臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

　　近年來，廠商的行銷策略日趨多元，而其中促銷廣告為市場上最常見之推廣手法。多數的廠商會使用亮麗的廣告標語來吸引消費者目光，然而，廣告中所述的促銷優惠往往具有限制條件，這些限制條件通常置於廣告的附註裡，且由於促銷限制會使消費者產生負面觀感，因此有廠商經常採用模糊不清的廣告文案來呈現給大眾，限制條件的說明較不明顯，並運用文字及圖片把吸引人的部分顯示更清楚，消費者很難在第一時間察覺到一般促銷活動的限制條件，最終很可能導致實際消費的情況與原本的期待產生差異。
　　消費者容易受到廣告文案的影響，藉由廣告可能產生對廠商評價的改變，或者影響其購買行為。過去的研究多著重於何種類型的廣告附註可以有效傳遞訊息，以及呈現的時間點、時間長度、擺放位置與字型大小，較少關於促銷限制之揭露的文獻，因此，本研究欲探討促銷廣告的限制條件是否會與廣告主文案或附註的呈現有相互影響。另外，消費者自身對於廠商行銷手法的了解，也可能影響到其評價及行為，故本研究亦將探討消費者說服知識的高低以及促銷限制之揭露對消費者評價之影響。
　　本研究分為兩個實驗，主要針對促銷限制與揭露是否清楚的交互作用對廣告態度的影響，以及說服知識與揭露是否清楚的交互作用對廣告態度的影響來做深入的探討。而消費者的廣告態度是否繼而影響促銷評價、品牌態度與購買意願亦是本研究的研究範圍。兩個實驗以促銷形式來做為區分，其中，實驗一的促銷形式為「滿額現金折抵」，其促銷限制採用直接註明在促銷廣告中“本次消費使用優惠”的限制條件；實驗二的促銷形式為「滿額贈抵用券」，其促銷限制則是促銷廣告中呈現“下次消費使用之抵用券”的限制條件。每個實驗皆為 2(促銷限制的程度) x 2(揭露是否清楚)，共四個版本的問卷設計，而說服知識的高低則是採用 PROCESS 事後區分。以此兩個實驗驗證研究結果。
　　實驗一有 292 個有效樣本，實驗二有 240 個有效樣本，兩個實驗的研究結果皆顯示，相較於揭露清楚的廣告，當消費者發現廣告揭露不清楚時，若促銷限制愈嚴格，消費者的廣告態度會有更負面的反應；此外，不管在得知完整促銷限制資訊之前或之後，當消費者說服知識愈高時，揭露清楚的廣告對於廣告態度會有更正面的影響；而揭露不清楚的廣告雖然在得知完整促銷資訊之前沒有顯著的負面效果，然而，現代科技的發達以及社群媒體的興盛使消費者有更多的管道獲得消費資訊，消費者的說服知識愈來愈高，且大部分的消費者最終也將會得知完整促銷優惠的限制條件，因此，不清楚的廣告對於廣告態度會有更負面的影響。再者，廣告態度的反應也會繼而影響到促銷評價、品牌態度以及最終的購買意願。研究結果可以幫助廠商對消費者在接觸促銷廣告後行為模式的了解，無論促銷限制的程度，廠商應提供揭露清楚的廣告，達成與消費者資訊對等的局面。

　　In recent years, the methods of sales promotion become increasingly diverse, promotional advertising is still the most common marketing strategy. Most manufacturers use attractive slogans to catch consumers' attention. However, promotion is often accompanied by many restrictions, which are usually placed in disclaimers. The promotional restriction may make consumers have negative perception, so manufacturers often use ambiguous advertisement to show to consumers. The attractive words and pictures on the advertisements are clear presented but the limitations are not obvious. It is difficult for consumers to detect general restrictions in promotional activities at the first time; it may ultimately lead to the difference between real consumption and expectation.
