隨著科技的進步，消費者能透過傳統的實體通路或新興的虛擬通路購買商品，多元的購物方式讓消費者的購買決策過程不同於以往，其中不同購物情境間感官體驗的豐富度差異可能導致「購買後發現產品的實際體驗與期待不一致」之期望落差（expectation disconfirmation）現象。無論是正向期望落差或負向期望落差，都可能左右消費者的評價或購買決策，因此自然值得深入探究期望落差在消費過程中產生的原因並妥善運用之。
本研究以電腦滑鼠為標的產品，旨在模擬消費者於不同消費階段中與產品的互動，並根據視覺、觸覺、聽覺等刺激挑選出滑鼠顏色、材質、按鍵聲音等三大設計參數予以操弄，再透過問卷蒐集研究參與者的主觀感受，藉以探討期望落差出現的可能原因及程度上的差異。本研究精選出 20 組最適合用於形容滑鼠產品的「雙極感性語彙」與2組代表滿意度與購買意願程度之成對形容詞，並邀請30位20~29歲具有網路購物經驗的女性參與互動實驗，模擬的互動體驗依現代消費者的購物階段設計，依序包括：（1）透過網路瀏覽產品圖片（平面視覺）、（2）透過網路瀏覽產品圖片及閱讀介紹文字（平面視覺）、（3）在店面實際看到產品（立體視覺）、（4）在店面實際看到並觸摸產品（立體視覺與觸覺）、（5）在店面實際看到並觸摸產品按壓讓其發出聲響（立體視覺、觸覺及聽覺)、（6）購買後實際使用產品（立體視覺、觸覺及聽覺）等六個階段，最後再透過訪談補充詢問參與者的其他想法與感受，藉以了解消費者在不同消費情境中期望落差之狀況與可能原因。
本研究首先運用多變量變異數分析找出有期望落差的消費情境，包括網路購物情境與實體銷售通路購物情境，並透過相關性分析與主成分分析定義主要影響消費者滿意度落差與購買意願落差的代表性感性意象，最後以數量化理論一類之方法連結滑鼠設計參數與主觀感受，找出影響期望落差之可能原因，並進一步找出消費者偏好的滑鼠設計。結果發現：當消費者透過網路直接購買滑鼠，對於滑鼠「操控性不佳的－操控性佳的」和「不輕巧的－輕巧的」等感受在實際使用後較容易有落差，且在網路瀏覽滑鼠商品圖片時，比起光滑亮面材質的滑鼠，消費者偏好較能帶給人「舒適的」、「符合人體工學的」、「包覆性的」之三種感受的橡膠霧面材質滑鼠。若消費者是在現場看到滑鼠產品就直接購買，則對於滑鼠「非低噪且回饋聲音清晰的－低噪且回饋聲音不清晰的」、「不輕巧便攜的－輕巧便攜的」和「不舒適不好握的－舒適好握的」等感受在實際使用後較容易有落差，且消費者在此情境較偏好能帶給人「輕巧便攜的」、「好操控的」感受的光滑亮面材質滑鼠，或是能帶給人「舒適且符合人體工學的」感受的橡膠霧面材質滑鼠。最後，若消費者到現場體驗滑鼠產品後才購買，則對於滑鼠「操控性不佳的－操控性佳的」、「不舒適不好握的－舒適好握的」和「無回饋且手感不明確的－有回饋且手感明確的」等感受在實際使用後較容易有落差，且消費者在此情境較偏好能帶給人「亮面且輕巧的」、「好操控的」感受的光滑亮面材質滑鼠，或是能帶給人「好握的」感受的橡膠霧面材質滑鼠。
因此，本研究建議：在網路平台上販賣滑鼠時，應以文字說明或提供滑鼠使用的情境影片，讓消費者獲得更多產品功能以及重量資訊，以有效減少期望落差，且應著重滑鼠帶給人舒適、符合人體工學和具有與手掌貼合的包覆性感受，並可以考慮增加橡膠霧面材質類型滑鼠的款式來吸引消費者購買。在實體銷售通路販售滑鼠時，應盡量讓消費者獲得更多與觸覺、聽覺感受回饋有關的產品資訊，以減少期望落差，且針對靜音滑鼠，應盡量提供較長時間的電腦操作試用服務，讓消費者充分了解靜音滑鼠的按鍵聲音特性、回饋與績效表現；並盡量避免在展示非靜音滑鼠時提供連續點擊操作的任務，才不會讓消費者因頻繁且連續的按鍵聲音而出現負面的感受。此外，本研究更進一步發現：無論在何種消費情境下，光滑亮面材質的滑鼠相較於橡膠霧面的滑鼠均帶給人較「輕巧」、「好操控」的感受，而橡膠霧面滑鼠則較光滑亮面的滑鼠帶給人較「舒適」、「符合人體工學」與「好握」的感受。因此，未來廠商在設計滑鼠時可以根據本研究之結果針對有不同需求的消費族群進行設計參數的調整，藉此讓滑鼠設計更貼近消費者的訴求，並有效提升商品的銷售量與消費者對於品牌的正面情感。

