臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

友善耕作產品指的是以友善環境耕作法所種植的農產品，其特點是幫助野生動物與環境的減少農業帶來的衝擊，因此購買友善耕作產品可視為一種親社會行為。本研究旨在探討會影響親社會行的因素：同理心（對動物同理心及正面同理心）與自我訊號，是否也能影響友善耕作產品的購買意願，並透過廣告訴求來操弄消費者的同理心。

研究一結果顯示了感性訴求比理性訴求能讓消費者有更高的對動物同理心，且對動物同理心和自我訊號會正向影響購買意願。研究二討論在廣告訴求中使用擬人化描述與引用參考替代品，分別對對動物同理心與自我訊號的效果。研究三探討了調節焦點對購買意願的影響，結果發現促進焦點消費者比預防焦點消費者有更高的購買意願，並探討廣告訴求與調節焦點對購買意願的交互作用。本研究結果為友善耕作產品之推廣給出實務上的建議。

The wildlife-friendly farming products refer to agricultural products that grown with wildlife-friendly farming, they characterized by reducing the impact of agriculture on wildlife and the environment. Therefore, purchasing wildlife-friendly farming products could be considered a prosocial behavior. This study aims to know that if the factors that can influence prosocial behaviors will also affect consumers' purchasing intention of friendly farming products, such as empathy for animals, positive empathy, and self-signaling. This study used the advertising appeals (emotional/rational) to control consumers’ empathy.

Study 1 found that consumers have more empathy for animals in emotional appeals than in rational appeals, and both empathy for animals and self-signal have positive effects on to purchasing intention. In study 2, we discuss that the effects on animal empathy for animal and self-signaling after adding anthropomorphism and reference alternatives in advertising appeals. The result of study 3 showed that promotion focus consumers have higher purchasing intention than prevention focus consumers. The study also explored the interaction between advertising appeals and regulatory focus on purchase intention. Our findings provide some practical recommendations for the wildlife-friendly farming products.

摘要 i
Abstract ii
圖目錄 v
表目錄 v
第壹章 緒論 1
一、 研究背景與動機 1
二、 研究目的 2
第貳章 文獻探討 3
一、 廣告訴求 3
二、 同理心 3
（一） 同理心與對動物同理心 3
（二） 正面同理心 4
（三） 同理心與親社會行為 4
三、 消費行為與自我訊號 4
四、 調節焦點 5
第參章 同理心與自我訊號對購買意願之影響(研究一) 6
一、 研究理論與假設 6
二、 研究架構 7
三、 研究方法 8
（一） 實驗操弄方式與量表編制 8
（二） 前測 9
四、 研究結果與討論 9
（一） 敘述性統計 10
（二） 信效度分析 10
（三） 相關性分析 11
（四） 假設驗證 11
（五） 結果與討論 16
第肆章 擬人化與參考替代品於廣告訴求之效果(研究二) 18
一、 研究理論與假設 18
二、 研究方法 19
三、 研究結果與討論 20
（一） 敘述性統計 20
（二） 信效度分析 21
（三） 假設驗證 21
（四） 結果與討論 22
第伍章 廣告訴求與調節焦點的交互作用(研究三) 23
一、 研究理論與假設 23
二、 研究方法 25
（一） 操弄情境設計 25
（二） 量表編制 26
三、 研究結果與討論 26
（三） 敘述性統計 27
（四） 信效度分析 27
（五） 假設驗證 28
（六） 結果與討論 29
第陸章 結論與建議 30
一、 綜合討論 30
二、 貢獻與管理意涵 31
三、 研究限制與建議 32
參考文獻 33
附錄 37

Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2001). “I” seek pleasures and “we” avoid pains: The role of self–regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of consumer Research, 28(1), 33–49.
Albers-Miller, N. D., & Stafford, M. R. (1999). An international analysis of emotional and rational appeals in services vs goods advertising. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(1), 42–57.
Andreychik, M. R., & Migliaccio, N. (2015). Empathizing with others’ pain versus empathizing with others’ joy: Examining the separability of positive and negative empathy and their relation to different types of social behaviors and social emotions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37(5), 274–291.
Angantyr, M., Eklund, J., & Hansen, E. M. (2011). A comparison of empathy for humans and empathy for animals. Anthrozoös, 24(4), 369–377.
Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). How regulatory fit affects value in consumer choices and opinions. Journal of Marketing research, 43(1), 1–10.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Moore, D. J. (1994). Public service advertisements: emotions and empathy guide prosocial behavior. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 56–70.
Baron–Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of adults with asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 163–175.
Basil, D. Z., Ridgway, N. M., & Basil, M. D. (2008). Guilt and giving: A process model of empathy and efficacy. Psychology & Marketing, 25(1), 1–23.
Batson, C. D. (2010). Altruism in humans. Oxford University Press.
Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 107–122.
Belch, G. E., Belch, M. A., Guolla, M. A., Webb-Hughes, A. M., & Skolnick, H. (2004). Advertising and promotion: An integrated marketing communications perspective (Vol. 6). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1-62). Academic Press.
Berenguer, J. (2007). The effect of empathy in proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 39(2), 269–283.
Bodner, R., & Prelec, D. (2003). Self-signaling and diagnostic utility in everyday decision making. The Psychology of Economic Decisions, 1(105), 26.
Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. The Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710–725.
Bullard, O., & Penner, S. (2017). A regulatory–focused perspective on philanthropy: Promotion focus motivates giving to prevention–framed causes. Journal of Business Research, 79, 173–180.
Butterfield, M. E., Hill, S. E., & Lord, C. G. (2012). Mangy mutt or furry friend? Anthropomorphism promotes animal welfare. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 957–960.
Chan, A. A. Y. H. (2012). Anthropomorphism as a conservation tool. Biodiversity and Conservation, 21, 1889–1892.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Empathic concern and the muscular dystrophy telethon: Empathy as a multidimensional construct. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9(2). 223–229.
Desmet, P. (2003). Measuring emotion: Development and application of an instrument to measure emotional responses to products. In Funology: From usability to enjoyment (pp. 111-123). Springer.
Dubé, J.–P., Luo, X., & Fang, Z. (2017). Self–Signaling and Prosocial Behavior: A Cause Marketing Experiment. Marketing Science, 36(2), 161–186.
Dunham, B. (2011). The role for signaling theory and receiver psychology in marketing. Evolutionary Psychology in the Business Sciences, 225–256.
Eddy, T. J., Gallup Jr, G. G., & Povinelli, D. J. (1993). Attribution of cognitive states to animals: Anthropomorphism in comparative perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 49(1), 87–101.
Fazeli, Z., Shukla, P., & Perks, K. (2020). Digital buying behavior: The role of regulatory fit and self‐construal in online luxury goods purchase intentions. Psychology & Marketing, 37(1), 15–26.
Fischer, J., Brosi, B., Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. R., Goldman, R., Goldstein, J., ... Tallis, H. (2008). Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife‐friendly farming?. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6(7), 380–385.
Friestad, M., & Thorson, E. (1993). Remembering ads: The effects of encoding strategies, retrieval cues, and emotional response. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2(1), 1–23.
Gneezy, A., Gneezy, U., Riener, G., & Nelson, L. D. (2012). Pay–what–you–want, identity, and self–signaling in markets. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(19), 7236–7240.
Harrison, M. A., & Hall, A. E. (2010). Anthropomorphism, empathy, and perceived communicative ability vary with phylogenetic relatedness to humans. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 4(1), 34.
Hein, G., & Singer, T. (2008). I feel how you feel but not always: the empathic brain and its modulation. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 18(2), 153–158.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300.
Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: value from fit. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1217–1230.
Hsee, C. K., & Rottenstreich, Y. (2004). Music, pandas, & muggers: On the affective psychology of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(1), 23.
Hwang, K., & Kim, H. (2018). Are ethical consumers happy? Effects of ethical consumers' motivations based on empathy versus self–orientation on their happiness. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(2), 579–598.
Kaiser,H.F. (1974). An index of factorical simplicity. Psychometrica, 39,31–36.
Kim, D. H., & Sung, Y. (2013). Gucci versus Old Navy: Interplay of brand personality and regulatory focus in advertising persuasion. Psychology & Marketing, 30(12), 1076–1087.
Lee, A. Y., Keller, P. A., & Sternthal, B. (2010). Value from regulatory construal fit: The persuasive impact of fit between consumer goals and message concreteness. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 735–747.
Lee, S., & Heere, B. (2018). Exploring the relative effectiveness of emotional, rational, and combination advertising appeals on sport consumer behavior. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 27(2), 82–92.
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5–18.
Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 854–864.
Mary Jackson, K. K, (2019). Empathy towards animals: pre/post survey protocol and instruments. Retrieved from https://www.informalscience.org/empathy–towards–animals–prepost–survey–protocol–and–instruments
Morelli, S. A., Lieberman, M. D., & Zaki, J. (2015). The emerging study of positive empathy. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(2), 57–68.
Niemyjska, A., Cantarero, K., Byrka, K., & Bilewicz, M. (2018). Too humanlike to increase my appetite: Disposition to anthropomorphize animals relates to decreased meat consumption through empathic concern. Appetite, 127, 21–27.
Philip, Kolter. (2002). Marketing Management. Pearson.
Puto, C. P., & Wells, W. D. (1984). Informational and transformational advertising: The differential effects of time. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 638-643.
Quattrone, G. A., & Tversky, A. (1984). Causal versus diagnostic contingencies: On self–deception and on the voter's illusion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(2), 237–248.
Rawal, M., & Saavedra Torres, J. L. (2017). Empathy for emotional advertisements on social networking sites: the role of social identity. Marketing Management Journal, 27(2), 88–102.
Rusticus, S. (2014). Content validity. In Michalos, A.C. (Eds) Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research (pp. 1261–1262). Springer.
Root–Bernstein, M., Douglas, L., Smith, A. A., & Verissimo, D. (2013). Anthropomorphized species as tools for conservation: utility beyond prosocial, intelligent and suffering species. Biodiversity and Conservation, 22, 1577–1589.
Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativitiy bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–320.
Savary, J., Goldsmith, K., & Dhar, R. (2015). Giving against the odds: When tempting alternatives increase willingness to donate. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(1), 27–38.
Tam, K. P. (2015). Are anthropomorphic persuasive appeals effective? The role of the recipient's motivations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(1), 187–200.
Taute, H. A., McQuitty, S., & Sautter, E. P. (2011). Emotional information management and responses to emotional appeals. Journal of Advertising, 40(3), 31–44.
Telle, N. T., & Pfister, H. R. (2016). Positive empathy and prosocial behavior: A neglected link. Emotion Review, 8(2), 154–163.
Verhaert, G. A., & Van den Poel, D. (2011). Empathy as added value in predicting donation behavior. Journal of Business Research, 64(12), 1288–1295.
Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010). Who Sees Human?: The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 219–232.
Westbury, H. R., & Neumann, D. L. (2008). Empathy-related responses to moving film stimuli depicting human and non-human animal targets in negative circumstances. Biological psychology, 78(1), 66–74.
Wortzel, R. (1979). Multivariate analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Yagci, M. I., Biswas, A., & Dutta, S. (2009). Effects of comparative advertising format on consumer responses: The moderating effects of brand image and attribute relevance. Journal of business research, 62(8), 768–774.
Young, A., Khalil, K. A., & Wharton, J. (2018). Empathy for animals: A review of the existing literature. Curator: The Museum Journal, 61(2), 327-343.
林良恭、姜博仁、王豫煌（2017）。重要石虎棲地保育評析。臺北市：行政院農業委員會林務局。
鄭錫奇、張仕緯、張簡琳玟、方引平（2014）。臺灣物種名錄。臺灣物種名錄。取自https://taicol.tw/taxon/t0032116
劉建男、林育秀（2023）。2023年石虎保育行動計畫。臺北市：行政院農業委員會林務局、行政院農業委員會特有生物研究保育中心。
行政院農業委員會（2019）。陸域保育類野生動物名錄。臺北市：作者。