請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/62027完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 梁朝雲(Chaoyun Liang) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Jung-Hung Yen | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 顏榮宏 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T13:23:55Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2020-07-22 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2020-07-22 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2020-06-19 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 中文參考書目 王昭濱(2018)。【全文】觀光工廠未登記 直擊中部2大蜂蜜幽靈工廠。檢自︰https://www.mirrormedia.mg/story/20181017soc004/ 王紹蓉、梁定澎、賴誼禎(2016)。揭露與隱藏之拉鋸:人氣需求與隱私顧慮對臉書隱私管理行為之影響。資訊管理學報,23(4),445-472。 王億晴、梁慈芳(2018)。假新聞對閱聽者之影響探討。圖文傳播藝術學報,4,38-45。 方世榮、陳連勝、張雅婷(2008)。顧客關係傾向與關係品質之探討:以科技介入與涉入程度為干擾變項。東吳經濟商學學報,60,1-38。 江雅綺(2018年11月5日)。截斷網路假消息 法律戰是世界趨勢。自由時報。檢自:http://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/1244442 行政院農業委員會(2019a)。爭議訊息澄清專區(含食安)。「柚農陳大哥種植文旦柚200萬斤丟到曾文溪」不是事實。檢自︰http://news.afa.gov.tw/MPR.afa/NewsMain/NewsInfoMobile.aspx?NewsMainSeq=14296 行政院農業委員會(2019b)。農業訊息報你知。檢自︰https://coa.yam.com/ 行政院農業委員會(2018a)。爭議訊息澄清專區(含食安)。檢自︰https://www.coa.gov.tw/faq/faq_list.php 行政院農業委員會(2018b)爭議訊息澄清專區(含食安)。林員外說竹筍都抹年年冬精毒藥!到底能不能吃?。檢自︰https://www.coa.gov.tw/faq/faq_view.php?id=196 行政院農業委員會動植物防疫檢疫局(2019)。【澄清稿】「毒雞蛋芬普尼標準將放寬100%」假消息 防檢局嚴正駁斥並移送警方偵辦。檢自︰https://www.baphiq.gov.tw/view_news.php?id=15981 行政院環境保護署環檢所(2018)。環保署公布自來水、海水、沙灘砂礫與貝類中微型塑膠含量首次調查結果。檢自︰https://enews.epa.gov.tw/enews/fact_Newsdetail.asp?InputTime=1070925112045 汪志堅、李欣穎(2005)。來源可信度、情感認同與涉入程度對網路闢謠效果之影響。管理學報,22(3),391-413。 汪志堅、駱少康(2002)。以內容分析法探討網路謠言之研究。資訊、科技與社會學報,2(1),131-148。 汪志堅、賴明政(2001)。消費者對網際網路所流傳產品瑕疵謠言之態度。廣告學研究,16,31-54。 李欣穎、汪志堅、駱少康、方文昌(2003)。網路謠言的跨國傳播現象初探。資訊社會研究,5,175-208。 吳采薇(2017)。社群媒體發展網路不當言論管理機制之趨勢觀察。科技法律透析,29(10),34-41。 吳宜蓁(2002)。危機傳播:公共關係與語藝觀點的理論與實證。臺北:五南。 吳宜蓁(2005)。企業網路謠言回應策略及其影響因素初探。廣告學研究,23,1-33。 谷傳玲(2017)。老年人這樣吃肉最健康。每日頭條。檢自︰https://kknews.cc/health/yall3lg.html 林家五、宋進褔(2008)。消費者對價格保證策略的反應:知覺可信度的效果。臺大管理論叢,18(2),197-228。 林慧淳(2018)。真有加藥延命「殭屍蝦」?活蝦到底能不能吃?康健雜誌。檢自︰https://www.commonhealth.com.tw/article/article.action?nid=78087 胡元輝(2018)。造假有效、更正無力?第三方事實查核機制初探。傳播研究與實踐,8(2),43-73。 姚崇仁(2019)。放寬雞蛋芬普尼標準? 防檢局:假消息。台灣動物新聞網。檢自:http://www.tanews.org.tw/info/16492 徐美苓(2015)。影響新聞可信度與新聞素養效能因素之探討。中華傳播學刊,27,99-136。 徐達光(2003)。消費者心理學:消費者心理學的科學研究。臺北:東華書局。 徐月泙(1997)。蜂蜜之消費分析。蠶蜂業專訊革新第二十二號(八十六年十二月)。檢自︰https://www.mdais.gov.tw/ws.php?id=1116 陳宇義(2019)。中天製造假新聞、中國影視長驅直入 NCC還在等解放軍來?檢自︰https://www.hi-on.org/article-single.php?At=58 An=174861 陳怡君(2019)。報導丟棄200萬噸文旦 NCC裁罰中天100萬元。中央社。檢自:https://www.rti.org.tw/news/view/id/2017207 許文怡、梁朝雲(2007)。訊息來源可信度、情感認同與涉入程度對大學生採信消費性網路謠言之影響。教育資料與圖書館學,45(1),99-120。 郭琇真(2018)。臺灣麥當勞標榜旗下肉雞不打生長激素,養雞協會籲停止影射式廣告傷害產業。檢自︰https://www.agriharvest.tw/theme_data.php?theme=article sub_theme=article id=2319 張軒豪、柯建志、廖凱弘(2001)。網路誹謗類型之初探︰從網路謠言談起。傳播與管理研究,1(1),21-44。 黃麗鈴(2019)。從社會科學研究典範質量之辯探析混合研究。臺灣教育評論月刊,8(6),163-177。 創市際市場研究顧問(2018)。2018台灣網路報告。 曾淑芬(2009)。網際網路的信任與風險:經驗科技或是社會濡染?資訊社會研究,17,127-151。 賀乙舜(2018)。添藥延命「僵屍蝦」 瞬間活跳增賣相。檢自︰https://youtu.be/1wRmmS-w8-g 傅文成、陶聖屏(2018)。以大數據觀點探索網路謠言的「網路模因」傳播模式。中華傳播學刊,33,99-135。 彭杏珠(2018)。謊言臺灣。遠見,6。檢自︰https://www.gvm.com.tw/article.html?id=44405 程宗明(2016)。傳播潮流巨變翻騰中 徐文輕舟已過萬重浪。新聞學研究,127,169-178。 焦鈞(2018)。合作社有二種:水果「產地價格」崩盤的正確解讀。檢自︰http://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/breakingnews/2479384 劉志原(2018)。【科技種菜吸金】同一套話術玩2次 吸金手法大揭密。檢自︰https://www.mirrormedia.mg/story/20180814inv010/ 劉俊麟(1999)。現代公共關係法。臺北:揚智文化。 養生之道網(2016)。老年人吃大蝦好不好。每日頭條。檢自︰https://kknews.cc/zh-tw/health/ble4bn.html 薛莫(2017)。信者恆信。科學人,180,90。 韓菊美、林綱偉(2012)。環境識覺之問卷實施方法探究。正修通識教育學報,9,291-318。 顏榮宏、梁朝雲、林福容(2019)。消費者獲悉農業假訊息後對其消費意願的影響。台灣農學會報,20(2),83-101。 蕭維傑、王維菁(2018)。動態消息演算法、能見度、與新聞經營:以Facebook平臺為例。資訊社會研究,34,63-104。 羅世宏(2018)。關於「假新聞」的批判思考:老問題、新挑戰與可能的多重解方。資訊社會研究,35,51-85。 外文參考書目 Alemanno, A. (2018). Editorial: How to counter fake news? A taxonomy of anti-fake news approaches. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 9(special issue 1), 1-5. Anthony, S. (1973). Anxiety and rumor. Journal of Social Psychology, 89, 91-98. Bode, L., Vrada, E. K. (2015). In related news, that was wrong: The correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 619-638. Bordia, P. (1996). Studying verbal interaction on the Internet: The case of rumor transmission research. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, Computers, 28, 149-151. Bordia, P., Rosnow, R. L. (1998). Rumor rest stops on the information highway: Transmission patterns in a computer-mediated rumor chain. Human Communication Research, 25(2), 163-179. Bordia, P., DiFonzo, N., Travers, V. (1998). Denying rumors of organizational change: A higher source is not always better. Communication Research Reports, 15(2), 188-197. Celsi, L. R., Olson, C. J. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 210-214. Chen, C.-C., Yueh, H.-P., Liang, C. (2016). Strategic management of agribusiness: Determinants and trends. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 12(4), 69-97. Cook, J., Ecker, U., Lewandowsky, S. (2015). Misinformation and how to correct it. In Scott, R. A., S. M. Kosslyn, M. Buchmann (Eds.). Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: An interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Davis, G. (1997). Are Internet surveys ready for prime time? Marketing News, 31(8), 31-32. Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Aleman, J. L. (2001). Brand trust in the context of consumer loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 35(11/12), 1238-1258. DiFonzo, N., Bordia, P. (1998). A set of two corporations: Managing uncertainty during organizational change. Human Resource Management Journal, 37, 295-304. DiFonzo, N., Bordia, P. (2000). How top PR professionals handle hearsay: Corporate rumors, their effects, and strategies to manage them. Public Relations Review, 26(2), 173-190. DiFonzo, N., Bordia, P., Rosnow, R. L. (1994). Reining in rumors. Organizational Dynamics, 23, 47-62. Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., Grewal. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307-319. Ecker, U. K. H., Hogan, J. L., Lewandowsky, S. (2017). Reminders and repetition of misinformation: Helping or hindering its retraction? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(2), 185-192. Edwards, O. (1989, April). Leak soup. GQ, 228. Everard, A., Galletta, D. F. (2006). How presentation flaws affect perceived site quality, trust, and intention to purchase from an online store. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(3), 56-95. Flanagin, A. J., Metzger, M. J. (2003). The perceived credibility of personal Web page info as influenced by the sex of the source. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(6), 683-701. Grunig, J. E. (2000). Collectivism, collaboration, and societal corporatism as core professional values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1), 23-48. Harding, G. (2017). Media lies and Brexit: A double hammer-blow to Europe and ethical journalism. In Ethics in the News: EJN Report on Challenges for Journalism in the Post-Truth Era, edited by A. White, 11–13. London: Ethical Journalism Network. Himma-Kadakas, M. (2017). Alternative facts and fake news entering journalistic content production cycle. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 25-41. House, E. R. (1994). Integrating the quantitative and qualitative. In Reichardt, C. S., S. F. Rallis (Eds.). The qualitative-quantitative debate: New perspectives (pp. 13-22). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Iyer, E. S. Debevec K., (1991). Origin of rumor and tone of message in rumor quelling strategies. Psychology Marketing, 8(3), 161-175. Jaeger, M. E., Anthony, S. m Rosnow, R. L. (1980). Who hears what from whom and with what effect: A study of rumor. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 473-478. Jones, C. (2017). Bill would help California schools teach about “fake news,” media literacy. https://edsource.org/2017/bill-would-help-california-schools-teach-about-fake-news-media-literacy/582363 Kapferer, J. N. (1990). Rumors: Uses, interpretations, and images. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Kiecker, P., Cowles, D. (2001). Interpersonal communication and personal influence on the internet: A framework for examining. Internet Applications in Euro Marketing, 25(8), 65-71. Knapp, R. H. (1944). A psychology of rumor. Public Opinion Quarterly, 8(1), 22-37. Knox, S., Walker, D. (2003). Empirical developments in the measurement of involvement, brand loyalty and their relationship in grocery markets. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11(7), 271-286. Koller, M. (1992). Rumor rebuttal in the marketplace. Journal of Economic Psychology, 13, 167-186. Korzaan, M. L. (2003). Going with the flow: Predicting online purchase intentions. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 43(4), 25-31. Law, S. (1999). When does source credibility expert it’s influence on beliefs: At encoding or at retrieval? European Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 45-50. Lazer, D. M. J., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., ... (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094-1096. Lazer, D. M. J., Baum, M. A., Grinberg, N., Friedland, L., Joseph, K., Hobbs, W., Mattsson, C. (2017). Combating fake news: An agenda for research and action. Conference held February 17–18, 2017. Organized by Matthew Baum (Harvard), David Lazer (Northeastern), and Nicco Mele (Harvard) Leonhardt, D., Thompson, S. A. (2017). Trump’s lies. New York Times. Retrieved from: https://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/ Liu, Z. (2004). Perceptions of credibility of scholarly information on the web. Information Processing and Management, 40(6), 1027-1038. Mack, R. W., Blose, J. E., Pan, B. (2008). Believe it or not: Credibility of blogs in tourism. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 14(2), 133-144. Menon, G., Jewell, R. D., Unnava, H. R. (1999). When a company does not respond to negative publicity: Cognitive elaboration vs. negative affect perspective. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 325-329. Middleberg, D. (2001). Winning PR in the wired world: Powerful communications strategies for the noisy digital space. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Miquel, S., Caplliure, E. M., Aldas-Manzano, J. (2002). The effect of personal involvement on the decision to buy store brand. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 11(1), 6-18. Mookerjee, A. (2001). A study of the influence of source characteristics and product importance on consumer word of mouth based on personal sources. Global Business Review, 2(2), 177- 193. Neil, B. (2000). Crisis management and the Internet. Ivey Business Journal, 64(3), 13-17. Niklewicz, K. (2017). Weeding out fake news: An approach to social media regulation. European View, 16(2), 335. Nyhan, B., Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330. Okoro, N., Emmanuel, N. O. (2019). Beyond misinformation: Survival alternatives for Nigerian media in the “post-truth” era. African Journalism Studies, 39(4), 67-90. Owoseye, A., Onyeji, E. (2018). PTCIJ launches fact-checking websites, Dubawa, Udeme. Premium Times, February 20. Accessed October 14, 2018. https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/259241-ptcij-launches-fact-checking-websites-dubawa-udeme.html. Pendleton, S. C. (1998). Rumor research revisited and expanded. Language Communication, 18, 69-86. Peter, J. P., Olson, J. C. (2004). Consumer behavior and marketing strategy (7th ed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Pickernell, D., Packham, G., Jones, P., Miller, C., Thomas, B. (2011). Graduate entrepreneurs are different: They access more resources? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour Research, 17(2), 183-202. Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243-281. Rosnow, R. L. (1991), Inside rumor: A personal journey. American Psychologist, 46, 484-496. Rosnow, R. L., Fine, G. A. (1976). Rumor and gossip: The social psychology of hearsay. New York, NY: Elsevier North-Holland. Rosnow, R. L. (1974). On rumor. Journal of Communication, 24(3), 26-38. Tse, A. (1998). Comparing the response rate, response speed and response quality of two methods of sending questionnaires: E-mail vs. mail. Journal of Market Research Society, 40, 353-361. Votavová, K., Janda, J. (2017). Making online platforms responsible for news content. European Values: Protecting Freedom, Kremlin Watch Report. https://www.europeanvalues.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Making-online-platforms-responsible-for-news-content-3.pdf Wakefield, J. (2019). Facebook employs UK fact-checkers to combat fake news, BBC. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46836897 Walker, C. J., Beckerle, C. A. (1987). The effect of anxiety on rumor tranmission. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2, 353-360. Warrington, P., Shim, S. (2000). An empirical investigation of the relationship between product involvement and brand commitment. Psychology and Marketing, 17(9), 761-782. Witte, J, C., Amoroso, L. M., Howard, P. E. N. (2000). Research methodology: Method and representation in Internet-based survey tools: Mobility, community, and cultural identity in Survey2000. Social Science Computer Review, 18(2), 179-195. Wood, A. K., Ravel, A. M. (2018). Fool me once: Regulating ‘fake news’ and other online advertising. Southern California Law Review, 91(6), 1223-1278. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A meansend model and synthesize of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22. Zimmerman, K. (1989). Introduction to empirical inquiry. In F. H. Hultgren D. L. Coomer (Eds.), Alternate modes of inquiry in home economics research (pp. 3-8). Yearbook 9, American Home Economics Association. Peoria, IL: Glencoe. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/62027 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 農業假訊息猶如一顆具高度破壞力的不定時炸彈,會突發性的攻擊國內農企業,形成莫大傷害。然而,假訊息的事實查核與澄清速度,卻遠不及其傳播速度和範圍。本研究主要目的在探討:當農業假訊息被澄清後,消費大眾對新聞訊息的傳播方式,以及對農業訊息的涉入度與其來源的可信度,對消費意願與因應策略產生的影響。 本研究文獻探討主題包括有:(一)農業假訊息與其效應;(二)訊息涉入度、來源可信度、傳播方式與消費意願;(三)農業假訊息的因應策略。本研究透過網路問卷調查法,共回收725份問卷,刪除無效樣本後,有效樣本數為707份,再運用SPSS for Windows 21進行統計分析,以敘述統計進行人口變項的分析,再進行平均數、標準差、因素負荷量、t檢定、變異數分析(ANOVA),以及迴歸(regression)等統計分析。 本研究結果顯示,「回應新聞方式」會正向影響蜂蜜之消費意願,卻未對活蝦消費意願無影響;「回應新聞方式」也會正向影響蜂蜜和活蝦消費者之假訊息因應策略。此外,蜂蜜及活蝦的「訊息涉入度」皆會正向地影響民眾消費意願;蜂蜜及活蝦的「訊息涉入度」都會正向影響消費者之假訊息因應策略。蜂蜜及活蝦「訊息來源可信度」皆會負向地影響民眾消費意願,但都對假訊息因應策略不會產生顯著的影響。 在人口變項方面,當假訊息被澄清後,蜂蜜消費意願沒有男女之別,而男性對活蝦的消費意願高於女性。此外,31~40歲者對「蜂蜜消費意願」顯著高於30歲以下者;而51歲以上者的高齡者「活蝦消費意願」較其他年齡層更強。