跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.236.68.118) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/31 20:35
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:陳麗敏
研究生(外文):Li-Min Chen
論文名稱:知識程度對於修正行為之影響─以訊息類型及代言人產品相關程度為干擾變數
論文名稱(外文):The Effect of Knowledge Level on Correction Behavior─Use the Type of Message and the Relevance BetweenEndorser and Product as Moderators
指導教授:簡怡雯簡怡雯引用關係
指導教授(外文):Yi-Wen Chien
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:商學研究所
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:一般商業學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2008
畢業學年度:96
語文別:英文
論文頁數:109
中文關鍵詞:偏誤知識知覺偏誤彈性修正模型產品知識修正幅度
外文關鍵詞:Bias CorrectionCorrection MagnitudeFlexible Correction Model
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:152
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
修正行為一直是過去這幾年來社會心理學家深感興趣的領域,而其中關於彈性修正模型的理論也早已被廣泛討論於如勸服、刻版印象、歸因理論或是法庭審判等其他專業領域。在過去與修正行為有關的文獻當中,較少的文章去探討影響修正行為的可能因素為何,這裡的影響不單單指修正的方向,也包含修正的幅度(量)。因此在本篇文章當中所進行的三個研究,其主要目的在於探討受測者本身對某單一產品的知識程度是否會在不同的情況下影響其對於產品廣告中所蘊含之訊息的處理方式,進而影響其知覺偏誤感受以及相對應的態度改變,也就是所謂的修正。三個研究的廣告中包含了不同的資訊,而所有受測者均受到高涉入的操弄。在第一個研究中,當廣告中包含與產品屬性直接相關的論述以及喜好度高但與產品無關的代言人時,高知識程度者不會覺得受到代言人偏誤的影響,因為其態度的形成是根據與產品直接相關的論述而來,儘管給予偏誤知識,他們也不會進行修正。但此情況下,低知識程度者因為根據不相關的代言人形成他們對產品的態度,因此在給予偏誤知識會知覺到偏誤的存在與影響,進而會去修正它而使得其對於產品評價降為更低。在第二個研究中,當廣告中只有一個喜好度高但與產品不相關的代言人時,高低知識者形成態度的資訊來源皆根據此代言人,在給予偏誤知識後,兩者均會知覺到偏誤的存在與影響,進而都會去進行修正。同樣地,因為廣告中不相關的代言人是喜好度高且正向的,因此修正會使得高低知識雙方對於產品的評價評得比原來更低。在第三個研究中,當廣告改為只有一位喜好度高且與產品相關度高的代言人時,高低知識程度者形成態度的資訊來源依然只有代言人,但雙方在處理代言人這個資訊上的能力沒有異,因此雙方都能知道代言人與產品之間的高度相關性,也都將其視為與產品屬性直接相關的資訊。因此,在給予偏誤知識後,高低知識程度者不會存有知覺偏誤,因為他們態度判斷取決於與產品有關的資訊,因此雙方都不會去進行修正。在管理意涵上,當某一產品是需要知識來加以判斷的時候,這樣的研究結果可以幫助廠商依照自身資源多寡的情況去決定其廣告策略,進而將彈性修正理論的概念運用至行銷的領域。就學術上的貢獻而言,此篇文章的三個研究驗證了產品知識程度對於修正行為在不同情況下確實有其影響,在未來更進一步的研究中,希望可以找出更多能夠影響修正行為的因素、作為知識程度影響修正行為的中介變數,又或是將本篇文章中的三個研究設計應用於其他產品,廣泛驗證產品知識程度對於修正行為的影響。
Correction behavior has been of lots of interests to many researchers in the social and psychological area and has been applied to many other domains, such as persuasion, impression formation, attribution, courtroom judgment, etc. However, few of past researches discussed about the possible factors that might influence the correction behaviors, the direction and magnitude of correction. Thus, this article aimed to examine that when a product needed people to have specific knowledge to make judgment, how people of high and low knowledge levels, both were under the manipulation of high involvement, would adjust their attitude ratings of product after being reminded of potential bias across the three different situations which also stood for the different contents of the target advertisements of three studies in this article. In study 1, when there were central arguments and a likeable but irrelevant endorser in the target advertisement, people of high knowledge level would not correct; however, people of low knowledge level would. In study 2, when the target advertisement only contained a likeable but irrelevant endorser, both people of high and low knowledge levels would engage in correction. Then in study 3, when the target advertisement only contained a likeable and relevant endorser, both people of high and low knowledge levels would not engage in correction. The results showed that knowledge levels about a product especially when it implied the ability of processing product-relevant information to make judgment did have its impact on the correction behaviors across different situations with different contents in the target advertisements. These results could be helpful to apply the concepts of Flexible Correction Model (FCM) to a firm’s advertising strategy in marketing domain. Besides, this article allowed for further future researches in the aspects of any other potential factors that might influence the correction behaviors or that might mediate the effect of knowledge levels on correction behavior, the application of experimental design and procedures to other products to see if knowledge levels really had effect on correction behaviors.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 STUDY PURPOSE.......................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................. 5
2.1 Context Effect—Assimilation and Contrast ................................................................5
2.2 Correction Model.........................................................................................................7
2.2.1 Set/Reset Model................................................................................................8
2.2.2 Inclusion/Exclusion Model.............................................................................10
2.2.3 Flexible Correction Model (FCM) .................................................................11
