請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/69598
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 簡怡雯 | |
dc.contributor.author | Yi-Chien Wu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 吳依蒨 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T03:20:36Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2020-07-06 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2018-07-06 | |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2018-06-25 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Bargh, John A. (1990), “Auto-Motives: Preconscious Determinants of Social Interaction,” in Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, Vol. 2, ed. E. Tory Higgins and Richard M. Sorrentino, New York: Guilford, 93–130.
Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. Berlyne, D. E. (1971), Aesthetics and Psychobiology, New York: Meredith, 90. Belch, George E. (1981), 'An Examination of Comparative and Noncomparative Television Commercials: The Effects of Claim Variation and Repetition on Cognitive Response and Message Acceptance,' Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 222-249. Boerman, Sophie C., Eva A. van Reijmersdal and P. C. Neijens (2014), “Effects of Sponsorship Disclosure Timing on the Processing of Sponsored Content: A Study on the Effectiveness of European Disclosure Regulations,” Psychology and Marketing, 31, 214–224. Boerman, Sophie C., Eva A. van Reijmersdal and Peter Neijens (2012), “Sponsorship Disclosure: Effects of Duration on Persuasion Knowledge and Brand Responses,” Journal of Communication, 62, 1047-1064. Bohner, G., S. Einwiller, H. Erb and F. Siebler (2003). When Small Means Comfortable: Relations between Product Attributes in Two-Sided Advertising.Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 454-463. Campbell, Margaret C., Gina S. Mohr and Peeter W.J. Verlegh (2013),” Can Disclosures Lead Consumers to Resist Covert Persuasion? The Important Roles of Disclosure 49 Timing and Type of Response,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4) 483–495 Campbell, Margaret, and Amna Kirmani (2000), “Consumers’ Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 69–83. Chapple, Callum and Fiona Cownie (2017), “An Investigation into Viewers’ Trust in and Response Towards Disclosed Paid-for-Endorsements by YouTube Lifestyle Vloggers,” Journal of Promotional Communications, 5 (2), 110-136 Chartrand, Tanya L., Amy N. Dalton, and Clara M. Cheng (2008), “Consequences of Nonconscious Goal Activation,” in Handbook of Motivation Science, ed. James Y. Shah and Wendi L. Gardner, New York: Guilford, 342–55. Christel de Lassus and Maria Mercanti-Guérin (2013), “I Buy Your Product When I Feel I Know You: Using Blog Disclosure to Influence Consumers,” Management and Marketing Journal, 11 (2), 209-224. Crowley, Ayn E., and Wayne D. Hoyer (1994), “An Integrative Framework for Understanding Two-Sided Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 561-574. Darke, Peter R. and Robin Ritchie (2007), “The Defensive Consumer: Advertising Deception, Defensive Processing, and Distrust,” Journal of Marketing Research,44, 14–127. Etgar, Michael and Stephen A. Goodwin (1982), 'One-sided versus Two-sided Comparative Message Appeals for New Brand Introductions,' Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 460-465. Fitzsimons, Gavan J., and Donald R. Lehmann (2004), “Reactance to Recommendations: When Unsolicited Advice Yields Contrary Responses,” Marketing Science, 23, 82– 94.50 Forehand, Mark R. and Sonya Grier (2003), “When Is Honesty the Best Policy? The Effect of Stated Company Intent on Consumer Skepticism,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 349–356. Freedman, Jonathan L. and David O. Sears (1965), “Warning, distraction, and resistance to Influence,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(3), 262-266. Friestad, Marian and Esther Thorson (1993), “Remembering Ads: The Effects of Encoding Strategies, Retrieval Cues and Emotional Response,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2, 1-24. Friestad, Marian and Peter Wright (1994), “The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1–31. Glaser, Jack and Mahzarin R. Banaji (1999), “When Fair Is Foul and Foul Is Fair: Reverse Priming in Automatic Evaluation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 669–87. Golden, Linda L. and Mark I. Alpert (1987), 'Comparative Analyses of the Relative Effectiveness of One-sided and Two-sided Communications for Contrasting Products,' Journal of Advertising, 16 (1), 18-28. Goodstein, Ronald C. (1993), “Category-based Applications and Extensions in Advertising: Motivating More Extensive Ad Processing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 87-99 Hardesty, David M., Jay P. Carlson, and William Bearden (2002), “Brand Familiarity and Invoice Price Effects on Consumer Evaluations: The Moderating Role of Skepticism toward Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 31, 1-15 Hass, R. Glen and Kathleen Grady (1975),”Temporal delay, type of forewarning, and resistance to influence,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11(5), 459-469 51 Isaac, Mathew S. and Kent Grayson (2017), “Beyond Skepticism: Can Accessing Persuasion Knowledge Bolster Credibility?” Journal of Consumer Research, 43, 895–912 Jewell, Robert D. and Michael J. Barone, “Norm Violations and The Role of Marketplace Comparisons in Positioning Brands,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (4), pp. 550-559. Kamins, Michael A. and Lawrence J. Marks (1987), “Advertising Puffery: The Impact of Using Two-Sided Claims on Product Attitude and Purchase Intention,” Journal of Advertising, 16(4), 6-15. Kamins, Michael A. and Henry Assael (1987), 'Two-sided versus One-sided Appeals: A Cognitive Perspective on Argumentation, Source