臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

一般慈善組織所進行的勸募活動，其受助對象所面臨的困境主要可分為兩類：其一為急難類型困境，其二為窮困類型困境。急難的情況指受助者的生活突然遭逢巨變、發生始料未及的衝擊事件，導致其現況與原本的生活水平產生極大落差，陷入拮据的困境，需要捐助人幫忙以度過難關；而窮困的狀況指受助者的生活長期間都處於貧乏的狀態，需要捐助人的幫忙才能維持基本的生活水平。
針對勸募活動，本研究進一步將勸募的訴求分為兩類：利他勸募訴求及利己勸募訴求。利他訴求強調捐款人的幫助會為受助人帶來好處，利己訴求強調捐款人的幫助會為捐款人本身帶來好處；在利己訴求中，本研究將利己—福報訴求獨立出來，作為本研究之研究問題，探討其對於實際捐款金額所產生的效果，該訴求強調捐款人的幫助會替捐款人帶來福報。
本研究旨在探討不同類型的勸募訴求，是否將影響受試者實際捐給急難及窮困類型受助者的金額。實驗結果顯示，當受試者閱讀處於急難困境之受助者情況時，利他訴求比利己訴求有效，而當受試者閱讀處於窮困困境之受助者情況時，利己訴求比利他訴求有效；最後，福報做為一種利己的勸募訴求，在急難類型的困境下，其效果次於利他勸募訴求但高於利己勸募訴求，而在窮困類型的困境下，其效果是三種訴求中最低的。
綜觀本研究所得之結論，若慈善組織欲幫助急難類型的受助者，使用利他勸募訴求將提高其捐款金額；相反地，若欲幫助窮困類型的受助者，則可使用利己的勸募訴求，以提高所募得之金額。

Among the charitable activities going on in the society, the victims in need can be categorized in two major types: the emergent poor and the chronic poor. In this research, we define the emergent poor as victims who face with sudden, unpredictable difficulties, and thus suffering a drastic drop in living standards. Without help from the outside world, the emergent poor can barely survive the hardship. On the contrary, the chronic poor are people who for a long time have been living in poverty, and they need help from others to sustain basic level of living.
On the other hand, this research divides charitable fundraising appeals into two categories: other-benefit appeals and self-benefit appeals. Other-benefit appeals highlight that the main beneficiary of support is the victim, while self-benefit appeals, the donor. This research further poses a research question: what effects do karmic-reward appeals, one form of self-benefit appeals have on donation amount?
In the experiment, the author tests the prediction that other-benefit appeals generate more favorable support than self-benefit appeals for the emergent poor. For the chronic poor, self-benefit appeals are more effective than other-benefit appeals in generating donations. Answering the research question, karmic-reward appeals prove less effective than other-benefit appeals but more effective than self-benefit appeals for the emergent poor; for the chronic poor, karmic-reward appeals is the least effective among the three types of appeals.

第一章、緒論 1
1.1 研究背景 1
1.2 研究動機 2
1.3 研究目的 3
1.4 研究流程 3
第二章、文獻回顧 5
2.1 參照依據（Reference Dependence）對於捐助行為的影響 5
2.2 影響人們捐助行為的因素 6
2.2.1 同理關切（Empathic Concern）對於捐助行為的影響 6
2.2.2 歸因理論（Attribution Theory）對於同理關切和捐助行為的影響
7
2.2.3 福祉評價（Welfare-Valuing）對於同理關切和捐助行為的影響 9
2.3 利他勸募訴求（Other-benefit Fundraising Appeal）與利己勸募訴求（Self-benefit Fundraising Appeal） 11
2.3.1 利他勸募訴求及利己勸募訴求的定義和說明 11
2.3.2 利他訴求及利己訴求的有效性 12
2.3.3 利他及利己訴求用於急難及窮困受害者 12
2.3.4 福報（Karmic Reward）做為一種利己勸募訴求的效果 13
第三章、研究方法 14
3.1 研究方法 14
3.1.1 實驗架構 14
3.2 受試者及樣本結構 16
3.2.1 實驗 16
3.3 問卷設計 18
3.3.1 抽樣方式 18
3.3.2 正式問卷內容 18
3.4 實驗流程 24
第四章、研究結果分析 25
4.1 人口統計變數對研究結果的影響 25
4.2 操控性檢定 27
4.2.1 受害類型困境的操弄 27
4.2.2 勸募訴求的操弄 29
4.3 中介變數分析 30
4.3.1 多元迴歸分析之結果 30
4.3.2 額外分析：ANOVA分析之結果 31
4.4 依變數檢定和結果詮釋 33
4.4.1 急難類型與窮困類型困境之主效果 33
4.4.2 勸募訴求之主效果 33
4.4.3 困境類型與勸募訴求之交互作用 34
第五章、討論 36
5.1 研究結論與應用 36
5.1.1 救急不救窮 36
5.1.2 困境類型與勸募訴求之交互作用 36
5.2 研究限制 37
5.2.1 受試者族群 37
5.2.2 勸募訴求的操弄 37
5.3 未來研究方向 37
參考文獻 39
附錄一：針對中介變數之進一步分析 41
附錄二：針對急難及窮困受害者的捐助金額之進一步分析 43
附錄三：實驗設計問卷之一 46
附錄四：實驗設計問卷之二 49
附錄五：實驗設計問卷之三 52
附錄六：實驗設計問卷之四 55
附錄七：實驗設計問卷之五 58
附錄八：實驗設計問卷之六 61

