(54.236.58.220) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/03/09 16:04
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:曾友志
研究生(外文):Yu-Chih, Tseng
論文名稱:訊息正反性,品牌忠誠與企業回應策略對消費者的影響-公共報導v.s網路轉寄訊息
指導教授:張愛華張愛華引用關係
指導教授(外文):Ai-Hwa, Chang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立政治大學
系所名稱:科技管理研究所
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:其他商業及管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2003
畢業學年度:91
語文別:中文
論文頁數:93
中文關鍵詞:網路謠言品牌認同態度轉變態度矛盾偏見同化
外文關鍵詞:Internet rumorbrand commitmentattitude changeattitude ambivalencebiased assimilation
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:4
  • 點閱點閱:232
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
網路謠言的興盛,對企業不論是形象或產品,都造成了一定程度的
傷害。故此,針對網路轉寄訊息與公共報導對消費者的影響研究和比
較,與企業該如何回應負面訊息較為有效,就變成了本研究的主要目的。
本研究針對不同訊息媒體來源(公共報導與網路轉寄訊息)、不同
訊息類型(正面與負面)、不同消費者品牌認同度(高與低)和不同企
業回應策略(反駁與論據區隔力不足策略),進行一2*2*2*2的實驗設
計,探討在不同情境下,對消費者的影響(包含消費者對品牌的態度轉
變、態度矛盾與傳播意願),實驗對象為大學生,共計420個樣本,實
驗產品品牌為acer的筆記型電腦。
經過實驗分析,得出以下幾個結論:
1.不同訊息媒體來源對消費者確實有顯著的影響,公共報導在對消費
者的傳播意願影響上,都較網路轉寄之E-Mail為大。
2.負面訊息確實較正面訊息對消費者有更大的影響力。實驗結果顯
示,負面訊息在對消費者的態度轉變與傳播意願上,都有較正面訊
息更大的影響力。
3.不同訊息類型對消費者造成的影響(包含態度轉變、態度矛盾與傳
播意願)差異,不會受到不同訊息媒體來源的影響。
4.消費者會因其不同之品牌認同,對訊息的解釋會產生了扭曲,產生
了不同的態度轉變、態度矛盾與傳播意願﹔其中,負面訊息對高認
同消費者影響較小,對低認同消費者影響較大,對正面訊息則效果
相反。但值得注意的是,面對正面訊息,認同度高與認同度低者之
態度矛盾無差異,而面對負面訊息,認同度高與認同度低者之傳播
意願無差異,這代表可能消費者就算不太相信謠言,仍有可能向其
他人傳遞訊息。
5.品牌認同對不同訊息類型對消費者的干擾效果(包括態度轉變、態
度矛盾與傳播意願)差異,不會受到不同訊息媒體來源的影響。本
研究認為,這可能是因為網路轉寄之E-Mail描述往往都較公共報
導來得繪聲繪影,甚至消息是引用內幕消息,論點品質較佳,會產
生較預期為大的影響。
6.對負面訊息來說,同樣的企業負面訊息回應策略,在態度轉變上,
對認同度高者的效果較佳。對企業而言,良好的消費者品牌認同
度,確實可以抵禦網路謠言與其他負面消息的傷害,實是一件不得
不重視的課題。
7.對負面訊息來說,品牌認同對企業不同的回應策略,不會產生任何
干擾效果,與當初Ahluwalia et al.(2000)的結論不同。Ahluwalia
et al.認為高品牌認同者,對於負面訊息,本來就有較多的反駁意
見,故反駁策略並沒有辦法提供更多的產品有利訊息,但論據區隔
力不足策略能提供更多的有利資訊,故論據區隔力不足策略對於高
品牌認同度之消費者有較大的態度轉變與較少的態度矛盾;而針對
低品牌認同度的消費者,則兩者策略效果相反。而本研究認為,反
駁策略是反對負面訊息所傳達的事實,此與高認同者心中對負面訊
息懷疑立場一致,故相較於論據區隔力不足策略,反駁策略會對高
認同者產生較預期更大的態度轉變與較小的態度矛盾。而論據區隔
力不足是企業承認其品牌確實有負面訊息所敘述的現象,此與低認
同者認同負面訊息的立場一致,故相較於反駁策略對低認同者,論
據區隔力不足策略對低認同者會產生較預期大的態度轉變與較小
的態度矛盾。
8.在態度轉變上,訊息媒體來源、品牌認同與回應策略之交互效果不
顯著,但在態度矛盾上,交互效果顯著,本研究以為,品牌認同會
影響不同來源之負面訊息之可信度,造成消費者心中的疑惑高低有
所不同,進而影響不同回應策略的效果。
The Internet rumor usually makes a huge damage to the company so that we have an interest in comparing influence between the publicity and Internet rumor, and which kind of strategy will be more effective in handling the rumor.
