日常生活中時常會有將產品購買回家使用後發現「產品的真實體驗與當初的期待不一致」之期望落差，為了探討其發生的原因並找出解決方法，本研究假設選購時之產品互動體驗與真實使用之間可能存在感官主導性的差異，也因而造成期望落差，若能改善體驗情境以確保感官主導性與真實使用時一致，便有機會避免期望落差。
本研究選定互動體驗涵蓋視、觸、聽、嗅等感官知覺之保溫瓶為標的產品，首先觀察7位保溫瓶使用者的日常使用行為，藉以設計出一個符合真實使用狀況的產品選購互動體驗情境。為了分析產品選購互動體驗情境及真實使用情境下的感官主導性，本研究設計一份感官重要性問卷，調查視、觸、聽、嗅等四種感官知覺在產品體驗上的相對重要性，藉以獲得排序及量化比較的結果。此外，亦透過感性工學研究中常用的雙極語意差異量表比較產品選購互動體驗情境與真實使用情境間的滿意度差異，以確認是否存在期望落差；量表中另有30組描述使用感受的雙極感性語彙及一組反映購買意願的成對形容詞，用以了解使用者的主觀感受與感官主導性及期望落差間的關係。本研究共招募29名具有保溫瓶使用經驗的參與者，每位參與者需在實驗室內先模擬傳統實體通路之互動體驗情境，間隔三週後再返回實驗室進行本研究提出的新穎互動體驗情境；完成兩種選購互動體驗後，參與者再將產品帶回家中連續使用四週，期間在每週結束時皆需回覆前述之問卷，並於四週結束後返回實驗室接受訪談。
完成資料的蒐集後，首先運用單因子變異數分析與Tukey事後檢定分析找出主導感官，倘若任一選購互動體驗情境與真實使用之主導感官不同，代表該互動體驗情境與真實使用有感官主導性的差異；此外，亦透過成對樣本t檢定分析兩種選購互動體驗的滿意度是否分別與真實使用的滿意度有顯著差異，若有即代表存在期望落差。結果顯示，雖傳統的產品選購互動體驗與真實使用間存在感官主導性變化，但並未因此而產生期望落差；而改善後的產品選購互動體驗之感官主導性與真實使用時一致，也同樣無期望落差。由此可見，研究的假設並未完全成立，因此尚無法說明維持感官主導性可避免期望落差。雖然感官主導性的變化並不至於造成期望落差，但根據真實使用四週後的訪談結果，多數參與者（93%）有意識到真實使用後感官主導性的變化，且選購時認為不太重要的感官也隨著使用時間的增長而漸顯重要，根據訪談結果亦發現選購體驗到真實使用之間的自覺感官主導性變化確實會衍生自覺的期望落差；此外，從滿意度與購買意願這兩項指標來看，自覺有期望落差者的滿意度與購買意願都明顯低於自覺無期望落差者（p-value=0.008；p-value=0.011），因此本研究認為「藉由改善消費者於產品選購時的互動體驗內容，使購買前的感官主導性與購買後之真實使用時一致」依然有其必要性。
此外，透過驗證實驗也找出影響滿意度及購買意願的感性語彙，共有7組代表保溫瓶核心的感官意象，當使用感受偏向「好攜帶的」、「小巧的」、「好操作的」、「輕巧的」、「手感舒適的」、「不燙手的」、「好拿的」，便可預期會有較高的滿意度與購買意願，因此進一步將這些感受連結至對應的互動體驗內容，提供廠商未來在設計產品選購互動體驗之參考，另亦針對消費者性別、保溫瓶使用經驗等個人差異探討需客製化的重要感官體驗。簡言之，若要針對所有使用者設計一般性的選購互動體驗，建議優先考量外觀、重量感受、握持感受、功能設計、構造、氣味、喝水感受、轉蓋子的聲音等互動體驗；若要為女性使用者客製化設計選購互動體驗，需額外針對「塑膠味的-無塑膠味的」、「溢口的-防溢口的」這兩組感官意象補充氣味、喝水感受的互動體驗；若要為男性使用者客製化設計選購互動體驗，需額外針對「塑膠味的-無塑膠味的」、「稜角的-圓潤的」、「剛毅的-柔美的」、「寬身的-窄身的」這四組感官意象補充氣味、外觀的互動體驗；若要為使用經驗為1~5年的保溫瓶使用者客製化設計選購互動體驗，需額外針對「非無聲的-無聲的」這組感官意象補充轉蓋子時聲音的互動體驗。

In our daily life, expectation disconfirmation due to the discrepancy between pre-purchase and post purchase evaluation occurs commonly. In order to explore the reasons behind as well as finding a suitable solution, it was hypothesized that the change of sensory dominance between experiences during purchase and real use might lead to expectation disconfirmation. If the experience scenario during purchase can be better designed to ensure that the sensory dominance is consistent with the real use, there is a chance to avoid expectation disconfirmation.
