呵呵..."女童子军"和"多项选择"两篇文章PDF都暴长....十几页呢...
Field and laboratory experiments were conducted in which the intrinsic motivations of participants encountering limited as opposed to extensive choices were compared (Iyengar and Lepper, 2000). In one compelling field demonstration, a tasting booth for exotic jams was arranged at Draegers, a California gourmet grocery store. This grocery store is of particular interest because its salient distinguishing feature is the extraordinary selection it offers, especially when compared with large grocery chains. For instance, Draeger's offers roughly 250 different varieties of mustard, 75 different varieties of olive oil, and over 300 varieties of jam.
Shoppers are frequently offered sample tastes of this enormous array of available products; consequently, Draeger’s provided a particularly conducive environment for a naturalistic experiment, using tasting booths.
As customers passed the tasting booth, they encountered a display with either 6 or 24 different flavored jams. The number of passers-by who approached the tasting booth and the number of purchases made in these two conditions served as dependent variables. The results indicated that although extensive choice proved initially more enticing than limited choice, limited choice was ultimately more motivating. Thus, 60 percent of the passers-by approached the table in the extensive-choice condition as compared to only 40 percent in the limited-choice condition. However, as depicted in Figure 1, 30 percent of the customers who encountered the limited selection actually purchased a jam, while only 3 percent of those offered the extensive selection made a purchase.
This study’s results challenge a fundamental assumption underlying classic psychological theories of human motivation and economic theories of rational-choice; that is, that having more choice is necessarily more desirable and intrinsically motivating. These findings from this study show that an extensive array of options can at first seem highly appealing to consumers, yet it also can reduce subsequent motivation to purchase the product. Even though consumers presumably shop at this particular store in part because of the large number of selections available, having “too much” choice seems nonetheless to have hampered their later motivation to buy.
16. （版本1）是讲购物的，说是一个科学家提出，认为人的选择越多，越不利于选择. 然后拿出个实验，人们买jam, 说虽然大家喜欢多点选择，但是在两个试验组里，一个组有6种选，一个组24种，那个6种的组买jam的行为是24个的组的10倍。进一步提出一个例子就是在人们面对比如养老保险之类的问题上，选择越多越麻烦。都是一个目的，后来这里考了个例子作用题。第二段另一个科学家提出理论，说只有在一种情况下，众多选择人们也会轻易作出选择，那就是在开始已经有了明显的倾向了。这片阅读里考了个逻辑题。
16. （版本1）是讲购物的，说是一个科学家提出，认为人的选择越多，越不利于选择. 然后拿出个实验，人们买jam, 说虽然大家喜欢多点选择，但是在两个试验组里，一个组有6种选，一个组24种，那个6种的组买jam的行为是24个的组的10倍。进一步提出一个例子就是在人们面对比如养老保险之类的问题上，选择越多越麻烦。都是一个目的，后来这里考了个例子作用题。第二段另一个科学家提出理论，说只有在一种情况下，众多选择人们也会轻易作出选择，那就是在开始已经有了明显的倾向了。这片阅读里考了个逻辑题。
（版本2） 可供选择的越多，是否选择就越困难（本月JJ）第1段：两人提出一个理论：可供选择的越多，选择就越困难。举了2个例子支持（果酱购买SURVEY+公司福利政策）。果酱由6种增加至24种，导致可供选择的增加为原来的100倍。然后考了雎呒?猓?使?凑飧隼?拥慕崧圩羁赡鼙荒母鍪率迪魅酢Ｑ∠钣校翰渭庸?碨URVEY的人没有如实填写SURVEY的信息、所有人买过那24种JAM后就再也不买了，等等。第2段：作者提出上述理论的一个exception，就是购买者已经有明显倾向时，上述理论不成立。然后考了个INFER题，问这样的明显倾向最可能导致什么。选项有：具备明显倾向是购买行为的第1步、消费者倾向被某些人用来设计产品，等等。
（版本3）640是选择多,就越难困难.这里我错了两道,一道是问生产家知道靠什么战略来吸引CUSTOMER,答案应该是:吸引某种TYPE 的customers,而不是靠QUASLITY.
谢谢gmatdkGG
thank you so much
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |