請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/67591完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 吳玲玲(Ling-Ling Wu) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Yang-Ching Fan | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 范揚慶 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T01:39:11Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2019-08-08 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2017-08-08 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2017 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2017-07-31 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions: Sage.
Angermeyer, M., & Matschinger, H. (2003). The stigma of mental illness: Effects of labelling on public attitudes towards people with mental disorder. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 108(4), 304-309. Archer, R. L., Diaz-Loving, R., Gollwitzer, P. M., Davis, M. H., & Foushee, H. C. (1981). The role of dispositional empathy and social evaluation in the empathic mediation of helping. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of personality and social psychology, 63(4), 596. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173. Basil, D. Z., Ridgway, N. M., & Basil, M. D. (2006). Guilt appeals: The mediating effect of responsibility. Psychology & Marketing, 23(12), 1035-1054. Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? Advances in experimental social psychology, 20, 65-122. Batson, C. D., Eklund, J. H., Chermok, V. L., Hoyt, J. L., & Ortiz, B. G. (2007). An additional antecedent of empathic concern: Valuing the welfare of the person in need. Journal of personality and social psychology, 93(1), 65. Bekkers, R. (2004). Giving and volunteering in the netherlands: Sociological and psychological perspectives. (Ph.D), Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2010). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924-973. Berger, P. S. (1991). Charitable giving and government policy: An economic analysis. [Charitable Giving and Government Policy: An Economic Analysis, Jerald Schiff]. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 25(1), 196-198. Carman, K. G. (2003). Social influences and the private provision of public goods: Evidence from charitable contributions in the workplace. Manuscript, Stanford University. Cheung, C.-K., & Chan, C.-M. (2000). Social-cognitive factors of donating money to charity, with special attention to an international relief organization. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23(2), 241-253. Coke, J. S., Batson, C. D., & McDavis, K. (1978). Empathic mediation of helping: A two-stage model. Journal of personality and social psychology, 36(7), 752. Cronbach, L. J. (1987). Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaws in analyses recently proposed. Psychological bulletin, 102(3), 414-417. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of consulting psychology, 24(4), 349. Cryder, C. E., Loewenstein, G., & Seltman, H. (2013). Goal gradient in helping behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1078-1083. Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of personality and social psychology, 8(4p1), 377. Diamond, W. D., & Kashyap, R. K. (1997). Extending models of prosocial behavior to explain university alumni contributions1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(10), 915-928. Donath, J., & Boyd, D. (2004). Public displays of connection. bt technology Journal, 22(4), 71-82. Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Gaertner, S. L., Schroeder, D. A., & Clark III, R. D. (1991). The arousal: Cost-reward model and the process of intervention: A review of the evidence. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Prosocial behavior (pp. 86-118). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A theory of objective self awareness. New York: Academic Press. Ein-Gar, D., & Levontin, L. (2013). Giving from a distance: Putting the charitable organization at the center of the donation appeal. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 197-211. Fenigstein, A. (1979). Self-consciousness, self-attention, and social interaction. Journal of personality and social psychology, 37(1), 75. Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 43(4), 522. Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T., Pollozek, F., & Frey, D. (2006). The unresponsive bystander: Are bystanders more responsive in dangerous emergencies? European journal of social psychology, 36(2), 267-278. Fischer, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., . . . Kainbacher, M. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological bulletin, 137(4), 517. Fisher, R. J., & Katz, J. E. (2000). Social‐desirability bias and the validity of self‐reported values. Psychology & Marketing, 17(2), 105-120. Froming, W. J., & Carver, C. S. (1981). Divergent influences of private and public self-consciousness in a compliance paradigm. Journal of Research in Personality, 15(2), 159-171. Froming, W. J., Walker, G. R., & Lopyan, K. J. (1982). Public and private self-awareness: When personal attitudes conflict with societal expectations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18(5), 476-487. Fujita, K., Eyal, T., Chaiken, S., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Influencing attitudes toward near and distant objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 562-572. Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using pls-graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information systems, 16(1), 5. Gilbert, E., & Karahalios, K. (2009). Predicting tie strength with social media. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. Giving USA Foundation. (2015). Giving USA 2016: The annual report on philanthropy for the year 2015. Retrieved from https://givingusa.org/ Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472-482. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology, 1360-1380. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6 ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). Pls-sem: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152. Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (pls) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic management journal, 195-204. Jaccard, J., Wan, C. K., & Turrisi, R. (1990). The detection and interpretation of interaction effects between continuous variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(4), 467-478. Jenni, K., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining the identifiable victim effect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14(3), 235-257. Johnson, T. P., & Van de Vijver, F. J. (2003). Social desirability in cross-cultural research. Cross-cultural survey methods, 325, 195-204. Kim, K., Zhang, M., & Li, X. (2008). Effects of temporal and social distance on consumer evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 706-713. Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005). The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(3), 157-167. Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2007). “One of us”: Outstanding willingness to help save a single identified compatriot. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(2), 150-157. Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of personality and social psychology, 10(3), 215. Latané, B., & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological bulletin, 89(2), 308. Latane, B., & Rodin, J. (1969). A lady in distress: Inhibiting effects of friends and strangers on bystander intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5(2), 189-202. Lee, G., & Lee, W. J. (2010). Altruistic traits and organizational conditions in helping online. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1574-1580. Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management science, 50(11), 1477-1490. Levine, M., & Thompson, K. (2004). Identity, place, and bystander intervention: Social categories and helping after natural disasters. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(3), 229-245. Lincoln, A. J. (1977). Effects of the sex of the model and donor on donating to amsterdam organ grinders. The Journal of Social Psychology, 103(1), 33-37. Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Social forces, 63(2), 482-501. Mesch, G., & Talmud, I. (2006). The quality of online and offline relationships: The role of multiplexity and duration of social relationships. The information society, 22(3), 137-148. MIC. (2014a). 網路社群使用現況分析(上). Retrieved from http://mic.iii.org.tw/intelligence MIC. (2014b). 網路社群使用現況分析(下). Retrieved from http://mic.iii.org.tw/intelligence MIC. (2014c). 網路社群於電腦與行動使用時間分析(上). Retrieved from http://mic.iii.org.tw/intelligence Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pan, L.-Y., & Chiou, J.-S. (2011). How much can you trust online information? Cues for perceived trustworthiness of consumer-generated online information. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25(2), 67-74. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of personality and social psychology, 90(5), 751. Polonsky, M. J., Shelley, L., & Voola, R. (2002). An examination of helping behavior—some evidence from australia. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 10(2), 67-82. Pozzoli, T., & Gini, G. (2013). Why do bystanders of bullying help or not? A multidimensional model. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 33(3), 315-340. Radley, A., & Kennedy, M. (1995). Charitable giving by individuals: A study of attitudes and practice. Human relations, 48(6), 685-709. Rushton, J. P. (1980). Altruism, socialization, and society: Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Rutkowski, G. K., Gruder, C. L., & Romer, D. (1983). Group cohesiveness, social norms, and bystander intervention. Journal of personality and social psychology, 44(3), 545. Schervish, P. G., & Havens, J. J. (1997). Social participation and charitable giving: A multivariate analysis. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 8(3), 235-260. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educational psychologist, 32(4), 195-208. Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention—behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European review of social psychology, 12(1), 1-36. Sierksma, J., Thijs, J., Verkuyten, M., & Komter, A. (2014). Children's reasoning about the refusal to help: The role of need, costs, and social perspective taking. Child development, 85(3), 1134-1149. Simon, A. F. (1997). Television news and international earthquake relief. Journal of Communication, 47(3), 82-93. Small, D. A., & Simonsohn, U. (2008). Friends of victims: Personal experience and prosocial behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 532-542. Smith, J. R., & McSweeney, A. (2007). Charitable giving: The effectiveness of a revised theory of planned behaviour model in predicting donating intentions and behaviour. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17(5), 363-386. Sokolowski, S. W. (1996). Show me the way to the next worthy deed: Towards a microstructural theory of volunteering and giving. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 7(3), 259-278. Sproull, L., Conley, C., & Moon, J. Y. (2005). Prosocial behavior on the net. In Y. Amichai-Hamburger (Ed.), The social net: Human behavior in cyberspace (pp. 139-161). New York: Oxford University Press. Stöber, J. (2001). The social desirability scale-17 (sds-17): Convergent validity, discriminant validity, and relationship with age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 222. Stocks, E. L., Lishner, D. A., & Decker, S. K. (2009). Altruism or psychological escape: Why does empathy promote prosocial behavior? European journal of social psychology, 39(5), 649-665. Tran, U. S., Stieger, S., & Voracek, M. (2012). Psychometric analysis of stöber's social desirability scale (sds—17): An item response theory perspective. Psychological reports, 111(3), 870-884. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological review, 117(2), 440. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of consumer psychology: the official journal of the Society for Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83. van Bommel, M., van Prooijen, J.-W., Elffers, H., & Van Lange, P. A. (2012). Be aware to care: Public self-awareness leads to a reversal of the bystander effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 926-930. Van Boven, L., Kane, J., McGraw, A. P., & Dale, J. (2010). Feeling close: Emotional intensity reduces perceived psychological distance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 98(6), 872. Wagner, C., & Wheeler, L. (1969). Model, need, and cost effects in helping behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 12(2), 111. Webb, D. J., Green, C. L., & Brashear, T. G. (2000). Development and validation of scales to measure attitudes influencing monetary donations to charitable organizations. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 28(2), 299-309. Wei, M., Su, J. C., Carrera, S., Lin, S.-P., & Yi, F. (2013). Suppression and interpersonal harmony: A cross-cultural comparison between Chinese and european americans. Journal of counseling psychology, 60(4), 625. Williams, L. E., Stein, R., & Galguera, L. (2014). The distinct affective consequences of psychological distance and construal level. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1123-1138. Wu, S.-Y., Huang, J.-T., & Kao, A.-P. (2004). An analysis of the peer effects in charitable giving: The case of Taiwan. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 25(4), 483-505. Yang, C.-E. (2015). 表達性壓抑對於情緒清晰度與自我控制能力的影響. (碩士), 國立台灣大學, 台北, 台灣. Zhao, M., & Xie, J. (2011). Effects of social and temporal distance on consumers' responses to peer recommendations. Journal of Marketing research, 48(3), 486-496. Zweibel, J. (2013). Numbingly distant: The role of psychological distance in judgments of moral obligation to natural disaster victims. (Undergraduate Honors Theses), University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/67591 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 有越來越多的非營利組織使用社群網站來匯聚公眾關注以及募款。然而，當人們在社群網站上察覺到他人的存在，是否同時會引發旁觀者效應，使人們不願意伸出援手，仍是一個未解的問題，對於非營利組織而言也是莫大的隱憂。因此，本研究根據過去文獻提出假設：社群網站上他人的存在會透過知覺需求以及知覺責任兩條中介路徑，正向（而非負向）影響人們的助人意願以及捐款金額；結果也確實支持這樣的推論。此外，本研究也發現：與訊息傳遞者的連結強度以及與受助者的心理距離都會顯著正向影響知覺需求以及知覺責任；與受助者的心理距離更會負向調節他人的存在的效果，意即在心理距離近的情況下，人們本來就能感受到高程度的受助者需求及助人責任，此時關注人數的影響並不顯著，反而在心理距離遠的情境下，他人的存在會有雪中送炭的效果，使人們感受到較高程度的受助者需求以及助人責任。這些研究發現無論對於理論抑或實務都有相當大的貢獻。