市面上充斥著許多產品廣告，這些廣告的行銷重點都著墨在主產品身上，本研究欲要討論與主產品配對的配對產品，以不同的方式呈現，讓配對產品來影響主產品之效果。以食物的產品組合作為研究方向，當消費者在品嘗一杯飲品時，會受到與飲品所配對之食品的影響，故本研究將要探討配對食品的空間位置、訴求性質、形狀變化、外觀類型、靜動態呈現、想像情境、多樣化呈現，時間限制，以及主產品的象徵性代表，並加入調節焦點作為干擾消費者在品嘗主產品的飲品時，所帶來的口感、態度與願付價格之效果，這些與飲品所配對的食品是否會因為以上所呈現出來的方式，而導致消費者對主產品有不同的口感、態度與願付價格之影響。本研究以實驗研究法設計五個實驗，以大學生和研究生為研究對象，其主要的研究結果如下︰
1.證實配對食品之空間位置對口感具有顯著影響。
2.證實配對食品的空間位置與配對食品的訴求性質對口感、態度與願付價格具有交互作用顯著影響。
3.證實配對食品的形狀對態度具有顯著影響。
4.證實調節焦點會干擾配對食品的外觀類型對口感和態度之干擾作用顯著影響。
5.證實主產品的靜動態與想像情境對口感和態度具有交互作用顯著影響。
6.證實配對食品的靜動態與想像情境對態度具有交互作用顯著影響。
7.證實主產品靜動態、配對食品靜動態與想像情境對口感和態度具有交互作用顯著影響。
8.證實主產品的空間位置和主產品的象徵性質對口感和態度具有交互作用顯著影響。
9.證實配對食品的多樣化呈現對口感和態度具有顯著影響。
10.證實配對食品的多樣化呈現與時間限制對口感和態度具有交互作用顯著影響。

There are variety kinds of AD in our daily life while the major point was laid on the main product. This research wants to realize the interaction between the main products and paired product. Major consideration of this was the combination of the food and beverage, namely the effect on consumer toward the food and beverage. This research tried to explore the food place, quality, shape transformation, appearance, static or dynamic, circumstances, presenting diversification, limited time and the meaning of main products, also included the regulatory-focus to interrupt consumer when they had the beverage in order to understand the taste, attitude and the willingness to pay of consumer. This research consisted of five experiments and the objectives of this research were graduate students and undergraduate students. The main results of this research can be expressed as follows:

1.It has significantly affected between the food space and the taste.
2.There is a significant interaction existing between the food space and the quality, attitude, willingness to pay on the paired foods.
3.Paired food shape and the attitude have significantly effect
4.Regulatory-focus interrupted the taste and the attitude of foods of consumer. It has significantly affected among those factors.
5.It has significantly interaction between the static or dynamic situation of the main products, circumstances toward the taste and attitude.
6.The static or dynamic situation of paired food and the circumstances had significant interaction.
7.Static or dynamic situation of main products and paired products and circumstances had significant interaction toward the taste and attitude.
8.Spacing of main products and the quality had the significant interaction toward the taste and attitudes.
9.Diversification presenting of the paired food had the significant effect on the taste and attitudes.
10.Diversification presenting of paired foods and limited time had the significant interaction toward the taste and attitudes.