In this study, the tumbler was chosen as the target product since the user’s interaction with it involves vision, hearing, sense of touch, smell. The first step is to investigate the daily use behavior of 7 tumbler users to design a new user-product interaction doing purchase which is close to real use. In order to identify sensory dominance in user-product interaction during purchase and real use, a questionnaire of sensory importance was designed to investigate the relative importance of the sensory modalities and hence quantify the priority of sensory modalities. In addition, to confirm whether there is expectation disconfirmation, semantic differential scales commonly used in kansei engineering was used to compare the difference in satisfaction between user-product interaction during purchase and real use. The scales include 30 pairs of bipolar adjectives describing the experience of tumbler, along with two pairs of bipolar adjectives representing purchase intention and overall sastisfaction. 29 participants with the experience of tumbler were recruited to participate in the experiment. Each participant was asked to experience the traditional user-product interaction during purchase first. After at least three weeks he/she returned to experience the new user-product interaction during purchase. After finishing two kinds of user-product interaction during purchase, the participant took the tumbler home to use it for four weeks. During the period, participants were required to turn in the response of questionnaires at the end of each week. After finishing 4-week real use, the participant returned to have an final interview.
One-way ANOVA and Tukey's test for post-hoc analysis was conducted to find out the dominant sense. If the dominant sense in any scenario of user-product interaction during purchase is different from that of real use, there is a difference in sensory dominance in between. Moreover, the paired-t test was conducted to analyze the difference of satisfaction between user-product interaction during purchase and real use. If there is a significant difference, expectation disconfirmation exists. The result showed that the dominant sense has changed from traditional user-product interaction during purchase to real use, but it did not lead to expectation disconfirmation. Besides, the dominant sense hasn’t changed from improved user-product interaction during purchase to real use, but there was no expectation disconfirmation as well. This shows that it is not yet ready to prove the hypothesis.In other words, there is no sufficient evidence that ensuring consistent sensory dominance in pre-purchase with real use can avoid expectation disconfirmation. Nevertheless, the analysis results of interviews somehow supports the need for doing so. Most participants (93%) were aware of the changes in sensory dominance after real use, and the sensory modalities that were considered less important during purchase also became more important over time. Also, participants who were aware of the changes in sensory dominance after real use also noticed the existence of expectation disconfirmation. From the perspective of satisfaction, those who were aware of expectation disconfirmation had a significantly lower level of satisfaction than those who did not notice the expectation disconfirmation.
In addition, the feelings that affects satisfaction and purchase intention were also identified by the experiment. There are 7 pairs of bipolar adjectives representing the main sensory image of a tumbler. While using the tumbler, if there is a stronger feeling toward "easy to carry", "small", "easy to operate", "light-weight", "comfortable", "not scalding", "easy to handle", a higher level of satisfaction and purchase intention would be expected. Thus, these feelings were futher connected with corresponding user-product interaction during purchase to provide suggestions for companies. According to the individual differences of consumers, such as gender and experience of use, the user-product interactive can be customized. In brief, it’s recommended to give priority to product appearance, weight, the feeling of holding, function design, structure, smelling, the feeling of drinking, and the sound of twisting the lid for general users. As for females, priority should be given to smelling and the feeling of drinking to help emphasize the evaluation of '' with the smell of plastic - without the smell of plastic '' and ''leaking- not leaking''. As for females, priority should be given to appearance and the feeling of drinking to help emphasize the evaluation of '' with the smell of plastic - without the smell of plastic '', "angular - rounded", "masculine - feminine ", and "wide-skinny''. Finally, it’s recommended to give priority to the sound of twisting the lid to help emphasize the evaluation of ''not soundless - soundless'' for tumbler users with the experience of 1~5 years.

