. These

53、 researchers found that 58% of the respondents either understood or were skeptical of catalog reference prices. The respondents indicated, however, that the catalog prices were useful for comparative shopping.</p>

54、<p>　　Blair and Landon (1979) determined that advertisements with reference (comparison) price claims produced larger perceptions of savings than advertisements without reference price claims. They also determined

55、that subjects were willing to attribute a 10% savings to any advertised price with unstated savings. Moreover, their subjects consistently perceived that the reference price claims were about 25% above true comparison pr

56、ices. Finally, the greater the percentage difference between the "sale p</p><p><b>　　price.</b></p><p>　　Berkowitz and Walton (1980) investigated the effects of comparison price

57、 cues and semantic cues over three product categories. Using five dependent variables (perceived worth, price acceptability, perceived savings, value for money, and willingness to buy), they found significant differences

58、 for comparison cues for all products, but significant semantic cues for cameras only. However, these dependent variables were not uniformly significant over the three products nor over the two discount level</p>

59、<p>　　The limited amount of evidence available suggests that acceptance of an advertised regular price depends on the size of the sales discount and whether or not an actual regular price is quoted. Essentially, acc

60、eptance of a regular price is enhanced if it is provided in the advertisement regardless of its veracity. In contrast, a negative relationship between acceptance of the regular price and the size of sales discount is der

61、ived from assimilation-contrast theory and has been inferred from two e</p><p>　　出處： Albert J. Della Bitta; Kent B. Monroe; John M. McGinnis</p><p>　　Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No.

62、4. (Nov., 1981), pp. 416-427.</p><p><b>　　二、翻譯文章</b></p><p>　　標(biāo)題：消費(fèi)者關(guān)于廣告價(jià)格比較的認(rèn)知</p><p><b>　　廣告價(jià)格比較</b></p><p>　　許多零售廣告商用一種“特殊價(jià)格”來展示他們的產(chǎn)品。通常這些“特殊

63、價(jià)格”會(huì)被拿來與先前的價(jià)格，生產(chǎn)商的價(jià)格，競(jìng)爭(zhēng)價(jià)格，相似產(chǎn)品的價(jià)格或者一定區(qū)域內(nèi)的價(jià)格作比較。通常這些廣告的意義是當(dāng)顧客想買這個(gè)產(chǎn)品的時(shí)候 ，能以較低的價(jià)格獲得。賣家推銷在廣告里“特殊價(jià)格”是基于他們相信消費(fèi)者在相信這個(gè)價(jià)格已近很低了的情況下購(gòu)買這些產(chǎn)品。</p><p><b>　　賣方的決策問題</b></p><p>　　對(duì)于賣家，關(guān)于推廣較低價(jià)的決策會(huì)產(chǎn)生另外

64、兩個(gè)決策問題。</p><p><b>　　應(yīng)該降低多少價(jià)格</b></p><p>　　怎么使低價(jià)格更好的作用于實(shí)際</p><p>　　第一個(gè)決策問題會(huì)引起兩個(gè)額外的關(guān)注。如果價(jià)格的消減太小，消費(fèi)者不會(huì)在兩個(gè)價(jià)格間感到太大的變化，因此他們會(huì)感覺這個(gè)削價(jià)不能推動(dòng)他們的購(gòu)買欲。反之，如果價(jià)格消減太大，消費(fèi)者就會(huì)認(rèn)為這個(gè)價(jià)格是不真實(shí)的。例如，消費(fèi)

65、者會(huì)認(rèn)為之前過高的價(jià)格不是真實(shí)的價(jià)格，或者，他們會(huì)納悶這些產(chǎn)品的“價(jià)格” (Monroe 1979, p. 45)。</p><p>　　第二個(gè)決策問題是與賣家展示比較價(jià)格的方式有關(guān)聯(lián)。在意識(shí)到價(jià)格的小變動(dòng)并不能刺激消費(fèi)的情況下，賣家就該展示出產(chǎn)品的價(jià)值。所以通常情況下，這個(gè)“特價(jià)”就會(huì)拿來與通常價(jià)格，生產(chǎn)商價(jià)格，或者一些其他參考價(jià)格做比較。此外，伴隨著這個(gè)降價(jià)，應(yīng)有相關(guān) (百分比)或者絕對(duì)（美元）降價(jià)的書面聲明

