請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/23822
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 簡怡雯 | |
dc.contributor.author | Yen-Ju Huang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 黃彥儒 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T05:10:36Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2011-07-25 | |
dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2011-07-11 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 蔡育念(2007),「訊息處理目的、偏誤知識與涉入程度對自發性修正行為中偏誤知覺之影響」,臺灣大學商學研究所,碩士論文,民國96年。
蔡菁容(2007),「消費者之兩階段偏誤修正行為:偏誤定義與修正執行」,臺灣大學商學研究所,碩士論文,民國96年。 Andrews, J. Craig, Srinivas Durvasula, and Syed H. Akhter (1990), “A Framework for Conceptualizing and Measuring The Involvement Construct in Advertising Research,” Journal of Advertising, 19 (4), 27-40. Barden, Jamie and Richard E. Petty (2008), “The Mere Perception of Elaboration Creates Attitude Certainty: Exploring the Thoughtfulness Heuristic,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95 (3), 489-509. 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), 637-653. Calder, Bobby J., Chester A. Insko, and Ben Yandell (1974), “The Relation of Cognitive and Memorial Processes to Persuasion in a Simulated Jury Trial,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4 (1), 62–93. Chaiken, Shelly (1980), “Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus Message Cues in Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (5), 752-766. Chaiken, Shelly and Durairaj Maheswaran (1994), “Heuristic Processing Can Bias Systematic Processing: Effects of Source Credibility, Argument Ambiguity, and Task Importance on Attitude Judgment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (3), 460-473. Ellsberg, Daniel (1961), “Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75 (4), 643-669. Fabrigar, Leandre R., Richard E. Petty, Steven M. Smith, and Stephen L. Crites, Jr. (2006), “Understanding Knowledge Effects on Attitude-Behavior Consistency: The Role of Relevance, Complexity, and Amount of Knowledge,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (4), 556-577. Gross, Sharon R., Rolf Holtz, and Norman Miller (1995), “Attitude Certainty,” in Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences, ed. Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 215-245. Higgins, E. Tory, William S. Rholes, and Carl R. Jones (1977), “Category Accessibility and Impression Formation,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13 (2), 141-154. Hoch, Stephen J. and Young-Won Ha (1986), “Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (2), 221-233. Mackie, Diane M. (1987), “Systematic and Nonsystematic Processing of Majority and Minority Persuasive Communications,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (1), 41-52 Martin, Leonard L. (1986), “Set/Reset: Use and Disuse of Concepts in Impression Formation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (3), 493-504. 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 (1), 27-37. Petrocelli, John V., Zakary L. Tormala and Derek D. Rucker (2007), “Unpacking Attitude Certainty: Attitude Clarity and Attitude Correctness.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92 (1), 30-41. Petty, Richard E. and Duane T. Wegener (1999), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Current Status and Controversies,” in Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology, ed. Shelly Chaiken and Yaacov Trope, New York: Guilford Press, 41-72. Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo, (1984), “The Effects of Involvement on Responses to Argument Quantity and Quality: Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (1), 69-81. Petty, Richard E., Curtis P. Haugtvedt, and Steven M. Smith (1995), “Elaboration as a Determinant of Attitude Strength: Creating Attitudes that are Persistent, Resistant, and Predictive of Behavior,” in Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences, ed. Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 93-130. 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 (2), 135-146. Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo, and Rachel Goldman (1981), “Personal Involvement as a Determinant of Argument-Based Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41 (5), 847-855. Priester, Joseph R., Richard E. Petty, and Kiwan Park (2007), “When Univalent Ambivalence? From the Anticipation of Conflicting Reactions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (2), 11–21. Rucker, Derek D., Richard E. Petty (2004), “When Resistance Is Futile: Consequences of Failed Counterarguing for Attitude Certainty,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 (2), 219-235. Rucker, Derek D., Richard E. Petty, and Pablo Briñol (2008), “What’s in a frame anyway? : A meta-cognitive analysis of the impact of one versus two sided message framing on attitude certainty,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18 (2), 137-149. Schwarz, Norbert and Hebert Bless (1992), “Constructing Reality and its Alternative: An Inclusion/Exclusion Model of Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Social Judgment,” In L.L. Martin and A. Tesser (Eds.), The Construction of Social Judgments (pp. 217-245). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Smith, Steven M., Leandre R. Fabrigar, Bonnie L. Macdougall, and Naomi L. Wiesenthal (2008), “The Role of Amount, Cognitive Elaboration, and Structural Consistency of Knowledge in the Formation of Attitude Certainty,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 38 (2), 280-295. Tormala, Zakary L. and Richard E. Petty (2002), “What Doesn’t Kill Me Makes Me Stronger: The Effects of Resisting Persuasion on Attitude Certainty,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (6), 1298-1313. ——— (2004), “Resistance to Persuasion and Attitude Certainty: The Moderating Role of Elaboration,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 (11), 1446-1457. 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 (1), 36-51. Zaichkowsky, Judith L. (1985), “Measuring the Involvement Construct,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (3), 341-352. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/23822 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本研究主要探討消費者的涉入程度在廣告訴求數量的調節下會如何影響消費者對產品態度的確定性,以及態度確定性的高低是否會影響消費者對偏誤修正的程度。不同於過去對於態度確定性的研究,本研究採用不同的涉入程度來影響受測者的推敲可能性,再針對不同推敲可能性的受測者分別提供不同數量的廣告訴求,此外,為了讓高涉入程度的受測者能夠進行偏誤的修正行為,本研究採用雙面論述的廣告訴求,以降低訴求的強度,並提升訴求的模糊程度。本研究主張不論消費者的涉入程度高低,越多的廣告訴求會有越高的產品態度確定性,而較高的產品態度確定性也會使消費者在進行偏誤修正時降低其對偏誤的修正量。實驗結果發現,不論涉入程度高低,在越多的廣告訴求下,受測者會有較高的態度確定性,而在高涉入的狀態下,給與偏誤修正指示的受測者會進行反向的態度修正,且態度確定性高的受測者其偏誤修正的幅度會小於態度確定性較低的受測者。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | The current study is dedicated to investigate how consumers’ involvement level impacts attitude certainty as the number of advertisement argument is altered, and how attitude certainty subsequently influences the amount of bias correction. Different from previous researches in attitude certainty, current study uses involvement as a variable to manipulate elaboration amount. Then, we provide varying number of arguments to participants with differing level of involvement. In addition, present research uses two-sided arguments to lower argument quality and increase the argument ambiguity so participants in the high involvement group will initiate bias correction. It is predicted that participants who read more arguments will have higher attitude certainty, and higher attitude certainty will result in the reduction of bias correction amount regardless of the involvement levels. The result of our experiment confirms with the prediction, more arguments will result in higher attitude certainty despite the level of involvement. Moreover, in high involvement condition, participants with awareness tagline reverse their attitude and those who have higher attitude certainty have less amount of bias correction. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T05:10:36Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-100-R98741038-1.pdf: 4898425 bytes, checksum: f569c86a152b7ef11ad5cc3a1e0b3936 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝辭 i
中文摘要 ii Abstract iii 目錄 v 表目錄 vii 圖目錄 viii 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機 1 第二節 研究目的 3 第三節 本研究特殊性 3 第二章 文獻探討 5 第一節 涉入程度(Involvement) 5 第二節 推敲可能性模式(Elaboration Likelihood Model) 6 第三節 雙面論述、訴求數量與態度確定性(Two sided message, Argument quantity, and Attitude Certainty) 7 第四節 修正理論(Correction Model) 12 第三章 研究架構與假設 18 第一節 研究架構 18 第二節 研究假設 20 第四章 研究方法 23 第一節 研究設計 23 第二節 研究流程 29 第三節 變數定義 29 第五章 研究結果 35 第一節 信度檢定 35 第二節 操弄檢定 35 第三節 實驗結果與假設檢定 37 第六章 結論與建議 47 第一節 研究結論 47 第二節 學術貢獻與行銷意涵 48 第三節 研究限制 49 第四節 未來研究方向 50 參考文獻 52 附錄一:前測網路問卷內容範本 57 附錄二:主實驗網路問卷內容範本 61 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 消費者涉入程度與廣告訴求數量對態度確定性與偏誤修正量之影響 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Influence of Consumers’ Involvement and Amount of Advertising Argument on Attitude Certainty and Amount of Bias Correction | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 99-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 蕭中強,練乃華,陳建維 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 態度確定性,偏誤修正量,涉入程度,訴求數量,雙面論述, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Attitude Certainty,Amount of Bias Correction,Involvement,Amount of Argument,Two sided Message, | en |
dc.relation.page | 81 | |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2011-07-11 | |
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-100-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 4.78 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。