灰姑娘效應是近年來常用的品牌行銷策略，品牌透過展現其在創業初期資源匱乏但不屈不撓的精神鼓舞消費者。過去相關之研究多聚焦於「為自己購買」的情境，以及購物任務情境對消費選擇之影響。本研究旨在探討自我建構對消費者品牌偏好之影響，並探究品牌傳記與購物任務情境之調節作用。本研究共包含2個實驗，實驗一包含266位受試者，隨機分配至4個實驗組，實驗二包含279位受試者，隨機分配至8個實驗組。研究取得的結果顯示：（1）相較於一帆風順品牌，獨立我消費者對於灰姑娘品牌有更強的品牌偏好；但相較於灰姑娘品牌，相依我消費者對於一帆風順品牌有更強的品牌偏好；（2）在「為自己購買」情境下，相較於一帆風順品消費者對於灰姑娘品牌有更強的品牌偏好；但「幫他人購買」情境下，相較於灰姑娘品牌消費者對於一帆風順品牌有更強的品牌偏好；（3）在「為自己購買」情境下，相較於一帆風順品牌，獨立我消費者對灰姑娘品牌有更強的品牌偏好；在「幫他人購買」情境下，獨立我消費者對灰姑娘品牌與一帆風順品牌之品牌偏好無顯著差異；在「幫他人購買」情境下，相較於灰姑娘品牌，相依我消費者對一帆風順品牌有更強的品牌偏好。

The underdog effect has been commonly used as an efficient brand marketing strategy in recent years. The brand encourages consumers by showing its indomitable spirit of lacking resources during the beginning of entrepreneurship.The existing literature and research projects mainly focus on the scenario of "buying for self", and the impact of shopping task scenario on consumption choice. This study aims to explore the moderating roles of brand biographies and shopping task in the impact of self-construal on brand preferences.This research includes two experiments. A total of 266 subjects in Experiment 1 was randomly assigned to four experimental groups. A total of 279 subjects in Experiment 2 was randomly assigned to 8 experimental groups. The results of the study highlighted that: (1) Compared with the top dog brand, independent-self consumers have stronger brand preference for the underdog brand; however, compared with the underdog brand, the interdependent-self consumers have stronger brand preference for the top dog brand; (2) In the context of “buying for self”, consumers have stronger brand preference for the underdog brand than the top dog brand; however, in the context of “buying for others”, consumers have stronger brand preference for the top dog brand than the underdog brand; (3) In the context of "buying for self", independent-self consumers have stronger brand preference for the underdog brand than the top dog brand; in the context of "buying for others", independent-self consumers have no differential brand preference of the underdog brand over the top dog brand. While in the context of "buying for others", the interdependent-self consumers have stronger brand preference for the top dog brand than the underdog brand.

第一章 緒論 1
1.1研究背景與動機 1
1.2研究目的 3
1.3研究範圍 4
第二章 文獻探討 5
2.1品牌偏好（Brand Preference） 5
2.1.1品牌偏好的定義 5
2.1.2品牌偏好與消費者決策 5
2.2 品牌傳記（Brand Biographies） 6
2.2.1 品牌傳記定義 6
2.2.1 灰姑娘效應與行銷 6
2.3自我建構（Self-Construal） 8
2.3.1自我建構定義 8
2.3.2自我建構的測量與操弄 8
2.3.3自我建構與品牌傳記 10
2.4購物任務情境（Shopping Task） 11
2.5自我建構、購物任務情境與品牌傳記 14
第三章 研究方法 16
3.1研究架構 16
3.2實驗及問卷設計 17
3.2.1實驗設計 17
3.2.2自我建構 17
3.2.3品牌傳記 18
3.2.4品牌偏好 18
第四章 數據分析 19
4.1描述性統計 19
4.2實驗一 20
4.2.1信度 20
4.2.2操弄檢定 20
4.2.3假說檢定與結果 21
4.3實驗二 28
4.3.1操弄檢定 28
4.3.2假說檢定與結果 28
第五章 討論 38
5.1綜合討論 38
5.2學術貢獻 40
5.3實務貢獻 41
5.4研究限制與建議 43
5.4.1研究限制 43
5.4.2未來研究建議 43
參考文獻 44
附錄 50

中文部分
云祥、李小平（2017）。 权力, 任务框架对自我和为他人决策时风险偏好的影响。 心理与行为研究，15(3)，417-423。
李琪、王璐瑶（2016）。基于ABC态度模型的消费者重复购买意願研究。 商业研究，(11)，17-23。
欧霞、张金海（2017）。消费前及购买中体验对感知价值的影响研究。新闻界，(3)，83-89。
高向丽（2013）。新创企业品牌偏好思路构建。企业经济，32(12)，56-59。

英文部分
Babrow, A. S., Hines, S. C., & Kasch, C. R. (1999). Managing uncertainty in illness explanation: An application of problematic integration theory. In Explaining Illness, 1, 57-84.