　　Consumers are easily affected by advertisement, which may change their evaluation and behavior. In the past, many researches focused on what types of advertising disclaimers can effectively deliver messages, as well as the presentation of time points, length of time, placement and font size, less research discussed the disclosure of promotional restrictions. Therefore, this research is going to discuss the interaction of consumer evaluation between promotional restriction and the disclosure of the advertising disclaimers. In addition, the consumer's own knowledge about manufacturers’ marketing strategy may also affect its evaluation and behavior. As a result, this research will also discuss the interaction of consumer evaluation between persuasion knowledge and advertising disclosure.
　　This study conducted two experiments, mainly for the interaction of advertising attitude between promotional restriction and advertising disclosure, as well as the interaction of consumer evaluation between persuasion knowledge and advertising disclosure. Whether the consumer's advertising attitude influences promotion evaluation, brand attitude and purchase intention is also in the research scope. Two experiments are different by the promotional forms: the promotional form in study 1 is conditional discount, the promotional restriction which directly indicated the limitation for the applicable consumption in this promotion. The promotional form in study 2 is coupon, the promotional restriction which shows limitation of next-time-used coupon on the advertisement. Each study uses 2 (the extent of promotional restrictions) x 2 (the extent of advertising disclosure) with persuasion knowledge as a measured variable. The results were verified by these two experiments with SPSS PROCESS.
　　The effective sample was 292 in Study 1 and 240 in Study 2, the results of these two experiments show that: compared to clear advertisement, when consumers find that advertisement is not clear, if the promotional restrictions are strict, the advertising attitude may have more negative reaction. In addition, no matter consumers find out the complete information or not, the higher the persuasion knowledge, clear advertisement may have more positive reaction on advertising attitude. If consumers don’t know the full information, although advertising attitude is not significantly negative when the disclosure is not clear, however, with the development of technology and the prosperity of social media, consumers have more access to collect information. Thus consumer’s persuasion knowledge is higher and higher and most consumers will finally find the complete promotional restrictions. Therefore, unclear advertisement has more negative reaction on advertising attitude. Moreover, the response to the advertising attitude will then affect promotional evaluation, brand attitude and purchase intention. The research results can help manufacturers that the consumer behavior when they contact promotional advertisement. No matter the extent of promotional restrictions, manufacturers should provide clear advertisement for consumers.