1. 林建煌，2016。消費者行為。台北︰華泰文化事業有限公司。
2. 祝鳳岡，1995。「廣告感性訴求策略」之策略分析。廣告學研究，第五集︰85-112。
3. 祝鳳岡，1996。「廣告理性訴求策略」之策略分析。廣告學研究，第八集︰1-26。
4. Agrawal, Richa and Vinay Patangia (2005), “Need for Cognition as Determinant of Resp- onse to Rational and Emotional Ad Appeals,” Management and Labour Studies, 30 (2), 13 9-149.
5. Aguirre, Roberto and Julio Santiago (2017), “Do potential past and future events activate the Left-Right Mental Timeline?” Psychology, 38, 231-255.
6. Asiegbu, Ikechukwu F., Powei Daubry M., and Iruka Chijindu H. (2012), “Consumer Atti- tude: Some Reflections on Its Concept, Trilogy, Relationship with Consumer Behavior, a-
nd Marketing Implications,” European Journal of Business and Management, 4 (13), 38-5
0.
7. Auvray, Malika and Charles Spence (2008), “The multisensory perception of flavor,” Co-
nsciousness and Cognition, 17 (3), 1016-1031.
8. Bettman, James R., Mary Frances Luce, and John W. Payne (1998), “Constructive Consu-
mer Choice Processes,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (3), 187-217.
9. Brockner, Joel, Higgins E. Tory, and Murray B. Low (2004), “Regulatory focus theory and the entrepreneurial process,” Journal of Business Venturing, 19 (2), 203 – 220.
10. Cacioppo, John T. and Richard E.Petty (1984), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Pe-
rsuasion,” Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 673-675.
11. Caprariello, Peter A. and Harry T. Reis (2013), “To Do, to Have, or to Share? Valuing Ex- periences Over Material Possessions Depends on the Involvement of Others, ”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104 (2), 199–215.
12. Chae, Boyoun and JoAndrea Hoegg (2013), “The Future Looks “Right”:Effects of the Ho- rizontal Location of Advertising Images on Product Attitude,” Journal of Consumer Rese- arch, 40 (2), 223-238.
13. Cian, Luca, Aradhna Krishna, and Norbert Schwarz (2015), “Positioning Rationality and Emotion: Rationality Is Up and Emotion Is Down,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (4), 632-651.
14. Cian, Luca, Aradhna Krishna, and Ryan S. Elder (2014), “This Logo Moves Me: Dynamic Imagery from Static Images,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (2), 184-197.
15. Cian, Luca, Aradhna Krishna, and Ryan S. Elder (2015), “A Sign of Things to Come: Beh- avioral Change through Dynamic Iconography,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (6),
1426-1446.
16. Crawford, L. Elizabeth (2009), “Conceptual Metaphors of Affect,” Emotion Review, 1 (2), 129-139.
17. Deng, Xiaoyan and Barbara E. Kahn (2009), “Is your product on the right side? the “Loc-
ation Effect”on perceived product heaviness and package evaluation,” Journal of Marketi- ng Research, 46 (6), 725-738.
18. Deroy, Ophelia, Charles Michel, Betina Piqueras-Fiszman, and Charles Spence (2014),
“The plating manifesto(I): from decoration to creation,” Flavour, 11.
19. Diener, E. (1984), “Subjective Well-Being,” Psychological Bulletin, 95 (3), 542-575.
20. Epley, Nicholas, Adam Waytz, and John T. Cacioppo (2007), “On seeing human: a three-f-
actor theory of anthropomorphism,” Psychological Review, 114 (4), 864-886.
21. Etkin, Jordan and Cassie Mogilner (2016), “Does Variety Among Activities Increase Hap-
piness?” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (2), 210-229.
22. Hamermesh, Daniel S. and Jeff E. Biddle (1994), “Beauty and the Labor Market,” Ameri-
can Economic Review, 84, 1174-1194.

23. Hirschman, Elizabeth C. and Morris B. Holbrook (1982), “Hedonic Consumption: Emerg-
ing Concepts,Methods and Propositions,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (3), 92-101.
24. Hur, Julia D., Minjung Koo, and Wilhelm Hofmann (2015), “When Temptations Come Al-
ive:How Anthropomorphism Undermines Self-Control,” Journal of Consumer Research,
42 (2), 340-358.
25. Jiang, Yuwei, Gerald J. Gorn, Maria Galli, and Amitava Chattopadhyay(2016), “Does Yo-
ur Company Have the Right Logo? How and Why Circular- and Angular-Logo Shapes In- fluence Brand Attribute Judgments,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (5), 709-726.
26. Jiang, Yuwei, Rashmi Adaval, Yael Steinhart, and Robert S. Wyer (2014), “Imagining Yo-
urself in the Scene: The Interactive Effects of Goal-Driven Self-Imagery and Visual Persp-
ectives on Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 418-435.
27. Kamleitner, Bernadette and Silvia Feuchtl (2015), “As if It Were Mine:Imagery Works by Inducing Psychological Ownership,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 23 (2), 208-223.
28. Kao, Danny Tengti (2012), “Exploring the effect of regulatory focus on ad attitudes: The moderating roles of message sidedness and argument quality,” International Journal of Psychology, 47 (2), 142-153.
29. Kim, Hakkyun, Akshay R. Rao, and Angela Y. Lee (2009), “It's Time to Vote: The Effect of Matching Message Orientation and Temporal Frame on Political Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (6), 877-889.
30. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnsen (1980), “The Metaphorical Structure of the Human Co- nceptual System,” Cognitive Science, 4 (2), 195-208.
31. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnsen (2008), Metaphors we live, London: The university of Chicago press.