As technology advances, consumers can purchase products either at retail stores or through online platforms. The multiple choices make consumers' decision-making process different from the past. The difference in the richness of the sensory experience among different purchase channels may lead to the inconsistency between actual experience and prior expectation, i.e. the “expectation disconfirmation.” No matter whether it is a positive or a negative expectation disconfirmation, it may affect the consumer's evaluation of the product and the purchase decision. Therefore, it is worthwhile to explore the reasons of the expectation disconfirmation occurred during the consumption process, so as to use it properly.

This study simulated the interaction of consumers with computer mouse in different stages of consumption. Three design parameters including color, surface material, and button sound were determined based on the visual, tactile, and auditory stimuli involved. In order to find out the reasons and the level of expectation disconfirmation, a questionnaire was designed to understand the subjective feelings of the participants toward computer mouse. In this study, 20 pairs of bipolar adjectives that are suitable for describing the computer mouse were considered, along with 2 pairs of bipolar adjectives representing consumers’ satisfaction and purchase intention. 30 females ranging from 20-29 years old with online shopping experience were recruited to participate in the interactive experiment. The interactive experiment was designed with six stages according to the shopping process of modern consumers, including: (1) Browsing product images online (2D vision), (2) Browsing product images and product descriptions online (2D vision), (3) Seeing the product at the store (3D vision), (4) Seeing and touching the product at the store (3D vision and touch sense), (5) Trying out products at the store (3D vision, touch sense and hearing), (6) Using the product after purchase (3D vision, touch sense, and hearing). At the end of the experiment, participants were interviewed to understand the possible reasons of expectation disconfirmation between different shopping stages.

Multivariate analysis of variance was first conducted to find out the consumption stages with expectation disconfirmation. Besides, principal component analysis was further employed to define the representative adjectives that affect the disconfirmation in consumer satisfaction and purchase intention. Moreover, through the use of Quantification Theory Type I, the relationship between design parameters and subjective feelings were identified to find out the possible reasons of expectation disconfirmation, so as to help contribute to the better design. The results showed that when consumers buy the computer mouse through the Internet, their feelings about "unmaneuverable - maneuverable" and " not lightweight - lightweight" of the mouse are more likely to fall after the actual use. When browsing 2D pictures online, consumers prefer the mouse with rubber matte finish which conveys the feelings of "comfortable,""ergonomic," and "covering." When the consumer sees the mouse in the store and buys it directly, their feelings about "low noise with unclear feedback – non-low noise with clear feedback," "neither lightweight nor portable - lightweight and portable," and "uncomfortable and hard to hold - comfortable and easy to hold" of the mouse are more likely to fall after the actual use. In this situation, consumers prefer the mouse with smooth and glossy material that conveys the feelings of "lightweight and portable" and "easy to control," or the mouse with rubber matte finish that conveys the feeling of "comfortable and ergonomic." Finally, if the consumer buys the mouse in the store after trying it out, their feelings about "unmaneuverable – maneuverable,""uncomfortable and hard to hold - comfortable and easy to hold," and "without feedback and bad handling - with feedback and good handling" of the mouse are more likely to fall after actual use. In this situation, consumers prefer the mouse with smooth and glossy material that conveys the feelings of "glossy and lightweight" and "easy to control," or the mouse with rubber matte finish that conveys the feeling of "easy to hold."

Therefore, this study suggests that when selling a mouse online, text or video descriptions are necessary, so as to allow consumers to obtain more information about product features and its weight, as well as effectively reducing the expectation disconfirmation. It is also important to focus on the feeling of "comfort,""ergonomic," and "covering" of the mouse. It is recommended that manufacturers could include the mouse of rubber matte finish to attract more consumers. When selling a mouse in a store, it is important for consumers to know more about the product information related to tactile and auditory feedback, so as to reduce the expectation disconfirmation. In addition, it was found that a period of computer operation with the mouse allows consumers to fully understand its characteristic of button sound, feedback, and performance, especially when selling silent mouse. On the other hand, when selling non-silent mouse, the task of providing continuous click operations should be avoided to prevent consumers from being dissatisfied. Moreover, this study found that regardless of the consumption stage, the mouse with smooth and glossy material better conveys the feelings of "lightweight" and "easy to control", while the mouse with rubber matte finish better conveys the feelings of "comfort," " ergonomic,” and "easy to hold". Therefore, manufacturers can design mouse based on the results of this research for consumer with different needs, as well as effectively increasing the sales volume and enhancing consumers' positive feelings towards the brand.

