本研究主要可以分為兩大部分，首先第一部份是探討妥協效應，應用妥協誘餌效應於失業率和通膨率政策的選擇上是否成立，設計虛擬的國家供受試者做決策。由於過去文獻顯示妥協誘餌的效果多半不如劣勢誘餌的效果，故本實驗設計影響妥協效應之因子。第二部份主要探討決策者間對通膨率和失業率抵對關係之差異，分析其抵對關係差異之可能因素。
在第一部分，提升妥協誘餌效應方面，本實驗的題目設計包含了斜率的變動、妥協誘餌轉動的斜率、目標物與競爭物相對距離的差異、妥協誘餌與目標物相對距離的差異及劣勢誘餌的有無。結果顯示，妥協誘餌轉動的斜率、目標物與競爭物相對距離的差異、妥協誘餌與目標物相對距離的差異及劣勢誘餌的有無，這些變數皆能顯著的影響目標物被選擇的可能性，唯有斜率部分的效果不顯著。
在第二部分個體分析方面，分析個人對失業率和通膨率趨避差異，衡量變數包含了個人基本背景（系所、性別、年齡）、風險程度、大學前主要居住地、政治參與度和政治立場、對經濟學相關名詞的了解及相關課程的修課情形、家庭所得及消費概況、親友或認識的人中是否有人處於失業、衡量自己畢業後約多久可以找到工作、是否贊同擴大引進外勞、是否贊同油電雙漲……等。結果顯示，這些衡量變數之係數的符號方向和預測方向幾乎一致，但顯著性不高，故我們最後分析其不顯著的可能因素及可以改進方向與建議。

This paper contains two parts. First, we study the decoy effect (especially for the compromise decoy effect) by the experiments where the subjects face the trade-off of inflation and unemployment. As earlier studies show that the compromise decoy is not good as dominated decoy, we try to explore factors of determining compromise effect. Second, we investigate the factors affecting the subjects’ preference over unemployment and inflation.
In Part 1, we explore how to enhance the compromise decoy effect by changing the relative location among target, compromise, and decoy. It emerges that the distance between target and decoy, the distance between target and competitor, and the existence of the dominated decoy all affect the size of the compromise decoy effect.
In Part 2, we explore the relation of subjects’ preference over inflation and unemployment and their personal characteristics, such as location of hometown, the attitude toward risk, political participation, ideology, household income, knowledge of related terminology, whether to take related course or not, and friends’ and relatives’ unemployment status, and so on. Though the direction of effects is in line with our conjecture, the level of significance is not high enough.

論文審定書 i
誌謝 ii
中文摘要 iii
Abstract iv
目次 v
圖次 vi
表次 vii
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究目的與動機 1
第二節 研究背景 1
第二章 文獻回顧 10
第一節 誘餌效應的起源 10
第二節 應用商品探討誘餌效應 12
第三節 誘餌效應在非商品之效果 13
第四節 小結 14
第三章 研究方法 15
第一節 研究設計 15
第二節 研究變數 18
第三節 對實驗變數結果做預測 22
第四節 實驗方法 24
第四章 實驗結果 27
第一節 目標物之相對位置所產生的影響 27
第二節 區分劣勢誘餌的型態及轉動妥協誘餌斜率的影響 31
第三節 受試者分群分析 33
第四節 斜率不同效果之差異 45
第五節 決定個人對失業率和通膨率間抵換關係差異之因素 48
第五章 結論與建議 52
參考文獻 54
中文文獻 54
英文文獻 54
附錄A（樣本資訊）56
附錄B（正式實驗問卷）57

洪崇瑋（2010），「應用功能性磁振造影探討誘餌效應與划算的感覺」，國立台灣大學社科院經濟學系碩士論文。
陳瑀屏（2009），「功能磁振造影在賽局理論及偏好理論的應用」，國立台灣大學社科院經濟學系碩士論文。
陳嬿伊（2007）,「價格離散對消費者價格知覺的影響」，國立政治大學企管研究所。
Fischer, S. and J. Huizinga（1982）, “Inflation, Unemployment, and Public Opinion Polls,” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1-19.
Heath, T. B. and S. Chatterjee（1995）, “Asymmetric Decoy Effects on Lower-Quality versus Higher-Quality Brands: Meta-analytic and Experimental Evidence,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 22, No. 3, 268-284
Herne, K.（1997）, “Decoy Alternatives in policy choices: Asymmetric domination and compromise effects,”European Journal of Political Economy Vol. 13, No. 3, 575-589.
Herne, K.（1999）, “The Effects of Decoy Gambles on Individual Choice,” Experimental Economics, Vol. 2, No. 1, 31–40.
Huber, J. , J. W. Payne, and C. Puto（1982）,“Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives：Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis,” Journal of Consumer Research Vol. 9, No. 1, 90-98.
Huber, J. and C. Puto（1983）, “Market Boundaries and Product Choice：Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, 31-44.
Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky（1979）, “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,”Econometrica, Vol. 47, No. 2, 263-292.
Kivetz, R., O. Netzer, and V. Srinivasan （2004）,“Extending Compromise Effect Model to Complex Buying Situations and Other Context Effects,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 41, No. 3, 262-268.
Pan, Y., S. O. Curry, and R. Pitts（1995）, “The Attraction Effect and Political Choice in Two Elections,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 1, 85-101.
Parducci, A.（1995）, Happiness, Pleasure, and Judgment: The Contextual Theory and Its Applications, Mahwah, New Jersey Associates, Inc.：Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pechtl, H.（2009）, “Value Structures in a Decoy and Compromise Effect Experiment,” Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 26, No. 8, 736-759.
Shafir, E., I. Simonson, and A. Tversky（1993）, “Reason-Based Choice,”Cognition, Vol.49, No. 1-2, 11-36.
Simonson, I. and A. Tversky（1992）, “Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29, No. 3, 281-295.
Simonson, I.（1989）, “Choice Based on Rreasons the Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects,”Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.16, No. 2, 158-174.
Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman（1974）, “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,”Science, Vol. 185, No. 4157, 1124-1131.
Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman（1981）, “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,”Science, Vol. 211, No. 4481, 453-458.
Volkmann, J. (1951), “Scales of Judgment and Their Implications for Social Psychology,” in Rohrer J. H. and S. Muzafer（ed.）, Social Psychology at the Crossroads, 273–294, Oklahoma：the University of Oklahoma lectures in social psychology Press.