Derogation, and the Effect of Disconfirming Trial on Belief Change,' Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 29-39. Kamins, Michael A., Meribeth J. Brand, Stuart A. Hoeke and John C. Moe. (1989), “Two- Sided versus One-Sided Celebrity Endorsements: The Impact on Advertising Effectiveness and Credibility,” Journal of Advertising, 18(2), 4-10. Kardes, Frank R. (1988), “Spontaneous Inference Processes in Advertising: The Effects of Conclusion Omission and Involvement on Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 225–233 ——(2005), Persuasion: Psychological Insights and Perspectives, ed. Timothy C. Brock and Melanie C. Green, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 281–303. Laran, Juliano, Amy N. Dalton, and Eduardo B. Andrade (2011), “The Curious Case of Behavioral Backlash: Why Brands Produce Priming Effects and Slogans Produce Reverse Priming Effects,” The Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 999-1014 Liljander, Veronica, Johanna Gummerus, and Magnus Söderlund (2015), “Young Consumers’ Responses to Suspected Covert and Overt Blog Marketing,” Internet 52 Research, 25(4), 610-632. Main, Kelley J., Darren W. Dahl, and Peter R. Darke (2007), “Deliberative and Automatic Bases of Suspicion: Empirical Evidence of the Sinister Attribution Error,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17 (1), 59–69. Martin, Leonard L., John J. Seta, and Rick A. Crelia (1990), “Assimilation and Contrast as a Function of People’s Willingness and Ability to Expend Effort in Forming an Impression,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 27–37. Mugge, Ruth and Jan P. L. Schoormans (2012), “Newer Is Better! The Influence of a Novel Appearance on the Perceived Performance Quality of Products,” Journal of Engineering Design, 23, 469–84 Obermiller, Carl and Eric R. Spangenberg (2000), “On the Origin and Distinctness of Skepticism toward Advertising,” Marketing Letters, 11, 311–322 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, 137-165 Petty, Richard E., Duane T. Wegener, and Paul H. White (1998), “Flexible Correction Processes in Social Judgment: Implications for Persuasion,” Social Cognition, 16, 93-113. Rule, Brendan G., Gay L. Bisanz, and Melinda Kohn (1985), “Anatomy of a Persuasion Schema: Targets, Goals and Strategies,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1127–1140. Schindler, Robert M., Maureen Morrin, and Nada Nasr Bechwati (2005), ”Shipping Charges and Shipping-Charge Skepticism: Implications for Direct Marketers’ Pricing Formats,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19, 41–52. Schmidt, Daniel F. and Richard C. Sherman (1984), “Memory for Persuasive Messages: 53 A Test of a Schema-Copy-Plus-Tag Model,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 17-25. Sugiyama, Kotaro and Tim Andree (2010), The Dentsu Way: Secrets of Cross Switch Marketing from The World's Most Innovative Advertising Agency, New York, McGrawHill Tutaj, Karolina and Eva A. van Reijmersdal (2012), “Effects of Online Advertising Format and Persuasion Knowledge on Audience Reactions,” Journal of Marketing Communications, 18(1) van Reijmersdal, Eva A., Marieke L. Fransen, Guda van Noort, Suzanna J. Opree, Lisa Vandeberg, Sanne Reusch, Floor van Lieshout, and Sophie C. Boerman (2016), “Effects of Disclosing Sponsored Content in Blogs How the Use of Resistance Strategies Mediates Effects on Persuasion,” The American Behavioral Scientist, 60(12), 1458–1474. van Reijmersdal, Eva A., N. Lammers, E. Rozendaal and M. Buijzen (2015), “Disclosing The Persuasive Nature of Advergames: Moderation Effects of Mood on Brand Responses via Persuasion Knowledge,” International Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 70-84. Verhellen, Yann, Nathalie Dens and Patrick De Pelsmacker (2013), “Consumer Responses to Brands Placed in YouTube Movies: The Effect of Prominence and Endorser Expertise,” Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 14(4) Wegener, Duane T. and Richard E. Petty (1995), “Flexible Correction Processes in Social Judgment: The Role of Naïve Theories in Corrections for Perceived Bias,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 36–51. Wicklund, Robert A. (1970), “Prechoice Preference Reversal as a Result of Threat to Decision Freedom,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 8–17. 54 Williams, Patti, Gavan J. Fitzsimons, and Lauren G. Block (2004), “When Consumers Do Not Recognize “Benign” Intention Questions as Persuasion Attempts,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 540–550. Wilson, Timothy D., Christopher E. Houston, and Jonathan M. Meyers (1998), “Choose Your Poison: Effects of Lay Beliefs about Mental Processes on Attitude Change,” Social Cognition, 16, 114–32. Wilson, Timothy D., and Nancy Brekke (1994), “Mental Contamination and Mental Correction: Unwanted Influences on Judgments and Evaluations,” Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 117–142 Wood, Wendy and Jeffrey M. Quinn (2003), “Forewarned and forearmed? Two meta- analysis syntheses of forewarnings of influence appeals,” Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 119-138. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/69598 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本篇論文主要研究消費者對業配的部落格文章中,不同廠商贊助訊息揭露的 效果對文中產品態度的影響,並且如何受到不同資訊型態有不同效果,如都是正面 訊息或同時包含正負面訊息的文字描述。實驗中操弄把贊助訊息揭露在文章一開 始、文章結束、沒有揭露,來衡量受測者對產品的態度,調節變數則為正面訊息或 正負面訊息。本文研究結果顯示,在受測者為高涉入的狀態下,1)當文章中有贊助 揭露訊息時,會比沒有揭露訊息,較可能對產品態度往負面方向去調整。2)當贊助 訊息揭露在文章一開始時,往負面調整的幅度會大於揭露在文章最後。3)資訊型態 作為調節變數,只有正面訊息的資訊型態使向下調整的幅度比包含正負面訊息的 文章來得大。實驗結果可以發現,當業配訊息揭露在一開始,且只描述產品的優點, 會有最差的產品態度;而不揭露業配訊息,且描述產品的優點及缺點,會有最好的 產品態度,此結果對實務上的業配文行銷操作上有很大的幫助。