66、，更或者有一些記錄這些降價(jià)的相關(guān)文件(Berkowitz and Walton 1980)。然而，消費(fèi)者可能不會(huì)意識(shí)到這些被登載在廣告上的有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力的價(jià)格在某種程度上反映了真實(shí)的現(xiàn)況。一些廣告宣傳在設(shè)計(jì)時(shí)有意造成錯(cuò)誤知覺，相反，有些設(shè)計(jì)卻是無意造成的。忽略廣告商們的意圖，消費(fèi)者很有可能被欺騙(Federal Trade Commission 1964)。</p><p><b>　　監(jiān)管考慮</b&

67、gt;</p><p>　　鑒于這些價(jià)格廣告可能會(huì)欺騙消費(fèi)者，聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)在1958年出臺(tái)了一套指導(dǎo)方針，命名為“反欺詐價(jià)格指南”，其中特別指出相對(duì)價(jià)格和價(jià)格比較兩方面。直到1962年,歐盟委員會(huì)所關(guān)注的是因1958年的指南所引起的多起訴訟的原因。在1964年出臺(tái)的指南較之前更為簡(jiǎn)短（共5份），更綜合，并以更口語(yǔ)的形式出版。在1974年該委員會(huì)根據(jù)這些指南的各種評(píng)論意見，出版了一本修訂本。關(guān)于這個(gè)修訂本的實(shí)際作

68、用還有待考證。</p><p>　　目前，在關(guān)于消費(fèi)者是如何理解為之呈現(xiàn)的比較相對(duì)的價(jià)格，一些實(shí)驗(yàn)性證據(jù)是可提供的。因此，不管是賣家或者是國(guó)家政策的決策者，在關(guān)于廣告價(jià)格比較時(shí)都擁有可信的證據(jù)，用來起草價(jià)格政策或者公共條例。在1978年，聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)的全體員工提出，對(duì)消費(fèi)者知覺和行為引導(dǎo)的研究能夠引提供關(guān)于廣告價(jià)格比較時(shí)所發(fā)展的試行條例的數(shù)據(jù)。</p><p><b>　　比較

69、價(jià)格的感知</b></p><p>　　這兩個(gè)與推廣更低價(jià)格有關(guān)的決策問題，能夠從感知心理學(xué)來分析。就是說，消費(fèi)者對(duì)于一個(gè)可比較的價(jià)格的感知來自于他對(duì)于通常用來描述低價(jià)的詞匯的理解。眾所周知，消費(fèi)者估價(jià)是不會(huì)從單一的角度的，恰恰相反，從產(chǎn)品規(guī)格標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來估價(jià)也有可能是客觀的或者主觀的(Monroe 1973)。因此，一個(gè)比較價(jià)格的廣告宣傳，要著重顯示一個(gè)價(jià)格和另一個(gè)較高的價(jià)格之間的比較，旨在利用對(duì)于消費(fèi)者

70、而言的參考價(jià)格和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)價(jià)格。根本上是消費(fèi)者要判斷這個(gè)低價(jià)較之于之前的高價(jià)，能不能接受。</p><p>　　為了確定消費(fèi)者將高價(jià)最為一個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)價(jià)，賣家在宣傳時(shí)要包含如下詞：“以前的”，“通常”，或者“廠家建議”，來描述高價(jià)。賣家可以廣泛的用于這樣的詞語(yǔ)來使消費(fèi)者認(rèn)為這是個(gè)高價(jià)，有些方式也可能是消費(fèi)者認(rèn)為這個(gè)出價(jià)比實(shí)際價(jià)格更好。在國(guó)家政策中，涉及這方面的是，無論用來描述比較價(jià)格的語(yǔ)言的作用是否是欺騙消費(fèi)者使之相信的這個(gè)