摘要 I
Abstract III
目錄 V
表目錄 VIII
圖目錄 XI
一、緒論 1
1.1研究背景與動機 1
1.2研究目的與範圍 4
1.3研究架構與流程 5
二、文獻回顧 12
2.1標的產品之挑選與分析 12
2.1.1標的產品：保溫瓶 12
2.1.2保溫瓶設計與市場調查 13
2.2期望失驗理論 15
2.2.1刺激豐富度與刺激強度 16
2.2.2感官主導性 16
2.3感官主導性研究的應用 17
2.3.1感官主導性研究方法與實驗設計 18
2.3.2感官重要性的分析方法 18
2.4產品體驗內容的調查方法 20
2.4.1人物誌（persona） 20
2.4.2使用者旅程圖（user journey map） 21
2.4.3觀察研究法（observation survey） 22
2.5感性工學 22
2.6小結….. 24
三、研究規畫與準備 25
3.1標的產品選定 25
3.2產品選購之互動體驗情境設計 26
3.2.1使用習慣調查 26
3.2.2使用習慣分析結果 29
3.3語意差異量表製作 31
3.3.1形容詞彙收集與內部篩選 32
3.3.2相近詞彙篩選（網路問卷調查） 33
3.3.3重要詞彙篩選（網路問卷調查） 35
3.3.4正式問卷製作 37
3.4形容詞-感官對照表 39
3.5感官重要性問卷 40
3.6小結….. 41
四、驗證實驗 42
4.1研究參與者 42
4.2實驗設計 42
4.2.1傳統的產品選購互動體驗情境 45
4.2.2改善後之產品選購互動體驗情境 46
4.2.3真實使用 50
4.2.4使用後訪談 50
4.3資料分析 51
4.3.1階段一：檢驗產品選購互動體驗情境與真實使用之感官主導性的差異 52
4.3.2階段二：檢驗產品選購情境與真實使用之間是否有期望落差 54
4.3.3階段三：篩選保留關鍵的感性語彙 55
4.3.4階段四：決定改善互動體驗內容之優先性 57
4.4前測結果 60
五、研究結果 61
5.1產品選購互動體驗情境與真實使用之感官主導性差異 61
5.1.1傳統的產品選購互動體驗情境 vs. 真實使用 61
5.1.2改善後產品選購互動體驗情境 vs. 真實使用 62
5.2產品選購情境與真實使用之間的期望落差 64
5.2.1傳統的產品選購互動體驗情境 vs. 真實使用 64
5.2.2改善後產品選購互動體驗情境 vs. 真實使用 65
5.2.3小結 66
5.3影響消費者滿意度與購買意願之感官意象與感官體驗 66
5.3.1篩選保留關鍵的感性語彙 67
5.3.2決定改善互動體驗內容之優先性 74
六、討論 77
6.1感官主導性 77
6.1.1感官重要性排序的策略 77
6.1.2感官主導性造成的影響 82
6.1.3小結 84
6.2期望落差 85
6.2.1影響期望落差的原因 85
6.2.2滿意度、購買意願與消費行為傾向的關係 88
6.2.3小結 91
6.3重要的感官體驗與選購互動體驗設計 91
6.3.1重要的感官體驗 91
6.3.2性別的影響 94
6.3.3使用經驗的影響 97
6.3.4小結 98
6.4互動體驗情境設計建議 99
七、結論 103
7.1主要發現 103
7.2研究貢獻與相關應用 105
7.3研究限制與未來方向 107
參考文獻 109
附錄一、相近詞彙篩選問卷 113
附錄二、重要辭彙篩選問卷 117
附錄三、正式問卷 126
附錄四、國立清華大學研究倫理委員會審查核可說明書 133

中文部分：
1.牛窪恵（2020）。銷量超過預期25倍的小水瓶“Pokettle”原因為注意到通勤女性的需求。取自https://president.jp/articles/-/32755
2.任德荣（1999）。新型保温容器-不锈钢保温瓶。空电子技术，(5)，頁56-60
3.行政院環境保護署（2015）。環保標章保溫杯在臺銷售破200萬個。環保政策月刊，18(8)，頁5-6。
4.行政院消費者保護會（2020）。108年度受理消費者申訴案件統計報告。取自https://cpc.ey.gov.tw/Page/42F38F19BFB7AB5F/5544abfc-e4bb-47a6-a22a-cb6de2470f38
5.佐藤千尋（2019）。「極小的水瓶」出乎意料暢銷的理由。取自https://toyokeizai.net/articles/-/319745
6.何俊亨、陳乃鳳（2013）。以榨汁機的使用來探討前期產品經驗中感官之重要度。感性學報，1(1)，頁46-63。
7.林喬慧（2020年2月）。膳魔師靠場景行銷72變 業績8年狂翻4倍，商業週刊，1684，頁85-87
8.林尚平、陳怡安（2001）。遊樂區員工情緒勞務及社會歷程之質性研究。商管科技季刊，2(3)，頁319-343。
9.張秋麗、鄒海月（2001）。腎臓移植病患急性排斥期心理壓力及其適應過程之探討。腎臟與透析，13(2)，頁101-108。
10.野村順一（1998）。商品色彩論。東京：千倉書房。
11.楊于瑄（2019）。探討消費流程中的期望落差與產品設計參數對消費者主官偏好之影響：以滑鼠為例。清華大學工業工程與工程管理學系碩士學位論文。
12.蔡保田（1987）。教育研究方法論。中國教育學會。師大書苑。
英文部分:
1.Bearden, W.O. & Teel, J.E. (1983). Selected determinants of consumer satisfaction and complaint reports, Journal of Marketing Research, 20(February), 21-28.
2.Canon, L.K. (1970). Intermodality inconsistency of input and directed attention as determinants of the nature of adaptation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 84, 141-147.
3.Cronin, J. J., Jr. & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55-68.
4.Christopher W. N. & Anna L. W. (2005). Grip strength and endurance: Influences of anthropometric variation, hand dominance, and gender, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35(7), 605-618.
5.Day, R. L. (1980). Research perspectives on consumer complaining behavior, In Theoretical Developments in Marketing, Carles Bamb and Patrick Dunne, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 211-215.
6.Day, R.L. & Landon, E.L. (1977) Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior. North-Holland, New York, 426-437.
7.Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H. N. J.,& Hekkert, P. (2010). Shifts in sensory dominance between various stages of user–product interactions. Applied Ergonomics, 41(1), 34-40.
8.Freides, D. (1974). Human information processing and sensory modality: cross-modal functions information complexity, memory, and deficit. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 284-310.
9.Fulkerson, M. (2014). Rethinking the senses and their interactions: The case for sensory pluralism. Frontiers in Psychology , 5(1426),1-14.
10.Herz, R.S. (1998). An examination of objective and subjective measures of experience associated to odors, music, and paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts 16 (2),137-152.
11.Hart, C. W., Heskett, J. L., &. Sasser, W. E. (1990), “The Profitable Art of Service Recovery.” Harvard Business Review, 66, No.4, 148-56.
12.Howard, J. A. & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York, 63.
13.Jin, Y. & Su, M. (2009). Recommendation and repurchase intention thresholds: A joint heterogeneity response estimation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(3), 245-255.
14.Kelso, J.A.S., Cook, E., Olson, M.E., & Epstein, W. (1975). Allocation of attention and the locus of adaptation to displaced vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 237–245.