目錄
摘要·········································································································· 2
一、緒論 ··································································································14
1.1 研究背景與動機...................................................................................................... 14
1.2 研究目的與範圍...................................................................................................... 16
1.3 研究架構與流程...................................................................................................... 17
二、文獻探討 ····························································································22
2.1 消費者行為............................................................................................................... 22
2.1.1 購物前……………………………………………………………………….22
2.1.2 購物中……………………………………………………………………….23
2.1.3 購物後……………………………………………………………………….27
2.2 消費者滿意度與期望失驗....................................................................................... 27
2.3 感性工學................................................................................................................... 28
2.3.1 主成分分析………………………………………………………………….31
2.3.2 數量化理論一類…………………………………………………………….32
2.4 研究標的物之選擇與相關的感性、滿意度研究發現........................................... 33
2.5 小結........................................................................................................................... 34
三、問卷設計 ····························································································35
3.1 第一部分：消費者對於滑鼠的初始期望（購物前）........................................... 35
3.2 第二部分：滑鼠之形容詞彙調查（購物中）....................................................... 38
3.2.1 形容詞彙蒐集與初篩………………………………………………………..39
3.2.2 相近詞彙篩選（網路問卷調查）…………………………………………..43
3.2.3 重要詞彙篩選（專家問卷調查）…………………………………………..46
3.3 第三部分：消費者的滿意度與購買意願（購物後）........................................... 48
3.4 正式問卷製作........................................................................................................... 49
3.5 小結........................................................................................................................... 50
四、互動實驗之設計 ···················································································52
4.1 滑鼠樣本之蒐集、篩選與製作............................................................................... 52
4.2 研究參與者............................................................................................................... 54
4.3 研究參與者之任務與實驗流程............................................................................... 57
4.4 資料蒐集與分析....................................................................................................... 65
五、研究結果 ····························································································69
5.1 研究參與者基本資料............................................................................................... 69
5.2 影響消費者滿意度與購買意願的因子................................................................... 71
5.2.1 交互作用……………………………………………………………………..73
5.2.2 滑鼠顏色影響………………………………………………………………..75
5.2.3 消費階段影響………………………………………………………………..75
7
5.2.4 滑鼠材質影響………………………………………………………………..79
5.2.5 滑鼠按鍵聲音影響…………………………………………………………..81
5.2.6 小結…………………………………………………………………………..81
5.3 影響期望落差產生的產品語意與設計參數（同一樣本的階段間比較）........... 81
5.3.1 階段一vs. 階段六…………………………………………………………. 81
5.3.2 階段三vs. 階段六…………………………………………………………. 84
5.3.3 階段五vs. 階段六…………………………………………………………. 88
5.3.4 小結…………………………………………………………………………..91
5.4 影響消費者滿意度與購買意願的產品語意與設計參數（同一階段的樣本間比
較）.......................................................................................................................... 92
5.4.1 階段一………………………………………………………………………..92
5.4.2 階段二………………………………………………………………………..95
5.4.3 階段三………………………………………………………………………..97
5.4.4 階段四………………………………………………………………………100
5.4.5 階段五………………………………………………………………………103
5.4.6 階段六………………………………………………………………………106
5.4.7 小結…………………………………………………………………………109
5.5 小結......................................................................................................................... 110
六、討論 ·································································································112
6.1 期望落差的原因與改善建議................................................................................. 112
6.1.1 網路購物的期望落差（看到產品圖片就直接購買）……………………113
6.1.2 實體銷售通路的期望落差（到現場看到產品就直接購買）……………117
6.1.3 實體銷售通路的期望落差（到現場體驗產品後購買）…………………123
6.1.4 小結…………………………………………………………………………126
6.2 影響消費者滿意度與購買意願的產品語意與設計參數..................................... 127
6.2.1 網路購物情境（階段一與階段二）………………………………………127
6.2.2 現場瀏覽產品情境（階段三、階段四）…………………………………129
6.2.3 現場試用與購後實際使用情境（階段五、階段六）……………………130
6.2.4 小結…………………………………………………………………………131
6.3 不同習慣與偏好的研究參與者在消費情境中的期望落差................................. 131
6.3.1 滑鼠使用與購買習慣不同的研究參與者…………………………………131
6.3.2 滑鼠設計參數偏好不同的研究參與者……………………………………133
6.3.3 小結…………………………………………………………………………135
七、結論 ································································································136
7.1 主要發現................................................................................................................. 136
7.1.1 不同消費情境下的行銷策略………………………………………………136
7.1.2 滑鼠設計策略………………………………………………………………140
7.2 研究貢獻與應用..................................................................................................... 141
8
7.3 研究限制與未來方向............................................................................................. 142
參考文獻 ································································································144
附錄一、滑鼠意象辭彙調查 ········································································150
附錄二、專家語彙篩選問卷 ········································································159
附錄三、正式問卷（階段三～階段六） ·························································164
附錄四、正式問卷（階段一、階段二） ·························································166
附錄五、實驗說明書·················································································168
附錄六、研究倫理審查核可證明··································································169

