過去學者已經對於消費者如何形成產品評價，發展出許多模型。「解釋範圍重疊模型」(Chien, Wegener, Hsiao, and Petty 2010) 指出消費者對於產品的評價。受到促發物的解釋範圍以及所評價之目標物的解釋範圍，兩者之間是否重疊所影響。當兩者解釋範圍有重疊，產生同化效果(Assimilation Effects) ; 無重疊則產生對比效果(Contrast Effects)。「相互假設」 (Hsiao 2002)則指出，不僅所評價之目標物會受到促發物影響，促發物同時也會受到目標物所影響。
根據前述二模型、本研究欲探討，當消費者面對兩個促發物時，目標物的評價會如何受到兩個促發物的影響。本研究假設當 1. 有兩個促發物時，兩個促發物會先相互影響彼此¬。 2. 而後、相互影響後的促發物，同時影響目標物。 3. 促發物或者是目標物的確定性越高則移動幅度越小；反之則越大。 4. 促發物或是目標物在受到影響後為同化效果或者對比效果，由彼此解釋範圍是否重疊所決定。
為驗證假設，主實驗採組內設計。每位受測者都需接受三階段的問卷，衡量其對產品評價的改變。第一階段、我們為各受測者找出適用的目標物與促發物，作為尚未受其他因素所影響的原始評價。第二階段則同時呈現兩促發物，觀察促發物如何彼此影響。最後、第三階段同時呈現兩促發物及目標物。測試目標物如何受到兩促發物所影響。
由於實驗流程對受測者而言，過於複雜和漫長。實驗結果並未如預期顯著支持假設。本實驗結果發現受測者多次作答後，對於產品的評價有趨中系統性移動的現象。我們推測下列原因導致此現象。1..組內受測者的實驗設計，讓受測者在多次填答問卷後，產生疲累而快速填答所致。2.多次填答問卷產生學習效果。受測者注意日常生活更加極端的產品。使得原本認為極端的產品往中間靠近。雖目前無法驗證先前所提出之假設。但是我們仍然相信我們依據過去理論基礎所發展的假設。未來研究若能改進本研究所提到之實驗流程上之困難，便可證實目前假設。

Consumers evaluate various products in their daily life, although they believe their judgments to be generally rational, the context in which their judgments take place nevertheless impacts the choices they make which is so-called context effects. Many researchers have since focused on the issue of the impact of single context on consumers’ choice evaluation far less attention devoted to multiple contexts. However, consumers form their judgments under multiple contexts most of time. Therefore, we are interested in how contexts affect each other and further impacts product evaluation.
The present study based on the foundation of Dimensional Range Overlap Model (Chien, 2010) and Reciprocity Hypothesis (Hsiao, 2002) to extend the context effects under multiple contexts. The effects of attitude certainty under multiple contexts were also examined to better know the mechanism of consumer evaluation.
In this study, we tried to verify not only is the target judgment affected by the contextual stimulus, but the judgment of contextual stimulus is affected by the target stimulus and it is the overlap or non-overlap determines the shift direction of contexts effect. In addition, we addressed that attitude certainty dictate the magnitude of evaluation shift.
Unfortunately, the results didn’t support the hypotheses we pro, posedwe unable to demonstrate neither the shift direction of contexts effect is determined by overlap of ranges nor attitude certainty affects the magnitude of shift in current study. Nevertheless, we found a very interesting phenomenon which was the evaluation of contextual stimulus showed a tendency which shift toward the central of scale.
In conclusion, this thesis offer a special view to better understand the multiple contexts also provide implications to marketing executives by better understanding the underlying procedure and mechanism of priming effect.

Bassili, John N. (1996), Meta-judgmental versus Operative Indexes of Psychological Attributes: The Case of Measures of Attitude Strength, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,71 (4), 637–53.

Chien, Y., Wegener, D., Hsiao, C., and Petty, R., (2010),
Dimensional Range Overlap and Context Effects in Consumer Judgments, Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 530-542

Fazio, R. H., Powell, M.C., and Herr, P. M. (1983). Toward a process model of the attitude-behavior relation: Accessing one’s attitude upon more observation of the attitude object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 723-735

Herr, P. M., Sherman, S. J., and Fazio, R. H. (1983). On the consequences of priming: Assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 232-340

Herr, P. M. (1986). Consequences of priming: Judgment and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1106-1115.

Herr, P.. M. (1989). Priming price: Prior knowledge and context effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 67-75
Meyers-Levy, J., and Sternthal, B. (1993). A two-factor explanation of assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 359-368

Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo and David Schumann (1983), “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10(September), 2, 135-146.

Petty, Richard E. and Duane T. Wegener (1993), Flexible Correction Processes in Social Judgment: Correcting for Context-Induced Contrast, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29(March), 137-165.

Hsiao, C. (2002). The Reciprocity Hypothesis As an Explanation of Perception Shifts in Product Judgment. Dissertation, Purdue University.

Yi, Y. (1990). The effects of contextual priming in print advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 215-222

Yi, Y. (1993). Contextual priming effects in print advertisements: The moderating role of prior knowledge. Journal of Advertising, 22,