We will study the consumer behavior(include attitude change, attitude ambivalence and forward intention)in the different media sources(publicity and forwarded Email), different message types(positive and negative), different brand commitment(high and low) and different company response
strategies(counter argumentation and diagnosticity response). So we design the 2*2*2*2 experiment and 420 valentines join this experiment, and acer is our trial brand.
After our analysis, we finally make some important conclusion.
1.Publicity is more powerful than the forwarded Email in forward intention.
2.Negative message is more powerful than the positive message in consumer''s attitude change and forwarded intention.
3.The difference of influences(include attitude change, attitude ambivalence and forward intention)on consumer, that made by different message types won''t be affected by various sources of message media.
4.Consumer will distort the explanation to messages result from the various brand commitments. It means that the negative message will be more powerful to the low commitment consumer, and the positive message will be more powerful to the high commitment consumer. But in forwarded intention, the influence of different message types will not interfere with brand commitment.
5.The difference of influence(include attitude change, attitude ambivalence and forward intention)on consumer, that made by various message types and different brand commitment won''t be affected by various sources of message media.
6.The company''s response message is more acceptable to the high brand commitment consumer than the lower one.
7.The company''s response strategy can''t interfere with the brand commitment.
8.In the attitude change, there is no interactive effect between the media sources, brand commitment and the company''s response strategy. But there is an interactive effect in attitude ambivalence. We think that message''s credibility may interfere with the brand commitment, so company''s response message will make the different result to the different brand commitment consumer.
第壹章 緒論
第一節 研究背景
第二節 研究動機
第三節 研究目的
第四節 研究流程
第貳章 文獻探討
第一節 態度
第二節 態度轉變
第三節 態度矛盾
第四節 謠言傳播意願
第五節 品牌認同與偏見同化
第六節 負面效應
第七節 訊息可信度
第八節 企業回應策略
第參章 研究方法
第一節 研究架構
第二節 研究假說
第三節 變數之定義與衡量
第四節 實驗設計
第五節 資料分析方法
第肆章 資料分析
第一節 樣本分析
第二節 信度分析
第三節 操弄檢定
第四節 假設檢定
第四節 研究結果整理
第伍章 結論與建議
第一節 研究結論
第二節 研究貢獻
第三節 研究限制
第四節 後續研究建議
參考文獻
附錄一 前測問卷
附錄二 正式問卷
中文文獻
1.林建煌(民91),消費者行為,台北:智勝出版社。
2.張春興(民73),心理學,台北:東華書局。
3.張峻榮(民91),「擔保可信度、保證明確度對產品保證效用與購買
意願之影響:考慮產品類別級產品知識之干擾效果」,國立政治大學
企業管理研究所為出版碩士論文。
英文文獻
1.Abelson, R.P., Aronson, E., McGuire, W.J., Newcomb, T.M.,
Rosenberg, M.J. & Tannenbaum, P.H.(Eds.)(1968), Theories
of cognitive consistency:A sourcebook. Chicago:Tand McNally.
2.Ahluwalia,Rohini, RoBert E .Burnkrant and H.Rao
Unnava,(2000), "Consumer Response to Negative Publicity :
The Moderating Role of Commitment," Journal of Marketing
Research,37 (May),203-214.
3.Allport, G.W.(1935), Attitudes. Inc. Murchison eds., A
handbook of social psychology. Worcester, Mass: Clark
University Press.
4.Beatty, Sharon E., Lynn R. Kahle, and Pamela Homer
(1998),"The Involvement-Commitment Model:Theory and
Implications," Journal of Business Research, Vol.16(2),
pp.149-167.
5.Bem, Daryl(1972), "Self-Perception Theory,"in Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. Leonard Berkowitz, New
York:Academic Press, PP. 1-62.
6.Bentele, Gunter(1998),"Der Faktor Glaubwurdigkeit.
Forschungsergebnisse und Fragen fur die
Sozialisationsperspektive," Publizistik 33 (2-3), 406-26
7.Berger, Ida E. and Andrew A. Mitchell(1989),"The Effect
of Advertising on Attitude Accessibility, Attitude
Confidence, and the Attitude-Behavior Relationship,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 16, December, pp.269-279.
