自「電信自由化」以來，台灣地區行動電話用戶數快速成長，普及率幾乎達到百分之百；在市場趨近飽和的狀態，不論是手機製造商或是系統業者，為了要增加銷售，無不卯足全力試圖利用廣告來吸引消費者的眼光。因此，對廠商而言，如何透過廣告使消費者增加購買意願便成為重要的課題。而在手機廣告中往往提供了如品牌、功能與價格等許多產品相關資訊，消費者在看到廣告的時候，如何經由廣告中所提供的資訊，來對各支手機進行評估與選擇，便是本研究所欲探討的議題。手機廣告中通常同時有數支手機供消費者進行比較選擇，若消費者已有特定的目標手機，其選擇行為如何受到廣告中其他手機的價格與品質資訊影響呢？綜合以上所述，本研究試圖瞭解屬性範圍在手機購買行為中所扮演的角色，並且以產品的品質與價格的可評估性高低、消費者的產品知識作為干擾因素，探討在產品的品質與價格的範圍寬窄不同下，消費者對手機購買選擇的影響。
本研究利用實驗設計的方式來蒐集資料並進行分析，所得之結論如下：
(1) 價格與品質的範圍較寬時，消費者對兩目標商品的知覺價格差異與知覺品質差異較小。
(2) 屬性可評估性高低對範圍寬窄影響消費者產品評估的干擾效果是顯著的。
(3) 屬性範圍寬窄對知覺品質差異影響會受到產品知識的干擾，但產品知識對屬性範圍影響知覺價格差異的干擾效果並不顯著。

The number of mobile phone users in Taiwan has grown rapidly since the deregulation in 1996. Today, the penetration rate of mobile phone in Taiwan almost reached 100%. In such saturated mobile service market, mobile-phone retailers and service operators try to find better advertisements in order to increase their sells. Therefore, how to increase consumer’s purchase intention of mobile phone via advertising is a critical issue for retailers. Variety of product information such as brands, functions and prices are often shown in mobile-phone advertisements. This paper aims to study how people choose and evaluate different mobile phones through various product information provided by an advertisement. To compare differences among various mobile phones, retailers often advertise several mobile phones together in the same page. If consumers prefer specific mobile phone before watching an advertisement, would their decision be affected by the quality or/and price information from the rest of mobile phones that in the same advertisement? This paper attempts to apply range theory to investigate how product evaluation is affected by range effects of attribute under the different levels of attribute evaluability and product knowledge.
In sum, the purpose of this study is to understand the role of range effects of product attributes in mobile-phone purchasing behavior. Further, this study examines the influences of quality/price range effects on consumer’s preference moderate by high/low levels of product knowledge and high/low levels of quality/price evaluability.
Total 205 effective samples were collected via experiment design and analyzed. The conclusions of this study are (1) consumers perceived both lower price difference and quality difference between two produces when they received wider range information of price and quality;(2) the moderating effect of levels of attribute evaluability significantly impacts the influence of range effects on production evaluation;(3) the moderating effect of levels of product knowledge significantly impacts the influence of range effects on price difference perception, however this moderating effect has no significant influence on that on quality difference perception.

【中文部分】
王勝宏（2006），「2007台灣行動電話手機購買方式與價位認知分析」，資策會市場資訊情報中心
吳萬益（2003），「企業研究方法」，華泰書局
林美慧（2002），「消費者知識對手機購買決策之影響」，東華大學企業管理研究所碩士論文
陳順宇（2004），「實驗設計」，華泰書局
陳順宇（2004），「多變量分析」，華泰書局
葉淑瑜（2002），「消費者的產品知識對系統性產品偏好的影響」，銘傳大學管理科學研究所碩士論文
蔡華展（2007），「2007年第二季台灣行動電話市場產銷暨重要趨勢分析」，資策會市場資訊情報中心
廣告雜誌（2007）

