請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/101781完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 簡怡雯 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Yi-Wen Chien | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 張育瑄 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Yu-Syuan Chang | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-03-04T16:31:05Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2026-03-05 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2026-03-04 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2026 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2026-02-09 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall. Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., Flavián, M., & Ibáñez-Sánchez, S. (2021). Understanding influencer marketing: The role of congruence between influencers, products and consumers. Journal of Business Research, 132, 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.067 Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., & Flavián, M. (2024). Human versus virtual influences, a comparative study. Journal of Business Research, 173, 114493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114493 Bruhn, M., Schoenmueller, V. B., Schäfer, D., & Heinrich, D. (2012). Brand authenticity: Towards a deeper understanding of its conceptualization and measurement. Advances in Consumer Research, 40, 567-576. Campbell, D. T., Stanley, J. C., & Gage, N. L. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Houghton, Mifflin and Company. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In R. E. Petty & J. T. Cacioppo (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (pp. 145-180). Sage. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). The Guilford Press. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309 Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the InternaSl Structure of Tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555 DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Sage Publications. Friedman, H. H., & Friedman, L. (1979). Endorser effectiveness by product type. Journal of Advertising Research, 19(5), 63–71. Gaied, A. M., & Rached, K. S. (2015). The congruence effect between the endorser and the product on the advertising persuasion. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 6(12), 43–53. Gay, L. R. (1992). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application (4th ed.). New York, NY: Merrill/Macmillan. Herr, P. M., Sherman, S. J., & Fazio, R. H. (1983). On the consequences of priming: Assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(4), 323-340. Horton, D., & Wohl, R. (1956). Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a Distance. Psychiatry, 19, 215-229. Ilicic, J., & Webster, C. M. (2014). Investigating consumer–brand relational authenticity. Journal of Brand Management, 21(4), 342–363. https://doi.org/10.1057/BM.2014.11 Kahle, L. R., & Homer, P. M. (1985). Physical attractiveness of the celebrity endorser: A social adaptation perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 954–961. https://doi.org/10.1086/209029 Kamins, M. A. (1990). An investigation into the “match-up” hypothesis in celebrity advertising: When beauty may be only skin deep. Journal of Advertising, 19(1), 4–13. Kim, I., Ki, C. W., Lee, H., & Kim, Y. K. (2024). Virtual influencer marketing: Evaluating the influence of virtual influencers’ form realism and behavioral realism on consumer ambivalence and marketing performance. Journal of Business Research, 176, 114611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114611 Lafferty, B. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). Corporate credibility’s role in consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions when a high versus a low credibility endorser is used in the ad. Journal of Business Research, 44(2), 109–116. Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 353–381). The Guilford Press. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22 140, 55. Liu, R., Zhang, Y., & Lin, L. (2024). The effectiveness of virtual vs. human influencers in digital marketing: Based on perceived psychological distance and credibility. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 46. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9pk2x124 Lou, C., Kiew, S. T. J., Chen, T., Lee, T. Y. M., Ong, J. E. C., & Phua, Z. X. (2022). Authentically fake? How consumers respond to the influence of virtual influencers. Journal of Advertising, 51(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2022.2041243 Martin, L. L. (1986). Set/reset: Use and disuse of concepts in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 493–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.493 Martin, L. L., Seta, J. J., & Crelia, R. A. (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. Mirowska, A., & Arsenyan, J. (2024). Sweet escape: The role of empathy in social media engagement with human versus virtual influencers. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 186, 103122. Morhart, F., Malär, L., Guèvremont, A., Girardin, F., & Grohmann, B. (2015). Brand authenticity: An integrative framework and measurement scale. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 200–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.11.006 Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1990.10673191 O'Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research (2nd ed.). In R. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Handbook of media effects (pp. 269-282). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (2009) Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Pan, S., Qin, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2024). More realistic, more better? How anthropomorphic images of virtual influencers impact the purchase intentions of consumers. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 19(4), 3229–3252. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19040157 Park, C. W., & Young, S. M. (1986). Consumer response to television commercials: The impact of involvement and background music on brand attitude formation. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(1), 21-35. Park, S. (S.), Wei, X., & Lee, H. (2024). Revisiting the elaboration likelihood model in the context of a virtual influencer: A comparison between high‐ and low‐involvement products. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 23(4), 1638–1652. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2290 Perdue, B. C., & Summers, J. O. (1986). Checking the success of manipulations in marketing experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(4), 317–326. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151807 Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 323–390). McGraw-Hill. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 37–72). The Guilford Press. Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & White, P. H. (1998). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: Implications for persuasion. Social Cognition, 16(1), 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1998.16.1.93 Robbins, S. P., & DeCenzo, D. A. (2005). Fundamentals of management: Essential concepts and applications (5th ed.). Pearson Education. Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Schwarz, N. (1988). Priming and communication: Social determinants of information use in judgments of life satisfaction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(5), 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180505 Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1991). Evaluating one's life: A judgment model of subjective -being. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 27–47). Pergamon Press. Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. Academic Press. Sherif, M., Taub, D., & Hovland, C. I. (1958). Assimilation and contrast effects of anchoring stimuli on judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(2), 150–155. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048784 Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. Yale Univer. Press. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852 Teeny, Jacob D., Joseph J. Siev, Pablo Briñol and Richard E. Petty (2021), “A Review and Conceptual Framework for Understanding Personalized Matching Effects in Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(2), 382-414. Till, B. D., & Busler, M. (2000). The Match-Up Hypothesis: Physical Attractiveness, Expertise, and the Role of Fit on Brand Attitude, Purchase Intent and Brand Beliefs. Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2000.10673613 Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: The role of naive theories in corrections for perceived bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.36 Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (2001). On the use of naive theories of bias to remove or avoid bias: The flexible correction model. Advances in Consumer Research, 28, 378-383. Wood, Alex & Linley, P. & Maltby, John & Baliousis, Michael & Joseph, Stephen. (2008). The Authentic Personality: A Theoretical and Empirical Conceptualization and the Development of the Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 55. 10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.385. Xia, M., Lv, H. & Xu, X. Validating the Chinese version authenticity scale: psychometrics in college and community samples. Curr Psychol 41, 7301–7313 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01326-7 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/101781 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究重新驗證當代言人職業與產品的專業連結度較低,閱聽人將產生較差之產品態度。此外,當產品為感官性商品,即如同化妝品、保養品等會給予五感直接感受的產品時,若代言人選用 AI 虛擬代言人,會使閱聽人認知到的代言人—產品連結度(本研究分析階段以感知適配度稱)更低,因而產生違和感,導致產品評價較差;而若產品為科技類商品,則因虛擬代言人亦為科技導向,使閱聽人的感知適配度提升,從而產生較佳之產品態度。
本研究旨在探討虛擬與真實代言人對產品判斷的影響,並以職業、產品類別作為干擾變數,檢測其調節作用。研究以推敲可能性模型與適配假說作為理論基礎,並採用問卷調查法,隨機抽取約 500 名大專院校生作為研究樣本,並設計 8 版不同的問卷以操弄代言人特性(真實 vs. 虛擬)、產品類別(感官性 vs. 科技類)與代言人與產品的專業連結度(高 vs. 低)。受測者在確知充分背景資訊與無時間限制的情境下進行判斷,確保其透過中央路徑處理訊息。最後,運用變異數分析(ANOVA)與迴歸分析檢驗研究假設。 本研究結果將有助於理解虛擬代言人在廣告效果中的角色,及 Z 世代消費者對虛擬代言人之觀感,並為企業在選擇代言人時提供實證依據。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | This study reexamines the effect of endorser–product professional congruence on consumer product evaluations. When the endorser's occupation is perceived to have low relevance to the endorsed product, consumers tend to form less favorable product attitudes. Moreover, in the context of sensory products—such as cosmetics and skincare items that directly stimulate the five senses—the use of AI-generated virtual endorsers leads to lower perceived endorser–product congruence (referred to as perceived fit in this study), which in turn evokes a sense of incongruity and results in diminished product evaluations. In contrast, when the product is technology-related, the technological nature of virtual endorsers enhances perceived congruence, leading to more favorable product attitudes.