2.3 Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) ......................................................................14
2.3.1 The Multiple-Roles Postulate .........................................................................19
CHAPTER 3 THEORY FUNDATION ............................................................................... 21
3.1 Conceptual Framework..............................................................................................21
3.2 Uniqueness of the Present Study ...............................................................................23
CHAPTER 4 MAIN EXPERIMENT................................................................................... 25
Study 1EWhen There are a Likeable, Irrelevant Source and Central Arguments in
the Target Advertisement ................................................................................................26
Study 2EWhen There is Only a Likeable, but Irrelevant Source in the Target
Advertisement..................................................................................................................41
Study 3EWhen There is Only Likeable and Relevant Source in the Target
Advertisement..................................................................................................................49
CHAPTER 5 GENERAL DISCUSSION............................................................................. 58
5.1 Conclusion.................................................................................................................58
5.2 Limitation ..................................................................................................................61
5.3 Managerial Implication..............................................................................................62
5.4 Future Research .........................................................................................................65
REFERENCE .......................................................................................................................... 67
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE OF PRETEST ............................................................... 72
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE OF MAIN EXPERIMENT (TEST) .............................. 76
APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE OF MAIN EXPERIMENT (RETEST) ......................... 88
Alba J.W. and Hutchinson J.W. (1987), “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 411-454
Babad E. Y., Ariav A., Rosen I. and Salomon G. (1987), “Perserance of Bias as A Function of Debriefing Conditions and Subjects’ Confidence,” Social Behavior, 2, 185-193.
Bargh, John A. and Paula Pietromonaco (1982), “Automatic Information Processing and Social Perception: The Influence of Trait Information Presented Outside of Conscious Awareness on Impression Formation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 (September), 437-449.
Bettman J.R. and Sujan M. (1987), “Effects of Framing on Evaluation of Comparable and Noncomparable Alternatives by Experts and Novice Consumers,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, 141-154
Biek M., Wood W. and Chaiken S. (1996), “Working Knowledge and Cognitive Processing: On the Determinants of Bias,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 547-556.
Brucks M. (1985), “The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 1-16
Burnkrant and Alan G. Sawyer (1983), “Effects of Involvement and Message Content on Information Processing Intensity,” in Information Processing Research in Advertising, ed. Richard Harris, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Burnstein E. and Vinokur A. (1975), “What a Person Thinks Upon Learning He Has Chosen Differently From Others: Nice Evidence For the Persuasive-Argument Explanation of Choice Shifts,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 412-426
Cacioppo, J. T., and Petty, R. E. (1982), “The Need for Cognition,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131
Caccioppo J.T., Petty R.E., Feinstein J. and Jarvis W.B.G. (1996), “Dispositional Difference in Cognitive Motivation: The Life and Times of Individuals Varying in Need for Cognition,” Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197-253.
Chaiken S.(1980), “Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing in the Use of Source Versus Message Cues in Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766
Chaiken S., Liberman A. and Eagly A.H. (1989), “Heuristic and Systematic Information Processing Within and Beyond the Persuasion Context,” Unintended Thought, J.S. Uleman and J.A. Bargh ed. New York: Guilford Press, 212-252.
