隨著近年來社會、經濟以及科技的變遷影響，性別角色與性別刻板印象也產生重大的改變，產品性別定位與消費者性別之間的關係也漸趨模糊。具性別造形特徵的產品吸引的不一定只有生理性別同向的族群，可能還存在著生理性別與產品性別定位反向，但性別基模同向的潛在消費群。
另一方面，消費者在選擇產品時，除了喜好的影響因素，是否存在與產品間心理距離的因素，也就是產品造形意象與消費者自我意象的親近程度。而產品心理距離的親疏程度，是否影響對產品之喜好感，兩者之關係也是本次研究探討的方向之一。
本研究採用性別角色特質量表，將170位受測者依照2(生理性別) × 4(性別基模)，分為共8群的性別基模族群，並利用分層隨機抽樣法抽樣其中68名受測者，針對不同性別化產品進行喜好度及心理距離的實驗。研究並利用相關分析、T檢定、ANOVA分析與LSD多重比較，針對實驗數據進行分析。
研究結果發現，(1)喜好與心理距離呈現負相關，即近似自我意象之產品使人感到親近，而容易引起較高的喜好感；(2)其中各性別基模族群之喜好、心理距離相關程度各有不同；(3)本研究由性別基模與生理性別兩方面，建構了性別化產品與性別之關連性，並整理為關係圖表；(4)藉由性別基模理論的導入，可修正傳統以生理性別定位設計的盲點，提供設計師對於產品造形性別化定位之參考準則。

In recent years, because of the influence of sweeping social, economics, and technical changes, sex roles and sex stereotype have changed dramatically. Relationship between gender orientation of product and consumer’s gender is becoming indefinite. Product with gendered form might not only attract gender-congruent groups. There might be potential consumers with incongruent gender, but congruent gender schema to gendered product.
On the other hand, except the influence of product preference, the influence called mental-distance that is between consumer and product might affect consumer’s choice. Mental-distance means the familiar-level between product image and consumer’s self-image. The relationship of mental-distance and product preference is also one of the researching directions.
This research uses Sex Role Scales to divide 170 subjects into 2(gender) × 4(gender schema) 8 groups, and uses Stratified Random Sampling Method to select 68 subjects for joining the Preference and Mental-Distance Test for gendered-product. Bivariance Correlation Analysis, T-Test, ANOVA Analysis, and LSD Multiple Comparisons would be used to analyze the research data.
Research result shows 1) reverse correlation between product preference and mental-distance. It means product with familiar image to self-image would make people intimate and raise preference for the product easily; 2) Correlations between product preference and mental-distance are different because of different sex roles; 3) Research builds the relationship between gender and gendered-product, concludeing the result into relationship charts; 4) Based on gender schema theory, research revises the dilemmas of gender stereotype design, provides designers a guideline for the gender orientation of product form.

【中文部份】
1.小林重順，邱永福審定(1991)，造形構成心理，台北：藝風堂。
2.王宗興(2002)，自行車車架造形特徵對意象認知影響之研究，國立成奶j學工業設計學系碩士論文。
3.王妙如(2005)，消費者自我意象一致性與旅遊目的地選擇行為之研究，國立中山大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
4.李卓夫(2000)，大學生性別角色刻板印象與兩性平權態度關係之研究，國立成奶j學教育研究所碩士論文。
5.李美枝(1981)，性別特質問卷的編製及男女大學生四種性別特質在成就動機、婚姻、事業及性態度上的比較，中華心理學刊， 23期，23-27頁。
6.李美枝(1996)，性別與性別角色析論，本土心理學研究，第6期，第260~299頁。
7.沈旻瑋(2003)，多重感性語彙之複合性探討，國立雲林科技大學工業設計研究所碩士論文。
8.林邦傑（1981），性別角色與自我防衛、生活適應、認知能力的關係，中華心理學刊，23期，107-129頁。
9.星野克美著，黃恆正譯(1992)，符號社會的消費，台北：遠流出版。
10.周淑儀(2000)，國小教師性別角色刻板印象與兩性平等教育進修需求，國立台中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
11.洪淑敏(2003)，國小低年級學童性別角色觀與性別刻板印象之研究，中山大學教育研究所碩士論文。
12.徐達光(2003)，消費者心理學，台北：東華書局。
13.高清漢(1997)，當前台灣產品形象的地位探討，國立交通大學應用藝術研究所碩士論文。
14.眾文圖書編輯部譯，D.Fisher & R. Bragonier, Jr.著 (1981) ， 圖解英漢百科辭典 (A Visual Glossaryof the Physical World) ，眾文圖書有限股份公司，台北。
15.莊盈祺(2002)，複合感性意象下產品造形的建構，國立成奶j學工業設計學系碩士論文。
16.陳玫笒(1992)，從文化認知觀點探討產品造形發展模式之研究，國立交通大學工業工程研究所碩士論文。
17.陳俊宏(1988)，色彩嗜好與色彩意象之調查分析，藝風堂。
18.黃文三(2006)，性別角色與教育。台北：群英。
19.張春興(1991)，心理學，台北：東華出版社。
20.張春興(1995)，現代心理學：現代人研究自身問題的科學，台北：東華出版社。
21.張建成(2000)，使用者對產品造形意象認知的影響因素研究，國立交通大學工業工程與管理學研究所博士論文。
22.漆梅君(2001)，透視消費者-消費理論與應用，台北：學富文化。
23.劉秀娟(1997)，兩性關係與教育，台北：揚智文化。
24.劉祥熹，吳鎮全(2006)，從顧客忠誠度觀點探討購買利益與品牌聯想之關聯性-台灣液晶電視產業之個案分析，TBI 2006台灣商管與資訊研討會。