目錄
第壹章　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 5
第貳章　文獻探討 6
第一節　廣告附註與揭露 6
第二節　欺騙廣告 14
第三節　說服知識 18
第四節　假說推論 24
第參章　研究方法 30
第一節　研究架構 30
第二節　變數之定義與衡量 32
第三節　實驗研究設計 38
第肆章　分析與結果 39
第一節　實驗一 39
第二節　實驗二 55
第三節　研究結果 71
第伍章　結論與建議 73
第一節　結論 73
第二節　對學術研究之貢獻 76
第三節　對行銷實務的意涵 77
第四節　研究限制與未來研究建議 79
參考文獻 80
附錄一：實驗一 問卷1-1 促銷限制嚴格-廣告揭露清楚 89
附錄二：實驗一 問卷1-2 促銷限制嚴格-廣告揭露不清楚 94
附錄三：實驗一 問卷2-1 促銷限制寬鬆-廣告揭露清楚 99
附錄四：實驗一 問卷2-2 促銷限制寬鬆-廣告揭露不清楚 104
附錄五：實驗二 問卷1-1 促銷限制嚴格-廣告揭露清楚 109
附錄六：實驗二 問卷1-2 促銷限制嚴格-廣告揭露不清楚 114
附錄七：實驗二 問卷2-1 促銷限制寬鬆-廣告揭露清楚 119
附錄八：實驗二 問卷2-2 促銷限制寬鬆-廣告揭露不清楚 124

表目錄
表3-2-1 促銷限制的檢驗 32
表3-2-2 說服知識的檢驗(實驗一) 34
表3-2-3 說服知識的檢驗(實驗二) 34
表3-2-4 揭露是否清楚的檢驗 35
表3-2-5 廣告態度的衡量 36
表3-2-6 促銷評價的衡量 36
表3-2-7 品牌態度的衡量 37
表3-2-8 購買意願的衡量 37
表4-1-1 人口統計樣本分佈 39
表4-1-2 去藥妝店的頻率 40
表4-1-3 各變數之信度分析 40
表4-1-4 促銷限制之操弄性檢驗結果 41
表4-1-5 揭露是否清楚之操弄性檢驗結果 41
表4-1-6 促銷限制的程度與揭露是否清楚對廣告態度之交互作用 42
表4-1-7 在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，促銷限制的程度對廣告態度之影響 42
表4-1-8 廣告態度與促銷限制對促銷評價的直接效果 43
表4-1-9 調節中介效果之估計值 43
表4-1-10 在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，中介效果之估計值 44
表4-1-11 廣告態度與促銷限制對品牌態度的直接效果 44
表4-1-12 調節中介效果之估計值 44
表4-1-13 在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，中介效果之估計值 45
表4-1-14 廣告態度與促銷限制對購買意願的直接效果 45
表4-1-15 調節中介效果之估計值 45
表4-1-16 在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，中介效果之估計值 46
表4-1-17 得知完整限制條件前，說服知識與揭露是否清楚對廣告態度之交互作用 46
表4-1-18 得知完整限制條件前，在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，說服知識對廣告態度之影響 46
表4-1-19 廣告態度與說服知識對促銷評價的直接效果 48
表4-1-20 調節中介效果之估計值 48
表4-1-21 在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，中介效果之估計值 48
表4-1-22 廣告態度與說服知識對品牌態度的直接效果 49
表4-1-23 調節中介效果之估計值 49
表4-1-24 在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，中介效果之估計值 49
表4-1-25 廣告態度與說服知識對購買意願的直接效果 50
表4-1-26 調節中介效果之估計值 50
表4-1-27 在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，中介效果之估計值 50
表4-1-28 得知完整限制條件後，說服知識與揭露是否清楚對廣告態度之交互作用 51
表4-1-29 得知完整限制條件後，在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，說服知識對廣告態度之影響 51
表4-1-30 廣告態度與揭露是否清楚對促銷評價的直接效果 52
表4-1-31 調節中介效果之估計值 52
表4-1-32 在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，中介效果之估計值 52
表4-1-33 廣告態度與揭露是否清楚對品牌態度的直接效果 53
表4-1-34 調節中介效果之估計值 53
表4-1-35 在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，中介效果之估計值 53
表4-1-36 廣告態度與揭露是否清楚對購買意願的直接效果 54
表4-1-37 調節中介效果之估計值 54
表4-1-38 在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，中介效果之估計值 54
表4-2-1 人口統計樣本分佈 55
表4-2-2 去藥妝店的頻率 56
表4-2-3 各變數之信度分析 56
表4-2-4 促銷限制之操弄性檢驗結果 57