The purpose of this study is to investigate how virtual versus human endorsers influence consumer product judgments, with endorser occupation and product category serving as moderating variables. Drawing on the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) and the Match-Up Hypothesis as theoretical foundations, a survey-based experimental design was employed. Approximately 500 university students were randomly sampled and assigned to one of eight questionnaire versions that manipulated endorser type (virtual vs. human), product category (sensory vs. technological), and professional congruence (high vs. low). Participants were provided with detailed background information and no time constraints, encouraging central-route processing of the advertising stimuli. Hypotheses were tested using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and regression analysis. The findings offer insights into the role of virtual endorsers in advertising effectiveness, particularly among Generation Z consumers. This research provides empirical evidence to guide marketers in endorser selection strategies. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2026-03-04T16:31:05Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2026-03-04T16:31:05Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員審定書i
致謝iii 摘要v Abstract vii 目次ix 圖次xiii 表次xv 第一章緒論1 1.1 研究背景與動機. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 研究目的. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 論文架構. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 第二章文獻回顧5 2.1 有限理性. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1.1 有限理性與ELM 高涉入情境之矛盾性探討. . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2 代言人之相關研究. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2.1 適配假說. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2.2 個人化適配效果. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.3 人工智能於心理層面之影響. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.3.1 虛擬代言人—虛擬網紅行銷的心理機制. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 第三章研究架構與假說13 3.1 研究架構. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.2 研究假說. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 第四章研究方法17 4.1 研究流程. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.2 研究對象. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.3 研究工具. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.3.1 問卷設計之信效度重要信. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.3.1.1 信度. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.3.1.2 效度. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.3.2 前測問卷. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.3.3 主實驗問卷. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.3.3.1 問卷程序. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.3.3.2 樣本來源說明. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4.4 資料處理與樣本篩選. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.5 研究變數. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 4.5.1 自變數操作. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.5.2 心理機制變數. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.5.2.1 調節變數. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.5.2.2 中介變數. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.5.3 應變數測量(Dependent Variables) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 4.6 量表信度分析. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 第五章主實驗研究結果41 5.1 敘述性統計分析. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 5.1.1 整體受測者背景分布. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 5.1.2 樣本集調整. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 5.1.3 操弄檢驗. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 5.1.4 主要變數敘述性統計. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 5.2 關聯分析與前導檢定. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5.2.1 相關性分析. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5.2.2 逐步迴歸分析. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 5.3 模型驗證與調節中介分析. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.3.1 產品態度. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.3.2 品牌真誠度. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 5.3.3 代言人吸引力. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 5.3.4 感知投入度. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 5.3.5 論點可信度. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 5.3.6 評價確定度. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 5.4 小節. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 第六章結論與建議69 6.1 研究結論. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 6.2 理論貢獻. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6.3 管理應用. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 6.4 研究限制與未來展望. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 參考文獻75 附錄A — 分析相關表格81 附錄B — 前測問卷85 附錄C — 主實驗分析87 附錄D — PBA 題項完整資訊105 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.subject | 代言人 | - |
| dc.subject | 人工智能 | - |
| dc.subject | 高涉入程度 | - |
| dc.subject | 產品—職業連結度 | - |
| dc.subject | 感知適配度 | - |
| dc.subject | 產品態度 | - |
| dc.subject | Endorser | - |
| dc.subject | Artificial Intelligence | - |
| dc.subject | High Involvement | - |
| dc.subject | Endorser–Product Congruence | - |
| dc.subject | Perceived Fit | - |
| dc.subject | Product Attitude | - |
| dc.title | 虛擬與真實代言人對產品判斷的效果:專業連結與產品類別的干擾效果 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Effects of Virtual and Real-Life Endorsers on Product Evaluation: The Moderators of Professional Association and Product Category | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 114-1 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林嘉薇;蕭中強 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Chia-Wei Lin;Chung-Chiang Hsiao | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 代言人,人工智能高涉入程度產品—職業連結度感知適配度產品態度 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Endorser,Artificial IntelligenceHigh InvolvementEndorser–Product CongruencePerceived FitProduct Attitude | en |
| dc.relation.page | 105 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202600680 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 未授權 | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2026-02-10 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 商學研究所 | - |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | N/A | - |
| 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-114-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 17.81 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。