Basil, D. Z., Ridgway, N. M., & Basil, M. D. (2008). Guilt and
giving: A process model of empathy and efficacy. Psychology and Marketing, 25(1), 1-23. doi: 10.1002/mar.20200
Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial Motivation: Is it ever Truly Altruistic? In B. Leonard (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. Volume 20, pp. 65-122): Academic Press.
Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
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), 65-74. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.65
Batson, C. D., Turk, C. L., Shaw, L. L., & Klein, T. R. (1995). Information function of empathic emotion: Learning that we value the other's welfare. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 300-313. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.300
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), 752-766. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.36.7.752
Deborah A, S. (2010). Reference-dependent sympathy. [doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.03.001]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(2), 151-160.
Fisher, R. J., Vandenbosch, M., & Antia, K. D. (2008). An Empathy-Helping Perspective on Consumers' Responses to Fund-Raising Appeals. [Article]. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 519-531.
Hoffman, M. L. (1981). Is altruism part of human nature? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(1), 121-137. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.40.1.121
Judge, T. A., & Robbins, S. P. (2008). Essentials of Organizational Behavior (9th ed.): Pearson Prentice Hall.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
Kelley, H. H. (1987). Attribution in social interaction.
Lee, J. A., & Murnighan, J. K. (2001). The Empathy-Prospect Model and the Choice to Help. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(4), 816-839. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb01415.x
Mark A. Barnett, Michael Klassen, Vera McMinimy, & Schwarz, L. (1987). THE ROLE OF SELF- AND OTHER-ORIENTED MOTIVATION IN THE ORGAN DONATION DECISION. Paper presented at the Advances in Consumer Research.
Nunnally, J. R. (1978). Psychometric theory: New York: McGraw-Hill
Pessemier, E. A., Bemmaor, A. C., & Hanssens, D. M. (1977). Willingness to supply human body parts: Some empirical results. Journal of Consumer Research, 131-140.
Solomon, M. R. (2009). Consumer Behavior (8 ed.): Pearson Education, Inc.
White, K., & Peloza, J. (2009). Self-Benefit Versus Other-Benefit Marketing Appeals: Their Effectiveness in Generating Charitable Support. [Article]. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 109-124. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.73.4.109
Zagefka, H., Noor, M., Brown, R., de Moura, G. R., & Hopthrow, T. (2011). Donating to disaster victims: Responses to natural and humanly caused events. European Journal of Social Psychology.
中視新聞. (2012). 家扶捐款少3成 吹風機禦寒物短缺, from http://www.ctv.com.tw/opencms/data/news/news_2/news_2_9/news_5442.html
內政部社會司. (2010). 99年度社政年報. 內政部社會司 Retrieved from http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/17/99/index.htm.
台灣立報. (2009). 莫拉克排擠效應 婦女團體小額捐款驟減, from http://www.lihpao.com/?action-viewnews-itemid-8572
自由時報. (2009). 近8成社福團體 募款衰退21%, from http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2009/new/dec/12/today-life15.htm
行政院主計處. (2003). 92年社會發展趨勢調查(社會參與). 行政院主計處 Retrieved from http://win.dgbas.gov.tw/dgbas03/ca/society/community-92/PDF%5C92analysis4.pdf.
行政院主計處. (2011). 所得、分配與貧窮之探討. 中華民國統計資訊網 Retrieved from http://eng.stat.gov.tw/public/data/dgbas03/bs2/socialindicator/2010/issue/Income_1001.doc.
財團法人國家政策研究基金會. (2011). 公民社會 善有善道, from http://www.npf.org.tw/post/1/8714
葉淑芬. (2009). 捐乳媽媽之捐乳動機、家庭支持及捐乳服務滿意之研究—以臺灣第一座母乳庫為例. 碩士,行政管理碩士學程,國立政治大學, 台北市. Retrieved from http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22098NCCU5149026%22.&searchmode=basic
劉怡寧, & 瞿海源. (1999). 宗教與社會變遷：第三期第五次台灣社會變遷基本調查資料分析.