表4-2-5 揭露是否清楚之操弄性檢驗結果 57
表4-2-6 促銷限制的程度與揭露是否清楚對廣告態度之交互作用 58
表4-2-7 在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，促銷限制的程度對廣告態度之影響 58
表4-2-8 廣告態度與促銷限制對促銷評價的直接效果 59
表4-2-9 調節中介效果之估計值 59
表4-2-10 在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，中介效果之估計值 60
表4-2-11 廣告態度與促銷限制對品牌態度的直接效果 60
表4-2-12 調節中介效果之估計值 60
表4-2-13 在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，中介效果之估計值 61
表4-2-14 廣告態度與促銷限制對購買意願的直接效果 61
表4-2-15 調節中介效果之估計值 61
表4-2-16 在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，中介效果之估計值 62
表4-2-17 得知完整限制條件前，說服知識與揭露是否清楚對廣告態度之交互作用 62
表4-2-18 得知完整限制條件前，在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，說服知識對廣告態度之影響 62
表4-2-19 廣告態度與說服知識對促銷評價的直接效果 64
表4-2-20 調節中介效果之估計值 64
表4-2-21 在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，中介效果之估計值 64
表4-2-22 廣告態度與說服知識對品牌態度的直接效果 65
表4-2-23 調節中介效果之估計值 65
表4-2-24 在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，中介效果之估計值 65
表4-2-25 廣告態度與說服知識對購買意願的直接效果 66
表4-2-26 調節中介效果之估計值 66
表4-2-27 在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，中介效果之估計值 66
表4-2-28 得知完整限制條件後，說服知識與揭露是否清楚對廣告態度之交互作用 67
表4-2-29 得知完整限制條件後，在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，說服知識對廣告態度之影響 67
表4-2-30 廣告態度與揭露是否清楚對促銷評價的直接效果 68
表4-2-31 調節中介效果之估計值 68
表4-2-32 在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，中介效果之估計值 68
表4-2-33 廣告態度與揭露是否清楚對品牌態度的直接效果 69
表4-2-34 調節中介效果之估計值 69
表4-2-35 在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，中介效果之估計值 69
表4-2-36 廣告態度與揭露是否清楚對購買意願的直接效果 70
表4-2-37 調節中介效果之估計值 70
表4-2-38 在揭露清楚與不清楚之下，中介效果之估計值 70
表4-3-1 假說檢定結果表 71

圖目錄
圖1-1-1 滿額促銷廣告 1
圖1-1-2 滿額促銷廣告 2
圖3-1-1 研究架構圖 30
圖4-1-1 促銷限制的程度與揭露是否清楚對廣告態度之交互作用圖 42
圖4-1-2 得知完整限制條件前，說服知識與揭露是否清楚對廣告態度之交互作用圖 47
圖4-1-3 得知完整限制條件後，說服知識與揭露是否清楚對廣告態度之交互作用圖 51
圖4-2-1 促銷限制的程度與揭露是否清楚對廣告態度之交互作用圖 58
圖4-2-2 得知完整限制條件前，說服知識與揭露是否清楚對廣告態度之交互作用圖 63
圖4-2-3 得知完整限制條件後，說服知識與揭露是否清楚對廣告態度之交互 作用圖 67

中文部分
1.林安婕 (2013)。消費者說服知識與部落客特性對消費者閱讀產品心得文反應之影響。天主教輔仁大學企業管理學系管理學碩士班未出版碩士論文，新北市。
2.林政緯 (2008)。網路論壇與廠商關係、訊息呈現方式、以及購買決策涉入對消費者態度之影響研究。天主教輔仁大學管理學研究所未出版碩士論文，新北市。
3.林義儒 (2006)。吹噓廣告與免責附註對廣告效果之影響。天主教輔仁大學企業管理學系管理學碩士班未出版碩士論文，新北市。
4.洪宇生 (2003)。促銷評價影響品牌權益及購買意願模式之研究—以洗面乳為例。朝陽科技大學企業管理系未出版碩士論文，臺中市。
5.張育綺 (2013)。說服知識與報導式廣告設計對消費者之影響。天主教輔仁大學企業管理學系管理學碩士班未出版碩士論文，新北市。
6.張佑薇 (2013)。部落格產品心得文訊息呈現手法與讀者說服知識對讀者反應之影響。天主教輔仁大學企業管理學系管理學碩士班未出版碩士論文，新北市。
7.曾于軒 (2010)。產品涉入程度、認知需求與附註廣告之完整性對消費者反應層級之影響。天主教輔仁大學企業管理學系管理學碩士班未出版 碩士論文，新北市。
8.鄒詩慧 (2010)。廣告附註與限制條件對消費者反應之影響。天主教輔仁大學企業管理學系管理學碩士班未出版，碩士論文，新北市。
9.龍冠如 (2007)。報導式廣告的特性對消費者混淆與與廣告效果之影響。輔仁大學管理學研究所未出版碩士論文，新北市。

中文網路部分
1.愛買官網(2016)。年中慶強打活動。取自：https://www.fe-amart.com.tw/index.php/news/new-info/bank(2017/07/23)
2.家樂福官網(2011)。會員獨享滿2千送2千折價券。取自：http://hacome.pixnet.net/blog/post/40108683(2016/12/21)
 
英文部分
1.Aaker, D. A. (1973). Toward a normative model of promotional decision making. Management Science, 19(6), 593-603.