Beisswanger, A. H., Stone, E. R., Hupp, J. M., & Allgaier, L. (2003). Risk taking in relationships: Differences in deciding for oneself versus for a friend. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 25, 121-135.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this "we"? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83-93.
Briley, D. A., Morris, M. W., & Simonson, I. (2000). Reasons as carriers of culture: Dynamic versus dispositional models of cultural influence on decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 157-178.
Chang, C. C, Chuang, S.C., Cheng, Y. H., & Huang, T. Y. (2012). The compromise effect in choosing for others. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25, 109-122.
Chegini, F., Molan, S. B., & Kashanifar, S. S. (2016). An examination of the impact of cultural values on brand preferences in Tehran's Fashion Market. Procedia Economics and Finance, 36, 189-200.
Chuang, S. C., & Yen, R. (2007). The impact of a product’s country-of-origin on compromise & attraction effects. Marketing Letters, 18, 279-291.
Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(3), 366-375. 
Crites, S. L., Fabrigar, L. R., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 619-634.
Drolet, A., Luce, M. F., & Simonson, I. (2009). When does choice reveal preference? Moderators of heuristic versus goal-based choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 137-147.
Fazli-Salehi, R., Torres, I.M., Madadi, R. and Zúñiga, M.Á. (2021). Conspicuous consumption: impact of narcissism and need for uniqueness on self-brand and communal-brand connection with public vs private use brands. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 38(7), 802-812. 
Goldschmied, N. P., & Vandello, J. A. (2012). The future is bright: The underdog label, availability, and optimism. Basic and applied social psychology, 34(1), 34-43.
Hellier, P. K., Geursen, G. M., Carr, R. A., & Rickard, J. A. (2003). Customer repurchase intention: A general structural equation model. European Journal of Marketing, 37(11), 1762-1800.
Hoch, S. J., & Deighton, J. (1989). Managing what consumers learn from experience. Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 1-20.
Hong, J., & Chang, H. H. (2015). “I” follow my heart and “we” rely on reasons: The impact of self-construal on reliance on feelings versus reasons in decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1392-1411.
Hoyer, W. D., & Brown, S. P. (1990). Effects of brand awareness on choice for a common, repeat-purchase product. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 141-148.
Kao, D. T. (2015). Is Cinderella resurging? The impact of consumers' underdog disposition on brand preferences: Underdog brand biography and brand status as moderators. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14(5), 307-316.
Kao, D. T. (2019). The impact of envy on brand preference: Brand storytelling and psychological distance as moderators. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 28(4), 515-528.
Kao, D. T., & Wu, P. H. (2019). The impact of affective orientation on bank preference as moderated by cognitive load and brand story style. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 37(5), 1334-1349.
Kim, H. (2022). What makes consumers take risks in self–other purchase decision making? the roles of impression management and self-construal. Social Behavior and Personality, 50(2), 1-11.
Kirmani, A., Hamilton, R. W., Thompson, D. V., & Lantzy, S. (2017). Doing well versus doing good: The differential effect of underdog positioning on moral and competent service providers. Journal of Marketing, 81(1), 103-117.