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | The current research aims to examine the corrective effects of sponsorship disclosure in user-generated sponsored content in the settings of blog. Our study is designed to investigate the effects of no disclosure, prior disclosure, and after disclosure on product judgments, with the moderation of sidedness: one-sided vs. two-sided information. Based on the Flexible Correction Model and the Persuasion Knowledge Model, it is proposed that, under high involvement, people are more likely to correct their judgments of the product promoted in a user-generated content toward a negative direction when there is a disclosure of sponsorship than when there is no disclosure. What’s more, the results show that the corrective magnitude will be larger when disclosure is encountered at the beginning (prior-disclosure) than when disclosure is encountered at the end (after- disclosure). The sidedness will moderate such corrective effects such that the two-sided information will lead to a lesser corrective amount than one-sided information. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T03:20:36Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-107-R05741028-1.pdf: 2498390 bytes, checksum: de576d7648d2b53a9ad12e7f3c88a8bb (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審...............................................................................# 誌謝 ................................................................................................i 中文摘要 .................................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT .................................................................................. iii CONTENTS ................................................................................iv LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................vi LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................... vii Chapter 1 Introduction...................................................................1 1.1 Research background and motivation......................................1 1.2 Main contribution ....................................................................4 Chapter 2 Literature review...........................................................5 2.1 Prior research on sponsored content and related theories......5 2.1.1 Flexible Correction Model ...................................................8 2.1.2 Persuasion Knowledge Model.............................................10 2.1.3 Automatic correction ..........................................................12 2.2 Prior research on disclosure timing .......................................14 2.3 Prior research on two-sided persuasion ..............................16 Chapter 3 Hypothesis and Research Framework ......................19 Chapter 4 Methodology of the research ....................................24 4.1 Pretest .................................................................................24 4.2 Main Experiment .................................................................25 4.2.1 Design and Participants .....................................................25 4.2.2 Procedure ..........................................................................25 4.3 Independent Variables Manipulation ....................................26 4.4 Dependent Variables Measures...........................................27 Chapter 5 Results ......................................................................28 5.1 Reliability Test ......................................................................28 5.2 Manipulation Checks .........................................................30 5.2.1 Disclosure ...........................................................................30 5.2.2 One-sided and Two-sided information ..............................30 5.2.3 Involvement Level...........................................................32 5.2.4 Persuasion knowledge .......................................................35 5.3 Dependent Variable Testing .................................................37 5.3.1 Product attitude .................................................................37 5.4 Mediation Analysis .................................................................41 Chapter 6 Conclusion and Discussion ........................................44 6.1 Research conclusion .............................................................44 6.2 Managerial application .........................................................46 6.3 Limitation ..............................................................................47 6.4 Direction for future research.................................................48 REFERENCE ..............................................................................49 APPENDIX ..................................................................................56 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 不同揭露業配事實的順序與正負面訊息對產品評價的效果—以部落格文章為例 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Corrective Effects of Different Sponsorship Disclosure Timing on Product Judgments: The Moderating Roles of Sidedness | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 106-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 蕭中強,練乃華,陳建維 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 業配文,贊助訊息揭露,正負面訊息,產品態度, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | bias correction,persuasion knowledge,two-sided message,disclosure timing, | en |
dc.relation.page | 68 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201801092 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2018-06-25 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 商學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 商學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-107-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.44 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。