1. The Effect of Taiwan-made Product “MIT” Smile Logo on the Perceived Quality, Perceived Risk, and Purchase Intention of Consumers YE4B 1101100062 Una Chen

2. Outline :  Introduction  Literature Review  Methodology  Result  Conclusion

3. Introduction  Sign the contract of ECFA (Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement)  Be a serious impact on the traditional industry  Decide to promote the MIT (Made in Taiwan) Smile Label

4. Literature Review  MIT Smile Label By propelling MIT Smile Label, it tends to build up an image of high quality Taiwan- made products. Moreover, it also expects to make consumers more favourable of products that are made in Taiwan.

5. Literature Review  Perceived Quality Perceived quality was defined as the consumers’ judgment of overall excellence or superiority of products (Zeithaml, 1988; Petrick, 2002; Tsiotsou, 2006).  Perceived Risk Creditable official certificated labels would comparatively decrease consumers’ perceived risk towards products.

6. Hypothesis Perceived Quality Perceived Risk Purchase Intention MIT Smile Label

7. Research Question  (1) if the perceived quality of MIT Smile Logo would impact on consumers’ purchase intention  (2) if the perceived risk of MIT Smile Logo will impact on consumers’ purchase intention

8. Methodology  Web-based questionnaire : 81  Paper-based questionnaire : 21  Likert scale: 1-5  Section1&2: background & basic knowledge  Section 3&4: perceived quality / risk  Section 5: purchase intention  SPSS

9. P. Quality VS. Purchase Intention Correlations Quality_1Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N.434**.000 101 Quality_7Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N.496**.000 101 Quality_2Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N.486**.000 101 Quality_8Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N.496**.000 101 Quality_3Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N.414**.000 101 Quality_9Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N.636**.000 101 Quality_4Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N.191.055 101 Quality_10Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N.581**.000 101 Quality_5Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N.205*.040 101 Quality_11Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N.592**.000 101 Quality_6Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N.537**.000 101 (Pr > F > 0.05) ***(Pr > F < 0.001)

10. P. Risk VS. Purchase Intention Correlations Risk_1Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N -.231*.020 101 Risk_8Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N -.265**.008 101 Risk_2Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N -.267**.007 101 Risk_9Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N -.225*.023 101 Risk_3Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N -.290**.003 101 Risk_10Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N -.292**.003 101 Risk_4Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N -.175.080 101 Risk_11Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N -.321**.001 101 Risk_5Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N.200*.045 101 Risk_12Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N -.297**.003 101 Risk_6Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N -.340**.001 101 Risk_13Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N -.359**.000 101 Risk_7Pearson Sig.(2-tailed) N -.226*.023 101 (Pr > F > 0.05) **(Pr > F < 0.05)

11. Conclusion  Tsiotsou indicates consumers’ perceived product quality can be used as a predictor of purchase intention, and even has the direct impact on purchase intention (Tsiotsou, 2006).  Agarwal and Teas describes that the higher consumers’ perceived risk is, the lower their purchase intention is; similarly, the lower consumers’ perceived risk is, the higher their purchase intention is (Agarwal and Teas, 2001).

12. Thank you for your listening !!