15.Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. J., & Reed, C. (1987). There’s more to touch than meets the eye: the salience of object attributes for haptics with and without vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 356-369.
16.Lederman, S.J., Summers, C., & Klatzky, R.L. (1996). Cognitive salience of haptic object properties: role of modality-encoding bias. Perception, 25, 983-998.
17.Lindstrom, M. (2005). Broad sensory branding, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(2), 84-87.
18.Mugge, R., Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Schoormans, J.P.L. (2004). Personalizing product appearance:the effect on product attachment. In: A. Kurtgözü (Ed.) 4th International Conference on Design and Emotion, Ankara, Turkey.
19.Nagamachi, M. (1995). Kansei engineering: a new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15(1), 3-11
20.Nagamachi, M. (2011). Kansei/affective engineering and history of kansei/affective engineering in the world. Kansei/affective Engineering, 13, 1-12
21.Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 460-469.
22.Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning: Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.
23.Posner, M.I., Nissen, M.J., & Klein, R.M. (1976). Visual dominance: an information-processing account of its origins and significance. Psychological Review, 83, 157-171.
24.Pick, H. L., Warren, D. H., & Hay, J. C. (1969). Sensory conflict in judgments of spatial direction. Perception & Psychophysics, 6, 203-205.
25.Rock, I. & Victor, J. (1964). Vision and touch: An experimentally created conflict between the two senses. Science, 143, 594-596.
26.Storbacka, K., Strandvik, T., and Grönroos, C. (1994). Managing Customer Relationships for Profit: The Dynamics of Relationship Quality. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5(5), 21-38.
27.Peterson, M., Gröne, F., Kammer, K., and Kirscheneder, J. (2010). Multi-channel customer management: delighting consumers, driving efficiency. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 12(1), 10-15.
28.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
29.Soderlund, M. & Ohman, N. (2003). Behavioral intentions in satisfaction research revisited. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 16, 53.
30.Schifferstein, H.N.J. (2006). The relative importance of sensory modalities in product usage: a study of self-reports. Acta Psychologica. 121, 41–64.
31.Schifferstein, H.N.J. & Desmet, P.M.A. (2007). The effect of sensory impairments on product experience and personal well-being. Ergonomics, 50, 2026-2048.
32.Schifferstein, H. N. J. & Spence, C. (2008). Multisensory product experience. In H. N. J.Schifferstein & P. Helkkert (Eds), Product Experience (Vol5): Elsevier Ltd.
33.Schifferstein, H.N.J. & Zwartkruis‐Pelgrim, E.P.H. (2008). Consumer‐product attachment: measurement and design implications. International Journal of Design 2, 1‐13.
34.Schifferstein, H. N. J., Otten, J. J., Thoolen, F., & Hekkert, P. (2010). The experimental assessment of sensory dominance in a product development context. Journal of Design Research, 8(2), 119-144.
35.Stilma, M. (2010). Product design and gender as example of a research based styling master course. In M. C. Ion, W. Boks, C. (Ed.), Proceedings of The 12th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education. 522-527. The Design Society.
36.Solomon, M. R., Dahl, D. W., White, K., Zaichkowsky, J. L., & Polegato, R. (2014). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being (Vol. 10): Person London
37.Vigripat, T. & Chan, P. (2007). An empirical investigation of the relationship between service quality, brand Image, trust, customer satisfaction, repurchase intention and recommendation to others. International DSI/Asia and Pacific DSI.
38.Welch, R.B. & Warren, D.H. (1980). Immediate perceptual response to intersensory discrepancy. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 638-667.
39.Welch, R.B., Widawski, M.H., Harrington, J., & Warren, D.H. (1979). An examination of the relationship between visual capture and prism adaptation. Perception and Psychophysics, 25, 126–132.
40.Wodsworth, R. H. (1983). Basics of audio and visual system design.: National Audio-visual Association.
41.Yi, Y. & La, S.(2004).What Influences the Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and Repurchase Intention? Investigating the Effects of Adjusted Expectations and Customer Loyalty, Psychology and Marketing, 21(5), 351-373.