Kray, L. J., & Gonzalez, R. (1999). Differential weighting in choice versus advice: I’ll do this, you do that. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 207-217.
Laran, J. (2010). Goal management in sequential choices: Consumer choices for others are more indulgent than personal choices. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 304-314.
Levine, T. R., Bresnahan, M. J., Park, H. S., Lapinski, M. K., Wittenbaum, G. M., Shearman, S. M., Lee, S. Y., Chung, D. H., Ohashi, R. (2003). Self-construal scales lack validity. Human Communication Research, 29(2) 210-252.
Li, Y., & Zhao, M. (2021). Underdog or top dog brand story? The role of self-construal and need of uniqueness. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 765802.
Lu, J., Liu, Z., & Fang, Z. (2016). Hedonic products for you, utilitarian products for me. Judgment & Decision Making, 11(4), 332-341.
Lu, L., & Gilmour, R. (2007). Developing a new measure of independent and interdependent views of the self. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 249-257.
Makgosa, R., & Mohube, K. (2007). Peer influence on young adults’ products purchase decisions. African Journal of Business Management,1(3), 64-71.
Markus, H. R., Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture & the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, & motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Martin, B., Lang, B., & Wong, S. (2003). Conclusion explicitness in advertising: The moderating role of need for cognition (NFC) & argument quality (AQ) on persuasion. Journal of Advertising, 32(4), 57-65.
Matthew Pittman, Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch, Ashley Brannan. (2022) Green Advertising on Social Media: Brand Authenticity Mediates the Effect of Different Appeals on Purchase Intent and Digital Engagement. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 43(1), 106-121.
Monga, A. B., & John, D. R. (2008). When does negative brand publicity hurt? The moderating influence of analytic versus holistic thinking. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(4) 320-332.
Mulyanegara, R. C., & Tsarenko, Y. (2009). Predicting brand preferences: An examination of the predictive power of consumer personality and values in the Australian fashion market. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 13(3), 358-371.
Neff, K. D., Harter, S. (2003). Relationship styles of self-focused autonomy, other-focused connectedness, and mutuality across multiple relationship contexts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 81-99.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture & systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2) 291-310.
Paharia, N., Keinan, A., Avery J., & Schor, J. B. (2011). The underdog effect: The marketing of disadvantage & determination through brand biography. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 775-790.
Reynolds, D. B., Joseph, J., & Sherwood, R. (2009). Risky shift versus cautious shift: determining differences in risk taking between private and public management decision-making. Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER), 7(1), 63-78.
Sheng, S., Parker, A. M., & Nakamoto, K. (2005). Underst&ing the mechanism & determinants of compromise effects. Psychology & Marketing, 22, 591-609.
Simon, H. A. (1954). Bandwagon and underdog effects and the possibility of election predictions. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 18(3), 245-253.
Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction & compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158-174.
Simonson, I., & Nowlis, S. M. (2000). The role of explanations & need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: Unconventional choices based on reasons. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 49-68.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of ininterdependent & interinterdependent self-construals. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580-591.
Spassova, G., & Lee, A. Y. (2013). Looking into the future: A match between self-view and temporal distance. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 159-171.
Stapel, D. A., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2006). The self salience model of other-to-self effects: Integrating principles of self-enhancement, complementarity, and imitation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(2), 258-271.
Stone, E. R., Yates, A., & Caruthers, A. S. (2002). Risk taking in decision making for others versus the self. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1797-1824.
Teeny, J. D., & Petty, R. E. (2018). The role of perceived attitudinal bases on spontaneous and requested advocacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 175-185.
Torelli, C. J. (2006). Individuality or conformity? The effect of independent and interdependent self-concepts on public judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(3), 240-248.
Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 649-655.
Wang, H., Fan, X., & Ouyang, J. (2017). Consumer self-construal, need of uniqueness and preference of brand logo shape. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(8), 1113-1124.
Zhang, Y., Feick, L., & Price, L. J. (2006). The impact of self-construal on aesthetic preference for angular versus rounded shapes. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(6), 794-805.