2.Aaker, D. A., & Day, G. S. (1974). A dynamic model of relationships among advertising, consumer awareness, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(3), 281.
3.Aaker, J. L., & Williams, P. (1998). Empathy versus pride: The influence of emotional appeals across cultures. Journal of consumer research, 25(3), 241-261.
4.Aditya, R. N. (2001). The psychology of deception in marketing: a conceptual framework for research and practice. Psychology & Marketing, 18(7), 735-761.
5.Ahluwalia, R., & Burnkrant, R. E. (2004). Answering questions about questions: A persuasion knowledge perspective for understanding the effects of rhetorical questions. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 26-42.
6.Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (2000). Knowledge calibration: What consumers know and what they think they know. Journal of consumer research, 27(2), 123-156.
7.Bower, A. B. (2001). Highly attractive models in advertising and the women who loathe them: The implications of negative affect for spokesperson effectiveness. Journal of advertising, 30(3), 51-63.
8.Campbell, M. C. (1995). When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer inferences of manipulative intent: The importance of balancing benefits and investments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(3), 225-254.
9.Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers' use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of consumer research, 27(1), 69-83.
10.Campbell, M. C., Mohr, G., & Verlegh, P. W. (2012). Can disclosures lead consumers to resist covert persuasion? The important roles of disclosure timing and type of response. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4), 483-495.
11.Cho, C. H., Lee, J. G., & Tharp, M. (2001). Different forced-exposure levels to banner advertisements. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(4), 45-56.
12.Cowley, E., & Barron, C. (2008). When product placement goes wrong: The effects of program liking and placement prominence. Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 89-98.
13.Darke, P. R., & Ritchie, R. J. (2007). The defensive consumer: Advertising deception, defensive processing, and distrust. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1), 114-127.
14.Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relationships. The Journal of marketing, 51(2), 11-27.
15.Fein, S. (1996). Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1164-1184.
16.Fein, S., Hilton, J. L., & Miller, D. T. (1990). Suspicion of ulterior motivation and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 753-764.
17.Folkes, V. S. (1984). Consumer reactions to product failure: An attributional approach. Journal of consumer research, 10(4), 398-409.
18.Ford, G. T., Smith, D. B., & Swasy, J. L. (1990). Consumer skepticism of advertising claims: Testing hypotheses from economics of information. Journal of consumer research, 16(4), 433-441.
19.Foxman, E. R., Muehling, D. D., & Moore, P. A. (1988). Disclaimer footnotes in ads: Discrepancies between purpose and performance. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 7, 127-137.
20.Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of consumer research, 21(1), 1-31.
21.Gardner, D. M. (1975). Deception in advertising: A conceptual approach. The Journal of Marketing, 39(1), 40-46.
22.Gillespie, E. A., Hybnerova, K., Esmark, C., & Noble, S. M. (2016). A tangled web: views of deception from the customer's perspective. Business Ethics: A European Review, 25(2), 198-216.
23.Grayson, K., & Rank, T. (2010). Persuasion Knowledge and Moral Judgment. Advances in Consumer Research, 37, 267-270.
24.Grazioli, S., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (2003). Consumer and business deception on the Internet: Content analysis of documentary evidence. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(4), 93-118.
25.Greenwald, A. G., Albert, R. D., Cullen, D., Love, R., & Have, J. S. W. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. USA, New York: Academic Press.
26.Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. USA, New York: Harper & Row.
27.Hardesty, D. M., Bearden, W. O., & Carlson, J. P. (2007). Persuasion knowledge and consumer reactions to pricing tactics. Journal of Retailing, 83(2), 199-210.
28.Herbst, K. C., & Allan, D. (2006). The effects of brand experience and an advertisement’s disclaimer speed on purchase: Speak slowly or carry a big brand. International Journal of Advertising, 25(2), 213-222.
