跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.205.192.201) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/05 09:18
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:邱玉葉
研究生(外文):Yu-Yeh Chiu
論文名稱:多數和少數訊息來源在不同涉入程度下對產品判斷的影響機制及效果:勸服變數的多重角色觀點
論文名稱(外文):The Different Mechanisms of Majority/Minority Influences on Product Judgments with Different Involvement Levels: The Multiple Role Perspective
指導教授:簡怡雯簡怡雯引用關係
學位類別:博士
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:97
語文別:中文
論文頁數:84
中文關鍵詞:涉入多數/少數訊息來源勸服變數多重角色觀點來源可靠度初始態度
外文關鍵詞:InvolvementMajority/minority sourceMultiple roles for persuasion variablesSource credibilityPrior attitudes
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:273
  • 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:3
本文主要應用勸服變數的多重角色觀點,利用兩個實驗來分別探討在高、中、低三種涉入程度下,多數/少數訊息來源是以何種機制來影響消費者的產品態度。實驗一主要是在受測者對產品無初始態度的情境下探討,而實驗二則考慮當多數或少數人對產品的意見與受測者的產品態度相反和相同的情況。
當受測者對目標產品(洗髮精)無初始態度時,只有當多數/少數訊息來源具高可靠度,多數/少數訊息來源才會影響高涉入受測者的產品態度,此時多數/少數訊息來源被視為是中心論點(central arguments),而且會偏誤資訊處理的方向;而當受測者的涉入程度為低時,無論多數/少數訊息來源的可靠度為何,多數/少數訊息來源皆會影響低涉入受測者的產品態度,多數/少數訊息來源被視為周邊線索,直接影響產品態度;而當涉入程度為中度時,多數訊息來源會比少數訊息來源引起較多的訊息處理。
當受測者對目標產品(洗髮精)有初始態度時,受測者只接觸到具高可靠度的訊息來源,在高、低涉入情況下,多數/少數訊息來源的影響效果仍與實驗一結果相同,然而在中涉入的情況下,多數訊息來源與少數訊息來源都可能會引起較多的訊息處理,即在相反意見的情境下,多數訊息來源會比少數訊息來源引起較多的訊息處理;在相同意見的情境下,少數訊息來源會比多數訊息來源引起較多的訊息處理。
Appling the perspective of multiple roles of persuasion variables, two studies investigate the mechanisms underlying the effects of source status (majority vs. minority) on product attitudes under different involvement levels (high vs. moderate vs. low). Specifically, Experiment 1 examines the persuasive process of source status when participants have no prior attitudes, whereas Experiment 2 examines this process when participants receive majority- or minority-advocated messages consistent or inconsistent with their prior attitudes.
When participants have no prior attitudes toward the target product, source status influences high-involvement participants’ attitudes by serving as a central argument and by biasing processing only when the source offers high credibility. When involvement is low, source status directly influences participants’ attitudes by serving as a peripheral cue, regardless of credibility. When involvement is moderate, the majority source prompts greater message scrutiny than the minority source.
Among participants with prior attitudes, exposed only to high-credibility sources; the effects of source status remain the same for high and low involvement. However, with moderate involvement, either a majority or a minority source can enhance message scrutiny. The minority source induces greater message scrutiny than the majority source in the congruent condition, whereas the opposite is true in the incongruent condition.
目 錄

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景 1
第二節 研究目的 2
第二節 本研究與先前研究不同之處 3
第二章 文獻回顧 5
第一節 多數影響與少數影響 5
第二節 二元訊息處理理論 9
第三節 勸服變數的多重角色 11
第三章 研究假設及概念性架構 15
第一節 研究假設 15
第二節 概念性架構 22
第四章 實驗一 23
第一節 實驗一之研究設計與方法 23
第二節 實驗一之研究結果與分析 28
第三節 討論 40
第五章 實驗二 41
第一節 實驗二之研究設計與方法 41
第二節 實驗二之研究結果與分析 45
第三節 討論 55
第六章 結論 57
第一節 研究結論與貢獻 57
第二節 研究限制與未來研究方向 59
參考文獻 62
附錄 70
圖 次

圖2-1 變數在推敲連續帶(Elaboration Continuum)上的多重角色 12
圖3-1 概念架構圖 22
圖4-1 路徑分析結果--高涉入且多數/少數訊息來源具高可靠度 37
圖4-2 路徑分析結果--高涉入且多數/少數訊息來源為低可靠度 38
圖4-3 路徑分析結果--低涉入且多數/少數訊息來源具高可靠度 38
圖4-4 路徑分析結果--低涉入且多數/少數訊息來源為低可靠度 38
圖5-1高涉入之路徑分析結果 54
圖5-2低涉入之路徑分析結果 54
表 次