71、價(jià)格，其實(shí)并不是它所描述的那樣。</p><p><b>　　比較價(jià)格格式的類型</b></p><p>　　聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)將可供選擇的比較價(jià)格的格式分成三個(gè)部分：‘模型’價(jià)格，比較‘貿(mào)易區(qū)’價(jià)格和比較價(jià)值價(jià)格。</p><p><b>　　貿(mào)易區(qū)價(jià)格</b></p><p>　　貿(mào)易區(qū)相比較的廣告

72、是將廣告價(jià)格和同種產(chǎn)品在其他零售商的價(jià)格相比較，通常使用兩種格式。在宣稱是生產(chǎn)商建議價(jià)格的廣告中，賣家的出價(jià)是與生產(chǎn)商所出的較高價(jià)格之間的比較，例如，“XYA一次性快速相機(jī)的廠商建議價(jià)是34.95美元，我們的價(jià)格是25.95美元?！笔褂靡籜XX格式價(jià)格出售時(shí)，賣家在出價(jià)同事會(huì)隨之有個(gè)一般價(jià)格，不論是在商店或者貿(mào)易區(qū)。通常，那個(gè)出價(jià)都是特殊模型，而那個(gè)一般價(jià)格都是要比這個(gè)出價(jià)高的。</p><p><b>

73、;　　先前價(jià)格比較</b></p><p>　　在這個(gè)模式中，賣家將出價(jià)和先前價(jià)格作比較。當(dāng)“先前”這個(gè)詞用來參考價(jià)格時(shí)，與這個(gè)欺騙有關(guān)的問題是，這個(gè)“先前”價(jià)格是否是真的，或者賣家有意以這個(gè)價(jià)格作為先前價(jià)格。</p><p>　　可比較價(jià)值的價(jià)格比較</p><p>　　在這種模式的廣告中，賣家將產(chǎn)品和價(jià)格與別的零售商在商店出售的相同產(chǎn)品的價(jià)格相比較。

74、盡管“銷售條款”并不是準(zhǔn)確如引用的條款，但是廣告表面這些擁有相似的質(zhì)量。</p><p><b>　　政策研究問題</b></p><p>　　在1974年推薦的價(jià)格指南建議中，F(xiàn)TC的員工爭(zhēng)論用實(shí)驗(yàn)性證據(jù)來支持或者駁訴一些有關(guān)“消費(fèi)者產(chǎn)品和認(rèn)知”的假設(shè)。員工們建議調(diào)查3種行為反應(yīng)的形式：認(rèn)知，信息調(diào)查和實(shí)際購(gòu)買行為。這表明實(shí)驗(yàn)性證據(jù)在認(rèn)知，信息調(diào)查和購(gòu)買行為上能夠概

75、括于全部消費(fèi)者，全部產(chǎn)品或價(jià)格等級(jí)，還有全部比較價(jià)格的種類和所有宣傳折扣大小的方法。那些被員工們所忽略的最根本的問題被概括為以下這些問題。</p><p>　　認(rèn)知。消費(fèi)者是否相信那些參考的廣告的價(jià)格是“真的“？消費(fèi)者是否認(rèn)為如果折扣的大小相當(dāng)?shù)拇?。那么這個(gè)“更好的價(jià)格”就是可接受的呢，即使這個(gè)出價(jià)在銷售區(qū)都比“銷售”價(jià)格高？</p><p>　　信息調(diào)查。消費(fèi)者是否在看到廣告之后還心甘情