8.Bond,Jonathan and Richard Kirshenbaum(1998),Under the Radar
Talking to Today''s Cynical Consumer.New York:John Wiley&Sons.
9.Bordia, P. & Rosnow R.L.(1998),"Rumor rest stops on the
information highway-Transmission patterns in
computer=mediated rumor chain," Human Communication
Research, Vol.25(2), pp.163-179.
10.Cina, Craig(1989),"Creating an Effective Customer
Satisfaction Program,"Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.6
(4), Fall pp.31-40.
11.DiFonzo, N., Bordia, R., & Rosnow, R.L.(1994),"Reining in
rumors," Organizational Dynamics, Vol.23, pp.47-62.
12.Eagly,Alice H.and Shelly Chaiken (1995)," Attitude Strength,
Attitude Structure,and Resistance to Change,"in Attitude
Strength:Antecedents and Consequences,Ricchard E.Petty and
Jon A. Krrosnick,eds.Mahwah,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates,269-322.
13.Edwards, J.D., & Ostrom, T.M.(1971),"Cognitive structure
of neutral attitudes,"Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol.7, pp.36-47.
14.Engel, J.F., R.D. Blackwell, and P.W. Miniard(1995), Consumer
Behavior, 8th edition, Dryder Press.
15.Fazio, Russell H., Martha C. Powell, and Carol Williams
(1989),"The Role of Attitude Accessibility in the
Attitude-to-Behavior Process,"Journal of Consumer Research,
16, December, pp.280,288.
16.Feldman, Jack M. and John G. Lynch (1988),"Self-Generated
Validity and Other Effects of Measurement on
Belief,Attitude,Intention.and Behavior,"Journal of Applied
Psychology,73(Auguest),421-35.
17.Festinger, Leon(1954), A theory of Cognitive Dissonance,
Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
18.Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen(1975), Belief, Attutude, Intention,
and Behavior:An introduction to Theory and Research,
Addison-Wesley Reading , MA,.
19.Fiske,Susan T.(1980),"Attention and Weight in Person
Perception:The Impact of Negative and Extreme Behavior,"
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,38(6),889-906.
20.Fragen fur die Sozialisationsperspektive,"Publizistik, 33
(2-3), 406-26.
21.Heider, F.(1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations,
New York:Wiley.
22.Herr,Paul M.,Frank R.Kardes,and John Kim(1991),"Effects of
Word-of-Mouth and Product-Attribute Information on
Persuasion:An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective,"
Journal of Consumer Research,17(March),454-62.
23.Hovland, C.I., I.L.Janis, & H.H.Kelley(1953), Communication
and Persuasion, New Haven:Yale University Press.
24.Hovland, Carl I., & Weiss, Walter.(1951),"The Influence
of Source Credibility on Communication
Effectiveness,"Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650.
25.Jacoby, Jacob and Chestnut, Robert W.(1978), Brand Loyalty
Measurement and Management, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
26.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, Vol.6,
pp.473-478.
27.Jonas, K., Diehl, M., & Bromer, P.(1997), "Effect of
attitudinal ambivalence on information precession and
attitude-intention consistency," Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol.33, pp.190-210.
28.Kamins, M., Folkes, V. and Perner, L.(1997),"Consumer
Responses to Rumor:Good News, Bad News," Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol.6(2), pp.165-187.
29.Kapferer, J.N.(1990), Rumors-Uses, Interpretations, and
Images, New Brunswich:Transaction Publishers.
30.Kaplan, K.J.(1972),"On the ambivalence-indifference
problem in attitude theory and measurement:Asuggested
modification of the semantic differential technique,"
Psychological Bulletin, Vol.77, pp.361-372.
31.Klein,Jill G.(1996)," Negativity in Impression of
Presidential Candidates Revisited:The 1992
Election,"Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin,22(March),289-96.
32.Klopfer, F.J., & Madden, T.M.(1980),"The middlemost choice
on attitude items:Ambivalence, neutrality, or
uncertainty? ," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Vol.6, pp.97-101.
33.Kotler, P.(1991), Marketing management: Analysis, planning,
implementation, and control. London: Prentice-Hall.
34.Lastovicka, John L. and Gardner, David M.(1978),"Components
of Involvement,"in Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes,
pp.53-73.
35.Lord, C.R., Ross, L.,& Lepper, M.R.(1979),"Biased
assimilation and attitude polarization:The effects of prior
theories on subsequently considered evidence,"Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37,2098-2109.
36.Maio, G.R., Bell, D.W., & Esses, V.M.(1996),"Ambivalence
and persuasion:The Processing of messages about immigrant
groups," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.32,
pp.513-536.
