本研究以台灣即開型彩券（刮刮樂）市場為對象，探討產品設計的複雜度如何影響銷售表現，並驗證消費者的簡單性偏好（Simplicity Preference）、有限注意力與啟發式決策行為。研究採用 2023 年 8 月至 2025 年 8 月期間發行的 172 檔台灣刮刮樂產品作為樣本，透過普通最小平方法（OLS）進行實證分析。
實證結果顯示：第一，獎項種類數（Outcome）對銷售率具有顯著的負向影響，證實了消費者在面對風險決策時存在「簡單性偏好」，即結構越簡單的產品越受歡迎。第二，代表產品基本面價值的期望報酬淨值（NPV）對銷售率無顯著影響，說明消費者受限於認知資源，傾向於忽略計算成本高昂的資訊，符合「有限注意力」與「理性疏忽」假說。第三，整體獲獎率（Winrate）作為一種具備感官顯著性的特徵，對銷售表現有極顯著的正向驅動作用。
本研究結論指出，在具有博弈性質的市場中，產品的「簡單性」與「顯著特徵」比起客觀的經濟價值更能驅動消費行為。這為彩券發行商在產品設計上提供了的行為金融學建議。

This study examines the Taiwan scratch lottery market to investigate how product design complexity affects sales performance and to verify consumers' Simplicity Preference, Limited Attention, and Heuristic Decision-making behaviors. Using a sample of 172 scratch lottery products issued by the Taiwan Lottery Company between August 2023 and August 2025, the research conducts an empirical analysis using Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression.
The empirical findings are as follows: First, the number of prize tiers (Outcomes) has a significant negative impact on sales rates, supporting the "Simplicity Preference" theory which suggests that consumers prefer products with simpler structures when making risky decisions. Second, the Net Present Value (NPV), representing the fundamental economic value, shows no significant impact on sales, indicating that consumers tend to ignore information with high processing costs due to cognitive constraints, consistent with the "Limited Attention" and "Rational Inattention" hypotheses. Third, the overall Winrate, acting as a salient feature, significantly and positively drives sales performance.
The study concludes that in gambling-related markets, product "simplicity" and "salient features" are more influential in driving consumer behavior than objective economic value. These findings provide behavioral finance insights for lottery issuers regarding product design.

Abarbanell, J. S., & Bushee, B. J. (1997). Fundamental Analysis, Future Earnings, and Stock Prices. Journal of Accounting Research, 35(1), 1–24.
Brandstätter, E., Gigerenzer, G., & Hertwig, R. (2006). The Priority Heuristic: Making Choices Without Trade-Offs. Psychological Review, 113(2), 409–432.
Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2008). All That Glitters: The Effect of Attention and News on the Buying Behavior of Individual and Institutional Investors. The Review of Financial Studies, 21(2), 785–818.
Coon, M., & Whieldon, G. (2016). Elasticity of Demand and Optimal Prize Distribution for Instant Lottery Games. Atlantic Economic Journal, 44(4), 457–469.
Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic Motivation and the Process of Learning: Beneficial Effects of Contextualization, Personalization, and Choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715–730.
De BONDT, W. F. M., & THALER, R. (1985). Does the Stock Market Overreact? The Journal of Finance (New York), 40(3), 793–805.
DELLAVIGNA, S., & POLLET, J. M. (2009). Investor Inattention and Friday Earnings Announcements. The Journal of Finance (New York), 64(2), 709–749.
Gao, X., & Lin, T.-C. (2015). Do Individual Investors Treat Trading as a Fun and Exciting Gambling Activity? Evidence from Repeated Natural Experiments. The Review of Financial Studies, 28(7), 2128–2166.
Garrett, T. A., & Sobel, R. S. (1999). Gamblers favor skewness, not risk: Further evidence from United States’ lottery games. Economics Letters, 63(1), 85–90.
Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic Decision Making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 451–482.
Hirshleifer, D., & Teoh, S. H. (2003). Limited attention, information disclosure, and financial reporting. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 36(1), 337–386.
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When Choice is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995–1006.
Kovářík, J., Levin, D., & Wang, T. (2016). Ellsberg paradox: Ambiguity and complexity aversions compared. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 52(1), 47–64.
Langer, E. J., & Rodin, J. (1976). The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(2), 191–198.
Lim, S. S., & Teoh, S. H. (2010). Limited attention. Behavioral finance: Investors, corporations, and markets, 295-312.
Moffatt, P. G., Sitzia, S., & Zizzo, D. J. (2015). Heterogeneity in preferences towards complexity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 51(2), 147–170.
Mullainathan, S. (2002). A Memory-Based Model of Bounded Rationality. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 735–774.
Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(1), 84–97.
Oprea, R. (2020). What Makes a Rule Complex? The American Economic Review, 110(12), 3913–3951.
Peng, L., & Xiong, W. (2006). Investor attention, overconfidence and category learning. Journal of Financial Economics, 80(3), 563–602.
PURI, I. (2025). Simplicity and Risk. The Journal of Finance (New York), 80(2), 1029–1080.
Sethi-Iyengar, S., Huberman, G., & Jiang, W. (2004). How Much Choice is Too Much? Contributions to 401(k) Retirement Plans. In Pension Design and Structure. Oxford University Press.
Simon, H. A. (1971). Designing organizations for an information-rich world. In M. Greenberger (Ed.), Computers, communications, and the public interest (pp. 37–72). The Johns Hopkins Press.
Sims, C. A. (2003). Implications of rational inattention. Journal of Monetary Economics, 50(3), 665–690.
Teoh, S. H., & Wong, T. J. (2002). Why New Issues and High-Accrual Firms Underperform: The Role of Analysts’ Credulity. The Review of Financial Studies, 15(3), 869–900.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science), 185(4157), 1124–1131.
Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., & Deci, E. L. (1978). On the Importance of Self-Determination for Intrinsically-Motivated Behavior. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(3), 443–446.