29.Holbrook, M. B., & Batra, R. (1987). Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of consumer responses to advertising. Journal of consumer research, 14(3), 404-420.
30.Hoy, M. G., & Lwin, M. O. (2007). Disclosures exposed: Banner ad disclosure adherence to FTC guidance in the top 100 US web sites. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(2), 285-325.
31.Inman, J. J., Peter, A. C., & Raghubir, P. (1997). Framing the deal: The role of restrictions in accentuating deal value. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(1), 68-79.
32.Jain, S. P., & Posavac, S. S. (2004). Valenced comparisons. Journal of marketing Research, 41(1), 46-58.
33.Johar, G. V., & Simmons, C. J. (2000). The use of concurrent disclosures to correct invalid inferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(4), 307-322.
34.Kim, Y. S. K. (2007). The role of perceived intent in consumer penalty evaluation. Services Marketing Quarterly, 28(3), 77-95.
35.Kirmani, A., & Zhu, R. (2007). Vigilant against manipulation: The effect of regulatory focus on the use of persuasion knowledge. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 688-701.
36.Kolbe, R. H., & Muehling, D. D. (1992). A content analysis of the “Fine Print” in television advertising. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 14(2), 47-61.
37.MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of marketing research, 23(2), 130-143.
38.McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G. (1992). On resonance: A critical pluralistic inquiry into advertising rhetoric. Journal of consumer research, 19(2), 180-197.
39.McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G. (1999). Visual rhetoric in advertising: Text-interpretive, experimental, and reader-response analyses. Journal of consumer research, 26(1), 37-54.
40.Naylor, J. C. (1962). Deceptive packaging: are the deceivers being deceived?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46(6), 393.
41.Nunally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
42.Shimp, T. A. (1981). Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of consumer brand choice. Journal of advertising, 10(2), 9-48.
43.Sinha, I., Chandran, R., & Srinivasan, S. S. (1999). Consumer evaluations of price and promotional restrictions: a public policy perspective. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18(1), 37-51.
44.Stutta, M. A., & Hunnicutt, G. G. (1987). Can young children understand disclaimers in television commercials?. Journal of Advertising, 16(1), 41-46.
45.Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Lammers, N., Rozendaal, E., & Buijzen, M. (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.
46.Vonk, R. (1998). The slime effect: Suspicion and dislike of likeable behavior toward superiors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 849.
47.Wansink, B., Ray, M. L., & Batra, R. (1994). Increasing cognitive response sensitivity. Journal of Advertising, 23(2), 65-75.
48.Wei, M. L., Fischer, E., & Main, K. J. (2008). An examination of the effects of activating persuasion knowledge on consumer response to brands engaging in covert marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 27(1), 34-44.
49.Wentzel, D., Tomczak, T., & Herrmann, A. (2010). The moderating effect of manipulative intent and cognitive resources on the evaluation of narrative ads. Psychology & Marketing, 27(5), 510-530.
50.Wilkie, W. L. (1986). Affirmative disclosure at the FTC: Strategic dimensions. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 5(1), 123-145.
51.Wilkins, S., Beckenuyte, C., & Butt, M. M. (2016). Consumers’ behavioural intentions after experiencing deception or cognitive dissonance caused by deceptive packaging, package downsizing or slack filling. European Journal of Marketing, 50(1/2), 213-235.
52.Wright, P. L. (1973). The cognitive processes mediating acceptance of advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(2), 53-62.
53.Xie, G. X. V., Boush, D., Kahle, L., & Wright, P. L. (2010). A Tale of Two Modes: When Do Consumers Approach Or Avoid Persuasion Attempts? NA-Advances in Consumer Research Volume, 37, 267-270.
54.Yoo, C. Y. (2009). The effects of persuasion knowledge on click-through of keyword search ads: Moderating role of search task and perceived fairness. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 401-418.
 
英文網路部分
1.Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling, white paper. Ohio State University. Available from: https://goo.gl/DfS47C (2017/02/22)