﻿ 消费者百分比差异混淆：概念、影响因素及理论解释 Consumer Confusion of Percent Differences: Concepts, Influencing Factors and Theoretical Explanations

Vol.08 No.07(2018), Article ID:26048,9 pages
10.12677/AP.2018.87120

Consumer Confusion of Percent Differences: Concepts, Influencing Factors and Theoretical Explanations

Mengqian Li1, Juwang Bao2, Lishuang Chen2*

1School of Art and Design, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan Hubei

2Department of Health Science, Wuhan Sport University, Wuhan Hubei

Received: Jul. 3rd, 2018; accepted: Jul. 16th, 2018; published: Jul. 23rd, 2018

ABSTRACT

Consumer confusion of percent differences is based on consumers’ intuitive bias toward percent differences and is a kind of misunderstanding about the price information appeared in the form of percentage. This article aims to define this phenomenon and emphasize on its influencing factors, such as mathematical ability and motivation of consumers, product price, time pressure and calculation difficulty. Furthermore, a dual-process model of reasoning and fuzzy-trace theory are employed to theoretically explain consumer confusion of percent differences. Few suggestions for the studies in the future concerning this phenomenon are addressed finally.

Keywords:Confusion of Percent Differences, Mathematical Ability, Time Pressure, Dual-Process Model of Reasoning, Fuzzy-Trace Theory

1武汉理工大学艺术与设计学院，湖北 武汉

2武汉体育学院健康科学学院，湖北 武汉

Copyright © 2018 by authors and Hans Publishers Inc.

1. 引言

2. 概念

2.1. 概念来源

2.2. 概念界定

3. 影响因素

3.1. 数学能力

3.2. 计算难度

3.3. 消费者的动机

3.4. 时间压力

3.5. 商品价格

3.6. 案例简析

4. 理论解释

4.1. 双系统作用模型

4.2. 模糊痕迹理论

5. 研究展望

Consumer Confusion of Percent Differences: Concepts, Influencing Factors and Theoretical Explanations[J]. 心理学进展, 2018, 08(07): 996-1004. https://doi.org/10.12677/AP.2018.87120

1. 1. 陈军(2009). 归因风格、时间压力对决策信息加工的影响. 心理科学, 6, 1445-1447.

2. 2. 凌喜欢, 辛自强(2014). 时间压力和产品价格对消费者百分比差异混淆的影响. 心理与行为研究, 12(1), 85-90.

3. 3. 申继亮, 陈勃, 王大华, Gi-sela, L. V., & Manfred, D. (2001). 成人期智力的年龄特征: 中美比较研究. 心理科学, 24(3), 344-345.

4. 4. 孙彦, 李纾, 殷晓莉(2007). 决策与推理的双系统——启发式系统和分析系统. 心理科学进展, 15(5), 721-726.

5. 5. 王大伟, 刘永芳(2009). 时间知觉对决策制定的时间压力效应的影响. 心理科学, 5, 1106-1108.

6. 6. 张玥, 辛自强(2015). 计算难度和知识背景对消费者百分数基数忽略的影响. 心理科学, 4, 973-978.

7. 7. 赵正洋, 赵红(2011). 国外消费者混淆研究综述. 华东经济管理, 25(4), 146-151.

8. 8. 周正, 辛自强(2012). 数学能力与决策的关系: 个体差异的视角. 心理科学进展, 20(4), 542-551.

9. 9. Behr, M. J., Post, T. R., & Wachsmuth, I. (1986). Estimation and Children’s Concept of Rational Number Size. In H. L. Schoen, & M. J. Zweng (Eds.), National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Yearbook (pp. 103-111). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

10. 10. Chen, 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, 64-77. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0443

11. 11. Dehaene, S., Spelke, E., Pinel, P., Stanescu, R., & Tsivkin, S. (1999). Sources of Mathematical Thinking: Behavioral and Brain-Imaging Evidence. Science, 284, 970-974. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5416.970

12. 12. Dewdney, A. K. (1993). 200% of Nothing: An Eye-Opening Tour through the Twists and Turns of Math Abuse and Innumeracy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

13. 13. Evans, J. S. B. T. (2003). In Two Minds: Dual-Process Account of Reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 454-459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012

14. 14. Ferreira, M. B., Garciamarques, L., Sherman, S. J., & Sherman, J. W. (2006). Automatic and Controlled Components of Judgment and Decision Making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 797-813. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.797

15. 15. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25-42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732

16. 16. Furlong, E. E., & Opfer, J. E. (2009). Cognitive Constraints on How Economic Rewards Affect Cooperation. Psychological Science, 20, 11-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02244.x

17. 17. Gallistel, C. R., & Gelman, R. (1992). Preverbal and Verbal Counting and Computation. Cognition, 44, 43-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90050-R

18. 18. Hoz, R., & Gorodetsky, M. (1989). Cognitive Processes in Reading and Comparing Pure and Metric Decimal Rational Numbers. Journal of Structural Learning, 10, 53-71.

19. 19. Janis, I. L. (1982). Decision-Making under Stress. In L. Goldberger, & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects (pp. 69-80). New York, NY: Free Press.

20. 20. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (pp. 49-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098.004

21. 21. Keinan, G., Friedland, N., & Ben-Porath, Y. (1987). Decision Making under Stress: Scanning of Alternatives under Physical Threat. Acta Psychologica, 64, 219-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(87)90008-4

22. 22. Kruger, J., & Vargas, P. (2008). Consumer Confusion of Percent Differences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18, 49-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2007.10.009

23. 23. Kurtz, D. L., & Clow, K. E. (1998). Services Marketing. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

24. 24. Monroe, K. (2003). Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

25. 25. Nelson, W., Reyna, V. F., Fagerlin, A., Lipkus, I., & Peters, E. (2008). Clinical Implications of Numeracy: Theory and Practice. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 35, 261-274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-008-9037-8

26. 26. Osman, M. (2004). An Evaluation of Dual-Process Theories of Reasoning. Psychometric Bulletin & Review, 11, 988-1010. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196730

27. 27. Paulos, J. A. (1988). Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.

28. 28. Peters, E., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Mazzocco, K., & Dickert, S. (2006). Numeracy and Decision Making. Psychological Science, 17, 407-413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x

29. 29. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Current Status and Controversies. In S. Chaiken, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology (pp. 73-96). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

30. 30. Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (2008). Numeracy, Ratio Bias, and Denominator Neglect in Judgments of Risk and Probability. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 89-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.011

31. 31. Reyna, V. F., & Lloyd, F. J. (2006). Physician Decision-Making and Cardiac Risk: Effects of Knowledge, Risk Perception, Risk Tolerance, and Fuzzy Processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 179-195. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.12.3.179

32. 32. Rothstein, H. G. (1986). The Effects of Time Pressure on Judgment in Multiple Cue Probability Learning. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 83-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(86)90045-2

33. 33. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The Empirical Case for Two Systems of Reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3

34. 34. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 23, 645-726. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00003435

35. 35. Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S. Y., Chen, C., Lummis, M., Stigler, J., Fan, L., & Ge, F. (1990). Mathematics Achievement of Children in China and the United States. Child Development, 61, 1053-1066. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130875

36. 36. Svenson, O., & Maule, A. J. (1993). Time Pressure and Stress in Human Judgment and Decision Making. New York, NY: Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-6846-6

37. 37. Wang, J., & Lin, E. (2009). A Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies on Chinese and US Students’ Mathematics Performance: Implications for Mathematics Education Reform and Research. Educational Research Review, 4, 177-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.06.003

38. 38. West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). Is Probability Matching Smart? Associations between Probabilistic Choices and Cognitive Ability. Memory & Cognition, 31, 243-251. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194383

39. NOTES

*通讯作者。