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | There are more and more non-profit organizations (NPOs) utilizing social networking sites (SNSs) to attract public attention and raise funds. However, it is still an unresolved problem and an underlying apprehension for NPOs whether the bystander effect emerges when people perceive the presence of others on SNSs, which makes people less likely to lend a helping hand. The present research proposed the following hypothesis according to literature: The presence of others on SNSs will positively (rather than negatively) affects helping intention and monetary donation through the mediation effects of awareness of victims’ needs and perceived responsibility to help. The results supported this inference. Besides, positive effects on the two mediators from tie strength with message communicators and psychological closeness to victims are also found. Psychological closeness further negatively moderates the main effect of presence of others, which means that an effect of “offering fuel in snowy weather” exists—the presence of others can make people feel higher level of need awareness and perceived responsibility when the targets are psychologically distant than close. These findings contribute a lot to not only theories but also practices. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T01:39:11Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-106-R04725010-1.pdf: 1749799 bytes, checksum: 5c7f11f652a990b364910d96d8b890c6 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 #
誌謝 i 中文摘要 ii ABSTRACT iii CONTENTS iv LIST OF FIGURES vii LIST OF TABLES viii Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Chapter 2 Literature Review 4 2.1 Helping Behavior with the Presence of Others 4 2.1.1 The Presence of others on Social Networking Sites 4 2.1.2 The Social Contexts of Social Networking Sites 5 2.1.3 The Effect of the Presence of others on Helping Behavior in Social Contexts: Awareness of Need as a Mediator 6 2.1.4 The Effect of the Presence of others on Helping Behavior in Social Contexts: Perceived Responsibility as a Mediator 8 2.2 Tie Strength 10 2.2.1 The Effect of Tie Strength on Awareness of Need and Perceived Responsibility 11 2.2.2 Tie Strength as a Moderator on the Effects of the Presence of Others 12 2.3 Psychological Closeness 14 2.3.1 The Effect of Psychological Closeness on Awareness of Need and Perceived Responsibility 15 2.3.2 Psychological Closeness as a Moderator on the Effects of the Presence of Others 16 Chapter 3 Methodology 18 3.1 Design 18 3.2 Materials 19 3.2.1 Charitable Categories 19 3.2.2 Manipulation of Number of People 19 3.2.3 Manipulation of Psychological Closeness 20 3.2.4 Manipulation of Tie Strength 20 3.2.5 Evaluations and Measurements 21 3.2.6 Control Variable: Social Desirability 22 3.3 Participants 24 3.4 Procedure 26 3.5 Data Analysis 27 Chapter 4 Results 29 4.1 Manipulation Check 29 4.2 Reliability and Validity of Measurement 29 4.3 Testing the Main Effects and the Moderation Effects 31 4.4 Testing the Mediation Effects 34 Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusion 37 5.1 Discussion 37 5.2 Managerial Implication 40 5.3 Limitation and Future Research 41 REFERENCE 42 APPENDIX 52 Appendix A Questionnaire 52 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.subject | 他人的存在 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 知覺需求 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 知覺責任 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 助人行為 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 關係連結強度 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 心理距離 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 旁觀者效應 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Bystander Effect | en |
| dc.subject | Presence of Others | en |
| dc.subject | Awareness of Need | en |
| dc.subject | Perceived Responsibility | en |
| dc.subject | Helping Behavior | en |
| dc.subject | Tie Strength | en |
| dc.subject | Psychological Closeness (Psychological Distance) | en |
| dc.title | 他人的存在影響線上公益捐款行為之研究：關係連結強度與心理距離之調節效果 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Effects of Presence of Others on Online Charitable Donation Behavior: Tie Strength and Psychological Closeness as the Moderators | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 105-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 翁崇雄(Chorng-Shyong Ong),盧希鵬(Hsi-Peng Lu),欒斌(Pin Luarn) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 他人的存在,知覺需求,知覺責任,助人行為,關係連結強度,心理距離,旁觀者效應, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Presence of Others,Awareness of Need,Perceived Responsibility,Helping Behavior,Tie Strength,Psychological Closeness (Psychological Distance),Bystander Effect, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 57 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201702258 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2017-07-31 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 資訊管理學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 資訊管理學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-106-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 1.71 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。