76、愿或者有興趣來買產(chǎn)品？這個(gè)出價(jià)是否能引導(dǎo)消費(fèi)者來購(gòu)買這個(gè)在別的地方也能買的而這里價(jià)格更高的產(chǎn)品？這個(gè)出價(jià)是否能影響消費(fèi)者比我們更渴望，更快地來購(gòu)買我們的產(chǎn)品？</p><p>　　概括性。行為反應(yīng)是否與產(chǎn)品或者價(jià)格等級(jí)的種類有差？當(dāng)折扣的大小是表達(dá)于相對(duì)條款多過絕對(duì)價(jià)格時(shí)，行為反應(yīng)是否有差？是否有某一部分消費(fèi)者更傾向于有欺騙性的比較性價(jià)格？是否有一部分比較性價(jià)格更像是引導(dǎo)一種錯(cuò)誤知覺？</p>&l

77、t;p><b>　　有效的調(diào)查證據(jù)</b></p><p>　　知覺基本上包含了分類的過程。在這個(gè)過程中，買家頻繁使用線索。某些線索是價(jià)格影響消費(fèi)者的判斷，關(guān)于參考價(jià)格和比較性價(jià)格兩者的差異。Olson（1973.1977）的本質(zhì)和外在線索的兩分法，提供了一種 在比較性價(jià)格廣告框架內(nèi)了解這些線索的概念上的方法。</p><p>　　根據(jù)Olson(1973, p

78、. 46)：“任何信息上的刺激或者線索都可能從實(shí)際物理產(chǎn)品或者部署與實(shí)際物理產(chǎn)品任何部分的產(chǎn)品屬性中推斷出?！毖由爝@個(gè)兩分法來評(píng)估一個(gè)比較價(jià)格的廣告，我們建議有兩個(gè)現(xiàn)有線索。價(jià)格線索包括了參考價(jià)格和出價(jià)。語(yǔ)義線索是在廣告內(nèi)體現(xiàn)的另外的線索，幫助消費(fèi)者鑒定價(jià)格。語(yǔ)義線索包括了以上所闡述的格式和任何直接的價(jià)格變化。</p><p>　　Monroe (1979, p. 44-5)建議銷售的知覺可能在對(duì)比同化作用的框架

79、內(nèi)被概念化。</p><p>　　如果銷售價(jià)格被當(dāng)做一個(gè)參考價(jià)格合理地取代，消費(fèi)者可能會(huì)感覺廉價(jià)。如果消費(fèi)者認(rèn)為這個(gè)銷售價(jià)格是屬于另一種產(chǎn)品價(jià)格分類的話，他們就不會(huì)相信這個(gè)來自于廣告參考價(jià)格的銷售價(jià)格是一個(gè)降價(jià)。因此，為了確保達(dá)到同化作用，消費(fèi)者運(yùn)用各種語(yǔ)義線索來培養(yǎng)對(duì)于低價(jià)產(chǎn)品的認(rèn)知。</p><p>　　Fry and McDougall (1974)研究消費(fèi)者關(guān)于廣告中提及的通常價(jià)格

80、和消費(fèi)價(jià)格的認(rèn)知，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)消費(fèi)者對(duì)于廣告中通常價(jià)格的接受度趨于下降，然而折扣卻在提升(25% vs. 50%, or 11% vs. 44% or 40%)。類似于“全鎮(zhèn)最低價(jià)”的銷售價(jià)格的接受度正如它的折扣大小一樣也在上升。由產(chǎn)品，商標(biāo)，貯存常數(shù)，對(duì)比同化作用的假設(shè)等的作用收集的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，70%的調(diào)查對(duì)象懷疑商店在通常價(jià)格上有50%的折扣，有54%的調(diào)查對(duì)象懷疑商店在通常價(jià)格上有25%折扣。</p><p>　

81、　Barnes (1975)多樣化了價(jià)格和語(yǔ)義的線索，關(guān)于一個(gè)家居服的廣告，用到的線索有：</p><p>　　特設(shè)人員 11.98美元</p><p><b>　　25%o的折扣</b></p><p>　　XXX的等級(jí)價(jià)格為15.98美元，銷售價(jià)格為11.98美元。</p><p>　　方差分析表面這些顯現(xiàn)方式是有作