參考文獻

中文部分

1. 行政院消費者保護會-消保處新聞稿（2017）。網路交易消費糾紛案件大公開！取自https://www.cpc.ey.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=3840722B002ADEAB&s=C8426A8E459D6314
2. 壹讀（2016）。衣物鞋帽網購退貨率齊升美國零售商喜憂參半。取自https://read01.com/zh-tw/oONEA6.html#.W3LKvegzbIU
3. 別再「強迫左撇子寶寶」改成使用右手，矯正慣用手會留下可怕的3大後遺症！（2017）。取自https://www.bomb01.com/article/35831
4. 白燦星（2010）。以情感設計為觀點探討隨身碟之材質運用。國立臺灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文。
5. 王茂駿、王明揚、林昱呈（2002）。台灣地區人體計測資料庫手冊。
6. 王振琤、李穎杰（2006）。灰關聯分析法輔助設計方案評價模式之建構。設計學研究。43-62。
7. 吳宜達（2016）。利用頭部追蹤建構耳機虛擬音場。國立臺北科技大學資訊工程學系學位論文。
8. 吳柏增（2005）。使用者對滑鼠塗裝質感之認知研究。國立台灣科技大學設計研究所學位論文。
9. 呂明泉（2002）。觸覺與視覺對意象差異研究－以塑膠材質咬花為例。成功大學工業設計學系學位論文。
10. 林建煌（2016）。消费者行为。北京大学出版社。
11. 林惠玲、陳正昌（2003）。統計學。台北：雙葉。
12. 長町三生（1989）。感性工學。日本東京都：海文堂出版株式會社。.
13. 張魁峯（2016）。消費者行為學。台北：五南。
14. 張輝煌（1989）。多變量分析：台北：建興出版社。
15. 張鴻（2016）。嗅覺行銷 打造品牌的專屬味道。貿易雜誌。
16. 陳雯莉（2016）。熟齡女性消費者對於胸罩設計偏好之調查研究。清華大學工業工程與工程管理學系學位論文。
17. 陳安君（2010）。產品視觸覺複合之感性意象研究。成功大學工業設計學系學位論文。
18. 潘保元（2013）。感性工學應用於吹風機外型設計之研究。高雄應用科技大學工業工程與管理系學位論文。
19. 賴惠鈴、高橋朗（2008）。五感行銷：搏感情，說故事，未來行銷都得這麼做。台北：漫遊者文化（原書：高橋朗 [2007]《五感マーケティング》）。
20. 戴芳芳（2011）。形狀統計分析於產品設計之應用－以滑鼠設計為例。東海大學工業設計學系學位論文。
21. 鍾霓（2007）五感的時代－視，聽，嗅，味，觸覺的消費社會學。台北市：中衛發展中心。第 1-366 頁。
22. 蔡承諭（2004）。視、觸覺之形態與材質對產品意象影響研究。國立雲林科技大學工業設計系碩士班碩士論文。