再則,臺南地區民眾的「蜂蜜訊息來源可信度」及「活蝦訊息來源可信度」皆顯著高於其他地區民眾。 農企業可藉本研究結果來理解農業假訊息對一般大眾消費行為的影響,以有效地強化其企業營運。民眾可在採購農產品之前,藉此自我提醒去防範、過濾,和查核訊息。政府相關機構可藉此檢視現行法規之缺失,針對情節重大的農業假訊息製播者,在刑責或賠償上再加衡量,並透過媒體識讀和法律基礎教育來強化國人生活素養,並投資研發生活軟體來協助民眾辨別訊息真偽。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Fake agriculture messages are like a highly destructive time bomb, which will suddenly attack domestic agricultural enterprises, causing great harm. However, the speed of fact checking and clarification of a fake message are far from the speed and scope of its spread. The purpose of this research is to explore: when fake agriculture messages are clarified, how the consumer’s way of disseminating messages, the involvement of agriculture messages, and the source credibility would affect their consumption intention and coping strategies to fake messages. The literature reviewed in this research include: (1) fake agriculture messages and their effects; (2) message involvement, source credibility, ways to communicate and consumption intention; (3) coping strategies to fake agriculture messages. In this research, a total of 725 questionnaires were collected through an online questionnaire survey. After deleting invalid samples, the number of valid samples was 707. In this research, SPSS for Windows 21 was used for descriptive analysis for consumer demographic variables. Means, standard deviations, factor analysis, t test, ANOVA, and multiple regression were also conducted according to the research needs. The results revealed that ‘ways to communicate messages’ positively affected the consumption intention of honey consumers, but they did not affect the consumption intention of shrimp consumers. In addition, ‘ways to communicate messages’ also positively affected the coping strategies of honey and shrimp consumers. In addition, ‘message involvement’ of both honey and shrimp consumers had positive effects on their consumption intentions and coping strategies. Furthermore, ‘source credibility’ of honey and shrimp consumers negatively affected the consumption intentions of honey and shrimp consumers, but did not affect their coping strategies to fake messages. In terms of demographic variables, when the fake messages were clarified, honey consumption intentions were indifferent between men and women, while men’s intentions to consume shrimp were higher than those of women. In addition, the honey consumption intentions of 31 to 40 years old were significantly higher than the intentions of those under 30 years old; and the shrimp consumption intentions of people over 51 years old were stronger than those of other age groups. Furthermore, the source credibility of people in Tainan was significantly higher than that of people in other regions. On the basis of the research results, agricultural enterprises can understand the impact of fake agriculture messages on the general consumer behavior in order to effectively strengthen their business operations. Before purchasing agricultural products, the public can use our results as a reference or a reminder to prevent, filter, and check the agriculture messages. Relevant government agencies can use the findings to examine the lack of current regulations, to measure the criminal liability or compensation for the fake message producers in serious circumstances, and to strengthen people’s life quality through formal and informal education of media and legal literacy. They can also develop computer software to help people to identify the authenticity of messages. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T13:23:55Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-1806202014272900.pdf: 2663914 bytes, checksum: 123e7d9e07176b605d8e629b5f6695b4 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 目錄………………………………………………………………………I 圖目錄……………………………………………………………………IV 表目錄……………………………………………………………………V 誌謝………………………………………………………………………VI 中文摘要………………………………………………………………VII Abstract………………………………………………………………… IX 第一章 緒論…………………………………………………………… 1 第一節 研究背景………………………………………………… 1 第二節 研究動機………………………………………………… 3 第三節 研究目的………………………………………………… 6 第四節 研究方法簡述…………………………………………… 7 第五節 研究貢獻………………………………………………… 8 第二章 文獻探討…………………………………………………… 9 第一節 農業假訊息與其效應…………………………………… 9 第二節 訊息涉入度、來源可信度、傳播方式與消費意願…… 14 第三節 農業假訊息的因應策略……………………………….. 21 第三章 研究方法…………………………………………………… 29 第一節 量化研究方法…………………………………………… 29 第二節 問卷調查法…………………………………………… 31 第三節 研究架構與研究對象………………………………… 33 第四節 研究工具………………………………………………… 34 第五節 調查過程………………………………………………… 38 第六節 分析方法………………………………………………… 39 第四章 資料分析…………………………………………………… 41 第一節 描述性統計……………………………………………… 41 第二節 因素分析……………………………………………… 42 第三節 t檢定…………………………………………………… 50 第四節 變異數分析……………………………………………… 51 第五節 迴歸分析………………………………………………… 55 第五章 研究討論…………………………………………………… 59 第一節 訊息傳播方式…………………………………………… 59 第二節 訊息涉入度…………………………………………… 62 第三節 訊息來源的可信度……………………………………… 64 第四節 人口變項與假訊息類型的影響……………………… 66 第五節 研究限制與未來研究………………………………… 68 第六章 結論與建議…………………………………………………… 70 第一節 研究結論……………………………………………… 70 第二節 研究建議……………………………………………… 73 參考文獻……………………………………………………………… 75 附錄…………………………………………………………………... 91 圖目錄 圖1 《農業假訊息對消費意願的影響》之研究架構………………… 33 圖2 問卷架構之流程圖……………………………………………… 37 表目錄 表一 人口變項敘述統計結果…………………………………………41 表二 傳播方式新聞的影響之因素分析、平均值、標準差與α值…… 43 表三 蜂蜜之新聞涉入度和新聞來源可信度之因素分析、平均值、標準差與α值…………………………………………………………45 表四 活蝦之新聞涉入度和新聞來源可信度之因素分析、平均值、標準差與α值………………………………………………………… 47 表五 蜂蜜消費意願之因素分析、平均值、標準差與α值…………………………………………………………………… 48 表六 活蝦消費意願之因素分析、平均值、標準差與α值…………… 49 表七 性別之獨立樣本t檢定………………………………………… 50 表八 學歷對各變項之獨立樣本ANOVA檢定……………………… 51 表九 年齡層對各變項之獨立樣本ANOVA檢定……………………53 表十 地區性對各變項之獨立樣本ANOVA檢定…………………… 54 表十一 蜂蜜消費意願之迴歸分析…………………………………… 55 表十二 活蝦消費意願之迴歸分析…………………………………… 56 表十三 蜂蜜購買者因應策略之迴歸分析……………………………57 表十四 活蝦購買者因應策略之迴歸分析…………………………… 58 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 因應策略 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 來源可信度 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 訊息涉入度 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 訊息傳播方式 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 消費意願 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 農業假訊息 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Fake agriculture messages | en |
| dc.subject | Coping strategies | en |
| dc.subject | Ways to communicate | en |
| dc.subject | Consumption intention | en |
| dc.subject | Source credibility | en |
| dc.subject | Message involvement | en |
| dc.title | 是真的嗎?農業假訊息對消費意願的影響 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Is it true? Influence of fake agricultural messages on consumption intention | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 108-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 王俊豪(Jiun-Hao Wang),陳炤堅(Chao-Chien Chen) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 因應策略,來源可信度,訊息涉入度,訊息傳播方式,消費意願,農業假訊息, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Coping strategies,Source credibility,Message involvement,Ways to communicate,Consumption intention,Fake agriculture messages, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 95 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202001042 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2020-06-20 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 生物產業傳播暨發展學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位: | 生物產業傳播暨發展學系 | |
文件中的檔案:
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| U0001-1806202014272900.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 2.6 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。