37.Moore, M.(1973),"Ambivalence in attitude measurement,"
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol.33,
pp.481-483.
38.O''Keffe, D.J.(1992),Persuasion: Theory and research,
Newbury Park: Sage. Reagan, Joey & Zenaty, Janye (1979).Local
News Credibility: Newspaper vs. TV Revisited. Journalism
Quarterly, 56(1), 168-172.
39.Osgood, C.E. & P.H.Tannenbaum(1955),"The Principle of
Congrity in the Prediction of Attitude Change,"
Psychological, Vol.62,pp.42-55.
40.Paul E. Green(1978),Analyzing Multivariate Data, Hinsdale,
Ill.: Dryden Press.
41.Petty,Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo(1986),Communication
and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude
Change .New York: Springer-Verlag
42.Rasnow, R.L.(1988),"Rumor as Communication:A Contextual
Approach," Journal of Communication, Vol.38, pp,1-17.
43.Robertson , Thomas S.(1976),"Low-Commitment Consumer
Behavior,"Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.16,
pp.19-24.
44.Schiffman, L.G., & Kanuk, L.L.(1994), Consumer Behavior 5thed.
Singapore:Prentice Hall.
45.Sears, D.O., L.A. Peplau, and S.E. Taylor(1991), Social
Psychology, 7th ed., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice Hall
46.Sherif, Muzafer and Carl I. Hovland(1961), Social
Judgment:Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication
and Attitude Change, New Haven, CT:Yale Univeristy Press.
47.Skowronski,John J.and Donal E.Carlston (1989),"Negativity
and Extremity in Impression Formation:A Review of
Explanation," Psychological Bulletin,105(January),131-42.
48.Thompson, M.M., & Zanna, M.P.(1995),"The conflicted
individual:Personality-based and domain-soecific
antecedents of ambivalent social attitudes," Journal of
Personality, Vol.63, pp.259-288.
49.Thompson, M.M., Zanna, M.P., & Griffin, D.W.(1995),Let''s
not be indifferent about(attitudinal)ambivalence. In R.E.
Petty & J.A. Krosnick(Eds.), Attitude Strength:Antecedents
and consequences, pp.361-386, Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
50.Traylor, Mark B.(1981),"Product Involvement and Brand
Commitment,"Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.21, No.6,
(December, 1981), pp.51-56.
51.Wilson, Elizabeth J. and Daniel L. Sherrell(1993),"Source
Effects in Communication and Persuasion Research:A
Meta-Analysis of Effect Size,"Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 21, Spring, pp.101-112.
52.Wright Peter (1974),"The Harassed Decision Maker: Time
Pressures, Distraction,and the Use of Evidence," Journal of
Applied Psychology, 59(May),555-61.
53.Zanna, M.P.(1993), Message receptivity:A new look at the
old problem of open-versus closed-mindedness. In A.A.
Mitchell(Ed.),Advertising exposure, memory, and choice
(pp.141-162). New Jersy:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 負面報導之來源可信度、消費者品牌認同與企業回應策略對品牌態度之影響
2. 影響網路謠言傳播的因素及擴散模式-由電子郵件謠言的散播與企業闢謠作為談起
3. 準銀髮族在不同恐懼程度下對健康食品廣告效果之影響—以訊息訴求、訊息正反性與自覺健康為干擾變項
4. 產品類型及評價正負性對消費者網路口碑接受度之影響—品牌承諾為干擾因素
5. 消費型網路謠言傳播行為研究以大學及研究生為例消費型網路謠言傳播行為研究以大學及研究生為例消費型網路謠言傳播行為研究-以大學及研究生為例
6. 消費者獲知負面訊息產生抵制行為對品牌形象之影響
7. 負面資訊下,消費者品牌認同、自我監控、與企業回應策略對品牌態度之影響
8. 產品負面訊息之廠商回應策略、說服效果與品牌權益關係之研究
9. 訊息典型性、訊息正反性與認知需求對消費者品牌態度之影響
10. 負面報導資訊下,消費者品牌認同、所有權狀態與企業回應策略對品牌態度之影響
11. 訊息訴求、訊息正反性、訊息來源可信度、與消費者認知需求對廣告效果之影響
12. 網際網路企業品牌建立之初探性研究--以台灣純線上購物網站為例
13. 網路通路原生品牌移轉至實體通路之品牌延伸研究
14. LC雙旋轉角石英晶體之研究
15. 幽默訴求與訊息正反性對廣告效果之影響-眼球軌跡之分析
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