82、用的。第三個(gè)條件是最明確股價(jià)描述。</p><p>　　Keiser和Krum (1976)比較了成人調(diào)查者對(duì)除臭劑的廣告的反應(yīng)。這個(gè)比較涉及了調(diào)查對(duì)象關(guān)于運(yùn)用第三者條件的廣告的接受度與運(yùn)用第二種條件的廣告的接受度的抗衡。第二種條件的廣告的語(yǔ)義線索是“半價(jià)出售”，第三種條件的廣告更像是創(chuàng)造了一種真實(shí)降價(jià)的知覺。但對(duì)于這兩個(gè)版本，情愿的購(gòu)買并沒有很顯著的差別。</p><p>　　Sewal

83、l and Goldstein (1979)疑惑114商品目錄商店的店員是怎么了解那些被記錄在零售商陳列室里的參考價(jià)格的。這些調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)有58%的調(diào)查對(duì)象也不知道這個(gè)登記的參考價(jià)格。調(diào)查對(duì)象表示，無論如何，這個(gè)目錄價(jià)對(duì)有比較的消費(fèi)是有幫助的。</p><p>　　Blair and Landon (1979)推斷出包含參考價(jià)格要求的廣告比沒有參考價(jià)格要求的廣告要有更大的節(jié)省的知覺。他們同樣發(fā)現(xiàn)被試者更樂意節(jié)省10%

84、的花費(fèi)相對(duì)于那些沒有明確節(jié)省開支的廣告。最終，“銷售價(jià)格”，和“參考價(jià)格”之間的百分比差距會(huì)更大，而相信參考價(jià)格的相信者也會(huì)越來越少。</p><p>　　Berkowitz and Walton (1980)研究了以下3種產(chǎn)品目錄的比較價(jià)格線索和語(yǔ)義線索。使用5個(gè)因變量（感知價(jià)值，價(jià)格可接受性，感知節(jié)省開支，貨幣價(jià)值和購(gòu)買意愿），他們發(fā)現(xiàn)了所有產(chǎn)品比較價(jià)格的顯著性差異，但是只有相機(jī)產(chǎn)品有顯著的語(yǔ)義線索。然而，這

85、些獨(dú)立的變量并沒有在兩種折扣水平（20%和40%）或者全部三種產(chǎn)品上有顯著的一致性。百分比表示語(yǔ)義線索（X%表示，只用于現(xiàn)在）在認(rèn)知影響的試驗(yàn)中表現(xiàn)的不充分。</p><p>　　有限數(shù)量的證據(jù)暗示，對(duì)于廣告中正常價(jià)格的接受，是基于折扣的大小和報(bào)價(jià)是否真實(shí)的。本質(zhì)上，如果忽略正常價(jià)格在廣告的真誠(chéng)性，那么它的接受性也會(huì)提高。與此相反，對(duì)于正常價(jià)格的接受性和折扣大小之間的消極聯(lián)系來源于比較同化理論，并且已從兩個(gè)經(jīng)驗(yàn)主

86、義學(xué)習(xí)研究中推斷出。此外，這兩個(gè)學(xué)習(xí)研究似乎是在暗示著比較價(jià)格廣告的“x%表示，銷售價(jià)格”形式在優(yōu)化行為反應(yīng)中沒有很有效。這些發(fā)現(xiàn)都是假設(shè)的，其他由FTC提出的調(diào)查問題已經(jīng)被處理了。在以下的章節(jié)描述一個(gè)設(shè)計(jì)出來是為了提供更多消費(fèi)者對(duì)于比較價(jià)格廣告認(rèn)知的證據(jù)的實(shí)驗(yàn)和關(guān)于行為價(jià)格的調(diào)查一些方法論進(jìn)展。</p><p>　　出處：Albert J. Della Bitta; Kent B. Monroe; John M