Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  87 / 372 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 87 / 372 Next Page
Page Background

臺大管理論叢

26

卷第

2

87

as either accurate estimations or drop-off errors were considered non-drop-off errors. In the

example of the $1.99 nail clippers, quantity estimations greater than 47 or less than 23 were

categorized as non-drop-off errors; that is, errors that point to an incorrect overestimation or

underestimation due to various possible factors, including arithmetic mistakes, inattention,

carelessness, and so on (Bizer and Schindler, 2005).

3.2.3 Results

An ANOVA was performed for quantitative estimations. The interactions of evaluation

conditions and nine-ending effect were significant in the scenarios of nail clipper and baseball

cap showed in Table 1 (Nail clipper:

Difference

SE

= 1.75 vs.

Difference

SQE

= 0.7 vs.

Difference

JE

= 0.59,

F

SE-SQE-JE

(2,231) = 2.44,

p

SE-SQE-JE

< 0.1; Baseball cap:

Difference

SE

= 3.55 vs.

Difference

SQE

= 0.48 vs.

Difference

JE

= 0.36,

F

SE-SQE-JE

(2,231) = 2.52,

p

SE-SQE-JE

< 0.1), but

insignificant in the case of the battery (

Difference

SE

= 0.39 vs.

Difference

SQE

= 0.12 vs.

Difference

JE

= 0.1,

F

SE-SQE-JE

(2,231) = 0.53,

p

SE-SQE-JE

= 0.95). That is, the differences in mean

price perceived quantitative estimations of nine-ending and zero-ending prices in the SQE

condition was smaller than that in the SE condition but greater than that in the JE condition.

Besides, stimuli in SE and JE conditions were also significant for the nail clippers and

baseball cap (

Difference

SE

= 1.75 vs.

Difference

JE

= 0.59,

F

SE- JE

(1,163) = 10.35,

p

SE-JE

< 0.01;

Difference

SE

= 3.55 vs.

Difference

JE

= 0.36,

F

SE- JE

(1,163) = 8.64,

p

SE-JE

< 0.01), but not

significant for the battery (

Difference

SE

= 0.39 vs.

Difference

JE

= 0.1,

F

SE- JE

(1,163) = 1.40,

p

SE-JE

= 0.254). Most of the results, as expected, showed that the difference of quantitative

estimations between nine- and zero-ending digits was greater in JE mode than in SE mode.

These findings were re-confirmed and consistent with the findings in Study 1.

In order to examine the error analyses as proposed by Bizer and Schindler (2005), the

quantitative estimations were also classified according to their consistency with the nine-

ending pricing effect by calculating the difference in percentage between nine-ending and zero-

ending prices among each response type. However, the battery stimulus was excluded because

of its insignificance (see Table 2). The results demonstrated that the accuracy percentage in

zero-ending digit was almost the same in SE, SQE, and JE modes (Nail clipper:

Accurate

SE

=

83% vs.

Accurate

SQE

= 80% vs.

Accurate

JE

= 76%; Baseball cap:

Accurate

SE

= 77% vs.

Accurate

SQE

= 70% vs.

Accurate

JE

= 82%), but the accuracy percentage in nine-ending digit was

least in the SE condition, followed by the SQE and the JE condition in the products of the nail

clippers and baseball caps (Nail clipper:

Accurate

SE

= 44% vs.

Accurate

SQE

= 61% vs.

Accurate

JE

= 68%; Baseball cap:

Accurate

SE

= 41% vs.

Accurate

SQE

= 57% vs.

Accurate

JE

= 71%).

Consistent with H2 and H3, the findings, an decreasing difference with the order of SE,