【網站部分】
交通部電信總局網站（2005）
http://www.dgt.gov.tw/

【英文部分】
Alba, J. W. and J. W. Hutchinson (1987), “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411-454.
Anderson, R. D., J. L. Engledow and H. Becker (1979), “Evaluating the Relationships among Attitude toward Business Product Satisfaction, Experience, and Search Effort,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16(3), 394-400.
Andrews, J. C., R. G.. Netemeyer and S. Burton (1998), “Consumer Generalization of Nutrient Content Claims in Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 62-75.
Beattie, J. and B. Jonathan (1991), “Investigating the Effect of Stimulus Range on Attribute Weight,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17(2), 571-585.
Bhuian, S.N.(1997), “Marketing Cues and Perceived Quality: Perceptions of Saudi Consumers Toward Products of The U.S., Japan, Germany, Italy, U.K. and France,” Journal of Quality Management, 2(2), 217-234
Brucks, M. (1985), “The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12(1), 1-16.
Buchanan, B. and P. W. Henderson (1992), “Assessing The Bias of Preference, Detection, and Identification Measure of Discrimination ability in product design,” Marketing Science ,11(1), 64-75
Calder, B.J., Phillips L.W., Tybout A.M. (1981), “Designing Research for Application,” Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2), 197-207
Hsee, C. K. (1996),”The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives,” Organizational, Behavior and Human Decision Precess, 67(3), 247-257.
_________, (2000), “Attribute Evaluability: Its Implications for Joint- Separate Evaluation Reversals and Beyond,” in Choices, Values, and Frames, ed. Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 543-565
Druckman, J. N. and A. Lupia (2000), “Preference Formation”, Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 1-24
Engel, J. F., R. D. Blackwell, and M. W. Paul (1993) ,Consumer Behavior, 7th ed ,The Dryden Press, Chicago.
Garretson, J. A. and K. E. Clow (1999), “The Influence of Coupon Face Value on Service Quality Expectations, Risk Perceptions and Purchase Intentions in the Dental Industry”, The Journal of Services Marketing, 13(1), 59-72.
Jacoby, J. and J. C. Olson (1977), “Consumer Response to Price: An Attitudinal, Information Processing Perspective,” in Moving Ahead with Attitude Research, Y. Wind and P. Greenberg, eds, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 73-86.
Janiszewski, C. and D. R. Lichtenstein (1999), “A Range Theory Account of Price Perception,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25(4), 353-368.
Moreau, C. P., D. R. Lehmann and A. B.Markman (2001), “Entrenched Knowledge Structures and Consumer Response to New Products,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 14-29.
Monroe, K. B. and J. D. Chapman (1987), “Framing Effects on Buyers' Subjective Product Evaluations,” Advances in Consumer Research 14(1), 193-197.
___________ , and R. Krishnan (1985). “The Effect of Price on Subjective Product Evaluation, In Perceived Quality: How Consumers View Stores and Merchandise,” Eds. Jacob and Jerry C. Olson. Lexington. MA: Lexington Books, 209-232.
Park, C. W. and V. P. Lessig (1981) “Familiarity and Its Impact on Consumer Decision Biases and Heuristics”, Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2), 223-230
__________ , L. Feick and D. L. Mothersbaugh (1994), “Consumer Knowledge Assessment,” Journal of Consumer research, 21(1) , 71-81.
Simonson, I. and A. Tversky (1992), “Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 281-295.
Steenkamp, J-B. E. M. (1990),“Conceptual Model of the Quality Perception Process,” Journal of Business Research, 21(4), 309-333.
Sujan, M. (1985), “Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12(1), 203-224.
Volkmann, J. (1951), “Scales of Judgment and Their Implications for Social Psychology,” in Social Psychology of the Crossroads, ed. John H. Rohrer and Muzafer Sh New York: Harper, 273-296.
Yeung, W. M. and D. Soman (2005), “Atrribute Evuability and the Range Effect”, Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 363-369.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988), “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence,” Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22.