32. Lee, Hyojin, Kentaro Fujita,Xiaoyan Deng, and H. Rao Unnava (2017), “The Role of Te-
mporal Distance on the Color of Future-Directed Imagery: A Construal-Level Perspective,
” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (5), 707-725.
33. Lefkoff-Hagius, Roxanne and Charlotte H. Mason (1993), “Characteristic,Beneficial,and Image Attributes in Consumer Judgments of Similarity and Preference,” Journal of Cons-
umer Research, 20 (1), 100-110.
34. Lyubomirsky, Sonja and Kennon M. Sheldon (2005), “Pursuing Happiness: The Architect- ure of Sustainable Change,” Review of General Psychology, 9 (2), 111–131.
35. Mittelman, Mauricio, Eduardo B. Andrade, Amitava Chattopadhyay, and C. Miguel Bren- dl (2014), “The Offer Framing Effect: Choosing Single versus Bundled Offerings Affects Variety Seeking,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (4), 953-964.
36. Nicholson, Mervyn (2003), 13 Ways of Looking at Images: The Logic of Visualization in Literature & Society, Red Heifer Press.
37. Petrova, Petia K. and Robert B. Cialdini (2005), “Fluency of Consumption Imagery and t- he Backfire Effects of Imagery Appeals,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3), 442-452.
38. Petrova, Petia K. and Robert B. Cialdini (2007), “Evoking the Imagination as a Strategy of Influence,” Handbook of consumer psychology, 505-524.
39. Refaie, Elisabeth (2003), “Understanding visual metaphor: the example of newspaper car- toons,” Visual Communication, 2 (1), 75-95.
40. Sakai, Nobuyuki (2011), “Tasting with Eyes,” i-Perception, 2, 8, 945.
41. Salgado-Montejo, Alejandro, Jorge A. Alvarado, Carlos Velasco, Carlos J. Salgado, Kend- ra Hasse, and Charles Spence (2015), “The sweetest thing: the influence of angularity, sy- mmetry, and the number of elements on shape-valence and shape-taste matches,” Frontie- rs in Psychology, 6, 1-17.
42. Sasaki, Kyoshiro, Takeharu Seno, Yuki Yamada, and Kayo Miura (2012), “Emotional Sou- nds Influence Vertical Vection,” Perception, 41 (7), 875-877.
43. Simonson, Itamar and Aimee Drolet (2004), “Anchoring Effects on Consumers' Willingn-
ess-to-Pay and Willingness-to-Accept,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3), 681-690.
44. Tanaka, Motoshi, Hiroshi Inoue, and Yoshitsugu Niiyama (2011), “Experimental Study on Subjective Evaluation for Visual Information by Event-Related Potential: Evaluation of F- ood and its Appearance,” i-Perception, 2, 8, 946.
45. Townsend, Claudia and Barbara E. Kahn (2014), “The“Visual Preference Heuristic”: The Influence of Visual versus Verbal Depiction on Assortment Processing, Perceived Variety, and Choice Overload,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (5), 993-1015.
46. Velasco, Carlos, Andy T. Woods, Sarah Hyndman., and Charles Spence (2015), “The Taste of Typeface,” i-Perception, 6 (4), 1–10.
47. Wan, Echo Wen, Rocky Peng Chen,and Liyin Jin (2017), “Judging a Book by Its Cover? The Effect of Anthropomorphism on Product Attribute Processing and Consumer Prefere- nce,” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (6), 1008-1030.
48. Wang, Ze, Huifang Mao, Yexin Jessica Li, and Fan Liu (2017), “Smile Big or Not? Effects of Smile Intensity on Perceptions of Warmth and Competence,”Journal of Consumer Res- earch, 43 (5), 787-805.
49. Wan, Lisa C. and Robert S. Wyer (2015), “Consumer Reactions to Attractive Service Pro- viders: Approach or Avoid?” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (4), 578-595.
50. Winter, Eyal (2014), Feeling Smart: Why Our Emotions Are More Rational Than We Thin- k, Canada:Public Affairs.
51. Zhu, Rui (Juliet) and Jennifer J. Argo (2013), “Exploring the Impact of Various Shaped S- eating Arrangements on Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (2), 336-349.