Chaiken S. and Maheswaran D. (1994), “Heuristic Processing can Bias Systematic Processing :Effects of Source Credibility, Argument Ambiguity and Task Importance on Attitude Judgment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
Fazio R.H. and Zanna M. P. (1978a), “Attitudinal Qualities Relating to the Strength of the Attitude-Behavior Relationship,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 398-408.
Fazio R.H. and Zanna M. P. (1978b), “On the Predictive Validity of Attitudes: The Role of Direct Experience and Confidence,” Journal of Personality, 46, 228-243.
Festinger L. (1950), “Informal Social Communication,” Psychological Review,” 57, 271-282.
Festinger L. (1954), “A Theory of Social Comparison Processess,” Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
Forgas J.P. and Bower, G.H. (1987), “Mood Effects On Person-Perception Judgments,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 53-60.
Herr, Steven J. Sherman, and Russell H. Fazio (1983), “On the Consequences of Priming: Assimilation and Contrast Effects,” The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19 (July), 323-340.
Higgins, E. Tory, John A. Bargh, and Wendy Lombardi (1985), “Nature of Priming Effects on Categorization,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(January), 59-69.
Higgins and Gillian A. King (1981), “Accessibility of Social Constructs: Information-Processing Consequences of Individual and Contextual Variability,” in Personality, Cognition, and Social Interaction, eds. Nancy Cantor and John F. Kihlstrom, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 69-121.
Higgins, William S. Rholes, and Carl R. Jones (1977), “Category Accessibility and Impression Formation,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13 (March), 141-154.
Krosnick J. A. and Abelson R.P. (1992), “The Case for Measuring Attitude Strength in Surveys,” in Questions about Survey Questions, eds. J. Tanur. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 177-203
Kruglanski A.W. and Thompson E.P. (in press), “Persuasion By A Single Route: A view From the Unimodel,” Psychological Inquiry.
Mahesharan D. and Chaiken S. (1991), “Promoting Systematic Processing in Low-Motivation Settings: Effect of Incongruent Information on Processing and Judgment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13-33.
Martin, L. L. (1986), “Set/reset: Use and Disuse of Concepts in Impression Formation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 493-504
Martin, L. L. and Achee, J. W. (1992), “Beyond Accessibility: The Role of Processing Objectives in Judgment,” The Construction of Social Judgment, 195-216. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Martin, L. L. and Seta, J. J., and Crelia, R. A. (1990), “Assimilation and Contrast as a Function of People’s Willingness and Ability to Expend Effort in Forming an Impression,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 27-37
Mitchell, Andrew A. and Jerry C. Olsen (1981), “Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (August), 318-332.
Petty R.E. (1977), “A Cognitive Response Analysis of the Temporal Persistence of Attitude Changes Induced by Persuasive Communications,” Unpublished Doctorial Dissertation, Ohio State Univerisity.
Petty R.E. (1994), “Two Rotues to Persuasion: State of the Art,” International Perspectives on Psychological Science, G. d’Ydewalle, P. Eelen and P. Bertelson ed, Vol. 2, 229-247
Petty R.E. (1997), “The Evolution of Theory and Research in Social Psychology: From Single to Multiple Effect and Process Models of Persuasion, The Message of Social Psychology: Perspectives on Mind in Society, C. McGarty and S.A. Haslam ed, Oxford: Blackwell, 268-290.
Petty R.E. and. Cacioppo J.T. (1980), “Effects of Issue Involvement on Attitudes in an Advertising Context,” in Proceedings of the Division 23 Program, eds. Gerald G. Gorn and Marvin E. Goldberg, Montreal, Canada: American Psychological Association, 75-79.
Petty R.E. and Cacioppo J.T. (1981), “Attitude and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches,” Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
Petty R.E. and Cacioppo J.T. (1983), “ The Role of Bodily Responses in Attitude Measurement and Change,” Social Psychophysiology: A source book, J.T. Cacioppo and R.E. Petty ed, New York: Guilford Press.
Petty R.E. and Cacioppo J.T. (1986a), “Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change,” New York: Springer-Verlag.