【外文部份】
1.Aaker, J. L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, p.347-356.
2.Alreck, Pemela L. (1994), “Commentary: A New Formula for Gendering Products and Brands,” Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol 3, Iss. 1, p. 6-18
3.Baxter. M.(1995), “Product Design, Practical methods for the systematic development of new product,” Chapman
4.Bem, S. L. (1974), “The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny,” Journal of Advertising, Vol. 42, p. 155-162.
5.Bem, S. L. (1981), “Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing source,” Psychological Review, Vol.88, p.354-364
6.Birdwell, A. E. (1968), “A study of influence of image congruence on consumer choice,” Journal of Business, Vol.41, p.76-88.
7.Block, J. H. (1973). “Conceptions of sex role: Some cross-cultural and longitudinal perspectives,” American Psychologist, Vol. 28, p.512-526.
8.Chang, Chingching (2006), “The influence of Masculinity and Femininity in Different Advertising Processing Contexts: An Accessibility Perspective,” Sex Roles, Vol.55, p. 345-356.
9.Dolish, I. J. (1969), “Congruence relationships between self images and product brands,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.6 (1), p.80.
10.Doherty, Patricia A., and Schmidt, Martin R. (1978), “Sex-Typing and Self-Concept in College Women,” Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. 19, p.493-497.
11.Dusek, J. B. (1996), “Adolescent development and behavior,” Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
12.Erdwins, C., Small, A., and Gross, R. (1980), “The relationship of sex role to self concept,” Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 36, p. 111–115.
13.Gentry, James W., Mildred Doering and Terrence V. O'Brien (1978), “Masculinity and Femininity Factors in Product Perception and Self Image,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, Iss. 1, p. 326-332.
14.Graeff, T. R. (1996), “Image congruence effects on product evaluation: the role of self-monitoring and public/private consumption,” Psychology & Marketing, Vol.13 (5), p.481-499.
15.Grubb, E. L., and Grathwohl, H. L.(1967), “Consumer self-concept, symbolism, and market behavior: A theoretical approach,” Journal of Marketing, Vol.31, p.22-27.
16.Grubb, E. L., and Hupp, G. (1968), “Perception of self, generalizes stereotypes, and brand selection,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.5, p.58-63.
17.Hong, J. W., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1995), “Self-concept and Advertising Effectiveness: The Influence of Congruency, Conspicuousness, and Response Mode,” Psychology and Marketing, Vol.12, p.53-77.
18.Jaffe, L. J. (1990), “The effect of positioning on the purchase probability of financial services among women with varying sex-role identities,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.17, p.874–879.
19.Jaffe, L. J. (1994), “The unique predictive ability of sex-role identity in explaining women’s response advertising,” Psychology and Marketing, Vol.11, p. 467– 482
20.Johanson, J., and Wiedersheim-Paul, F. (1975). “The Internationalization of the Firm - Four Swedish Cases,” Journal of Management Studies, Vol.12, p. 305-322.
21.Kohlberg, L (1969). “Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization,” In Goslin, D.A. (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research, p.347-480. Chicago: Rand McNally.
22.Levy, S. J. (1959), “Symbols for sale,” Harvard Business Review, Vol.37 , p.117-124
23.L. Mann & D. A. Sabatino（1994）.認知過程的原理 (黃慧真) 。台北市：心理出版社。(原著於1985出版)
24.Malhotra, N. K.(1988), “Self-concept and product choice: An integrated perspective,” Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol.9, p.1-28
25.Markus, H. (1977), “Self-schemata and the processing of information about the self,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , Vol.35 , p. 63-78
26.Markus, Hazel & Paula Nurius（1986）, “Possible Selves,” American Psychologist, Vol. 41, p.954-969.
27.Markus, H. K. and Wurf, E. (1987), “the Dynamic Self-Concept: a Social Psychological Perspective,” Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 38, p. 299-337
28.Martin, W. S. and Joseph, B. (1982), “An analysis of congruous relationships between self-image and product images,” Journal of the Academy and Marketing Science, Vol.10(4), p.473
29.McGuire, W.(1976), “Some Internal Psychological Factors Influencing Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research 2 (March 1976), p. 302-19
30.Schouten, J. W. (1991), “Selves in transition: Symbolic consumption in personal rites of passage and identity reconstruction,” Journal of Consumer Research. 17(3):412-425.
31.Shepard, R. N. (1962). “The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function, I,” Psychometrika, 27(2), 125-140.
32.Sirgy, M. J. (1982), “Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.9, p. 287–300
33.Sirgy, M. J. (1985), “Self-image/Product-image congruity and consumer decision-making,” International Journal of Management, Vol. 2(4), p. 49-63.
34.Sirgy, M. J. ,Grewal, D.,Mangleburg, T. F., Park, J. O., Chon, K. S., Claiborne, C. B., Johar, J. S., and Berkamn, H (1997), “Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-image congruence,” Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25(3), p.229-241.
35.Solomon, Michael R. (1992), “Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, Had Being,” Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
36.Spence, J., T., Helmreich, R., and Stapp, J. (1975), “Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 32, p.29-39.
37.Wiggins, J. S., & Holzmuller, A. (1978), “Psychological androgyny and interpersonal behavior,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol.46, p. 40–52.
38.Wiggins, J. S., & Holzmuller, A. (1981), “Further evidence on androgyny and interpersonal flexibility,” Journal of Research in Personality, Vol.15, p. 67–80.
39.Worth, Leila T., Jeanne Smith, and Diane M. Mackie(1992), “Gender Schematicity and Preference for Gender-Typed Products,” Psychology & Marketing, Vol.9, Issue 1, p. 17-30