英文部分

1. Anderson, E. W. & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms. Marketing science, 12(2), 125-143.
2. Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. The Journal of marketing, 53-66.
3. Bearden, W. O. & Teel, J. E. (1983). Selected determinants of consumer satisfaction and complaint reports. Journal of marketing research, 21-28.
4. Baron-Cohen, S. (1996). Is there a normal phase of synaesthesia in development. Psyche, 2(27), 223-228.
5. Blodgett, J. G., & Anderson, R. D. (2000). A Bayesian network model of the consumer complaint process. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 321-338.
6. Bednarz, M. & Ponder, N. (2010). Perceptions of retail convenience for in-store and online shoppers. Marketing Management Journal, 20(1), 49-65.
7. Churchill Jr., G. A. & Surprenant, C. (1982). An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction. Journal of marketing research, 19(4), 491-504.
8. Coleman, C. Y. & Blackmon, D. A. (1999). Retailers Strive for Shopping Synergy. The Wall Street Journal, B1.
9. Cytowic, R. E. (2002). Synesthesia: A union of the senses. MIT press.
10. Citrin, A. V., Stem Jr., D. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Clark, M. J. (2003). Consumer need for tactile input: An internet retailing challenge. Journal of Business research, 56(11), 915-922.
11. Dhar, R., Nowlis, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (1999). Comparison effects on preference construction. Journal of consumer research, 26(3), 293-306.
12. Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. V. (1975). Unmasking the face Englewood Cliffs. Spectrum-Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
13. Fukushima, K. & Miyake, S. (1982). Neocognitron: A self-organizing neural network model for a mechanism of visual pattern recognition Competition and cooperation in neural nets (pp. 267-285): Springer.
14. Fortmann‐Roe, S. (2013). Effects of hue, saturation, and brightness on color preference in social networks: Gender‐based color preference on the social networking site Twitter. Color research & application, 38(3), 196-202.
15. Howard, J. A. & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York, 63.
16. Howard, J. A. (1977). Consumer behavior: Application of theory (Vol. 325): McGraw-Hill New York.
17. ISO 7730: 2005. Ergonomics of the thermal environment-Analytical determination and interpretation of thermal comfort using calculation of the PMV and PPD indices and local thermal comfort criteria.
18. Johnson, M. D. & Fornell, C. (1991). A framework for comparing customer satisfaction across individuals and product categories. Journal of economic psychology, 12(2), 267-286.
19. Kaya, N. & Epps, H. H. (2004). Relationship between color and emotion: A study of college students. College Student J, 38(3), 396.
20. Keller, A., Marino.R., & Wallace, D. (2016). The Physics of Brand: Understand the Forces Behind Brands That Matter: How Design Books.
21. Knöferle, K. (2012). Using customer insights to improve product sound design. Marketing Review St. Gallen, 29(2), 47-53.
22. Kotler, P. & Keller, K. L. (2013). A framework for marketing management: Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ.
23. Lindstrom, M. (2006). Brand sense: How to build powerful brands through touch, taste, smell, sight and sound. Strategic Direction, 22(2).
24. Ludden, G. D., Schifferstein, H. N., & Hekkert, P. (2009). Visual–tactual incongruities in products as sources of surprise. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27(1), 61-87.
25. Matsubara, Y. & Nagamachi, M. (1997). Hybrid Kansei engineering system and design support. International Journal of industrial ergonomics, 19(2), 81-92.
26. McCabe, D. B. & Nowlis, S. M. (2003). The effect of examining actual products or product descriptions on consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 431-439.
27. Nagamachi, M. (1995). Kansei engineering: a new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development. International Journal of industrial ergonomics, 15(1), 3-11.
28. Nagamachi, M. (2011). Kansei/affective engineering and history of kansei/affective engineering in the world. Kansei/Affective Engineering, 13, 1-12.
29. Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of marketing research, 460-469.
30. Oliver, R. L. & Winer, R. S. (1987). A framework for the formation and structure of consumer expectations: Review and propositions. Journal of economic psychology, 8(4), 469-499.
31. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning: Aldine publishing company, Chicago.
32. O'Regan, J. K. & Noë, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and brain sciences, 24(5), 939-973.
33. Pearson, K. (1901). On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 2(11), 559-572.
34. Rust, R. T. & Oliver, R. L. (2000). Should we delight the customer?. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 86.
35. Sagoff, M. (1994). Should preferences count? Land Economics,70, 127-144.
36. Schifferstein, H. N. (2006). The perceived importance of sensory modalities in product usage: A study of self-reports. Acta psychologica, 121(1), 41-64.
37. Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges. Journal of marketing, 66(1), 15-37.
38. Solomon, M. R., Dahl, D. W., White, K., Zaichkowsky, J. L., & Polegato, R. (2014). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being (Vol. 10): Pearson London.
39. Swan, J. E. & Combs, L. J. (1976). Product performance and consumer satisfaction: A new concept. Journal of marketing, 40(2), 25-33.
40. Szymanski, D. M. & Henard, D. H. (2001). Customer satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 29(1), 16.
41. Venkatesh, V. & Goyal, S. (2010). Expectation disconfirmation and technology adoption: polynomial modeling and response surface analysis. MIS quarterly, 281-303.
42. Wodsworth, R. H. (1983). Basics of audio and visual system design.: National Audio-visual Association.
43. Yamamoto, K. (1986). Kansei engineering: The art of automotive development at Mazda. Special Lecture at The University of Michigan.

44. Yi, Y. (1993). The determinants of consumer satisfaction: the moderating role of ambiguity. ACR North American Advances, 20, 502–506.