Petty R.E., Cacioppo J.T. and Goldman R. (1981), “ Personal Involvement as a Determinant of Argument-based Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Petty R.E., Cacioppo J.T. and Schumann D. (1983), “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135-146.
Petty R.E. and Cacioppo J.T. (forthcoming b), “The Effects of Involvement on Response to Argument Quantity and Quality: Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Petty R.E., Harkins, S. G., and Williams, K. D. (1980), “The Effects of Group Diffusion of Cognitive Effort on Attitudes: An Information Processing View,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 81-92
Petty R.E., Schumann D., Richman S. and Strathman A. (1993), “Positive Mood and Persuasion: Different Roles for Affect Under High and Low Elaboration Conditions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 5-20.
Petty, R. E., and Wegener, D. T. (1993), “Flexible Correction Processes in Social Judgment: Correcting for Context-induced Contrast,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 137-165
Petty R.E., Wegener D.T. and White P. (1998), “Flexible Correction Process in Persuasion,” Social Cognition, 16, 93-113.
Petty R.E., Wells, G. L. and Brock, T. C. (1976), “Distraction Can Enhance or Reduce Yielding to Propaganda: Thought Disruption versus Effort Justification,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 874-884
Schwarz, N., and Bless, H. (1992), “Constructing Reality and its Alternatives: An Inclusion/Exclusion Model of Assimilation and Contrast Effect in Social Judgment,” In L. L. Martin and A. Tesser (Eds.), The Construction of Social Judgments, 217-245, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Spiegel S., Thompson E.P. and Kruglanski A. (1996), “Toward a Unimodal Theory of Persuasion: On the Effortful Processing of “Heuristic’ Information,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC.
Srull and Robert S. Wyer (1979), “The Role of Category Accessibility in the Interpretation of Information About Persons: Some Determinants and Implications,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (October), 1660-1672.
Srull and Robert S. Wyer (1980), “Category Accessibility and Social Perception: Some Implications for the Study of Person Memory ad Interpersonal Judgments,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38 (June), 841-856.
Strack F. and Hannover B. (1996), “Awareness of Influence as a Precondition for Implementing Correctional Goals,” The Psychology of Action, P.M. Gollwitzer and J.A. Bargh ed, New York: Gilford Press.
Strack F., Schwarz N., Bless H., Kubler A. and Wanke M (1993), “Awareness of the Influence as a Determinant of Assimilation Versus Contrast,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 52-62.
Sujan M. (1985), “Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgments,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 31-46
Swann W.B., Pelham B. W. and Chidester T. R. (1998), “Change Through Paradox: Using Self-verification to Alter Beliefs,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 268-273.
Wegener, D. T. (1994), “The Flexible Correction Model: Using Naïve Theories of Bias to Correct Assessments of Targets,” Doctoral dissertation. Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
Wegener D.T. and Petty R.E. (1994), “Mood Management Across Affective States: The Hedonic Contingency Hypothesis,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1034-1048.
Wegener D.T., and Petty, R. E. (1995), “Flexible Correction Processes in Social Judgment: The Role of Naïve Theories in Corrections for Perceived Bias,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 36-51.
Wegener D.T., Petty R.E. and Klein D.J. (1994), “Effects of Mood on high Elaboration Attitude Change: The Mediating Role of Likelihood Judgment,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 25-44.
Wegener D.T., Petty R.E. and Smith S.M. (1995), “Positive Mood can Increase or Decrease Message Scrutiny: The Hedonic Contingency View of Mood and Message Processing, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 5-15.
Wilson T.D. and Brekke N. (1994), “Mental Contamination and Mental Correction: Unwanted Influences on Judgments and Evaluations,” Psychological Bulletin, 116, 117-142.
Wood W., Kallgren C.A. and Preisler R.M. (1985), “Access to Attitude-relevant Information in Memory as a Determinant of Persuasion: The Role of Message Attributes, Journal of Experimantal and Social Psychology, 21, 73-85.
Wood W., Rhodes N. and Biek M, (1995), “Working Knowledge and Attitude Strength: An Information Processing Analysis,” Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, R.E, Petty and J.A. Krosnick ed, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 283-313.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top