表4-1 論點品質前測結果 24
表4-2 四因子下各組平均數 30
表4-3 四因子變異數分析結果—產品態度 31
表4-4 高、中、低涉入程度下三因子變異數分析結果 34
表5-1 四因子下各組平均數 47
表5-2 四因子變異數分析結果—產品態度 48
表5-3 高、中、低涉入程度下三因子變異數分析結果 51
Alvaro, E. M., & Crano, W. D. (1996). Cognitive responses to minority or majority-based communications: Factors that underlie minority influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 105-121.
Alvaro, E. M., & Crano, W. D. (1997). Indirect minority influence: Evidence for leniency in source evaluation and counter-argumentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 949-964.
Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31-35.
Baker, S. M., & Petty, R.E. (1994). Majority and minority influence: Source-position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 5-19.
Biswas, A., & Sherrell, D. L. (1993). The influence of product knowledge and brand name on internal price standards and confidence. Psychology & Marketing, 10, 31-46.
Burnkrant, R. E., & Cousineau A. (1975). Informational and normative social influence in buyer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 206-215.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-756.
Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp.3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
Clark, R. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2005). Market mavens: Psychological influences. Psychology & Marketing, 22, 289-312.
Clark, R. D., III, & Maass, A. (1990). The effects of majority size on minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 99-117.
Cohen, J. B., & Golden E. (1972). Informational Social Influence and Product Evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 54-59.
Crano, W. D., & Chen, X. (1998). The leniency contract and persistence of majority and minority influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1437-1450.
Darke, P. R., Chaiken, S., Bohner, G., Einwiller, S., Erb, H. P., & Hazlewood, J. D. (1998). Accuracy motivation, consensus information, and the law of large numbers: Effects on attitude judgment in the absence of argumentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1205-1215.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & De Vries, N. K. (1993). Numerical support, information processing and attitude change. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 647-663.
De Dreu, C. K.W., & De Vries, N. K. (1996). Differential processing and attitude change following majority and minority arguments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 77-90.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H.G. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influence upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629-636.
Erb, H. P., Bohner, G., Schmaelzle, K., & Rank, S. (1998). Beyond conflict and discrepancy: Cognitive bias in minority and majority influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 620-633.
Gardikiotis, A., Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). Group consensus in social influence: Type of consensus information as a moderator of majority and minority influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1163-1174.
Gerard, H. B., Wilhelmy, R. A., & Connolley, E. S. (1968). Conformity and group size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 79-82.
Huneke, M. E., Cole, C., & Levin, I. P. (2004). How varying levels of knowledge and motivation affect search and confidence during consideration and choice. Marketing Letters, 15, 67-79.
Kerr, N. (2002). When is a minority a minority? Active vs. passive minority advocacy and social influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 471-483.
Maass, A. & Clark, R. D., III. (1983). Internalization versus compliance: Differential processes underlying minority influence and conformity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 197-215.
Mackie, D. M. (1987). Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 41-52.
Maheswaran, D., & 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, 13-25.
Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2001). Conformity and independence in groups: Majorities and minorities. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology, (Vol. 1, pp. 209-234). Oxford: Blackwell.
Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2003a). Majority versus minority influence: When, not whether, source status instigates heuristic or systematic processing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 313-330.
Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2003b). Social influence processes of control and change: Conformity, obedience to authority, and innovation. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), Sage handbook of social psychology (pp. 347-366). London: Sage Ltd.
Martin, R., Gardikiotis, A., & Hewstone, M. (2002). Levels of consensus and majority and minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 645-665.
Martin, R., Hewstone, M., & Martin, P. Y., (2007). Systematic and heuristic processing of majority and minority endorsed messages: The effects of varying levels of orientation and outcome relevance on attitude and message processing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 43-56.
Martin, R., Hewstone, M., & Martin, P. Y., (2008). Majority versus minority influence: The role of message processing in determining resistance to counter-persuasion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 16-34.
Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a theory of conversion behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 209-239). New York: Academic Press.
Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In G. Lindsey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, (Vol. 2, 3rd ed., pp. 347-412). New York: Random House.
Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux (1969). Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task. Sociometry, 32, 365-380.
Mugny, G. (1975). Negotiations, image of the other and the process of minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 209-228.
Mugny, G., & Papastamou, S. (1980). When rigidity does not fail: Individualization and psychologization as resistances to the diffusion of minority innovations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 43-62.
Nemeth, C., & Chiles, C. (1988). Modeling courage: The role of dissent in fostering independence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 275-280.
Nemeth, C., & Wachtler, J. (1974). Creating the perceptions of consistency and confidence: A necessary condition for minority influence. Sociometry, 37, 529-540.
Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915-1926.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Issue involvement as a moderator of the effects on attitude of advertising content and context. Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 20-24.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984a). Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 668-672.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984b). The effects of involvement on response to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69-81.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Petty, R. E., & J. T. Cacioppo (1980). Effects of issue involvement on attitudes in an advertising context. In G. G. Gorn, & M. E. Goldberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the Division 23 Program (pp.75-79). Montreal, Canada American Psychological Association.
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T., Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, 4th ed., pp. 323-390). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 41-72). New York: Guilford Press.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & 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., Fleming, M. A., & White, P. H. (1999). Stigmatized sources and persuasion: Prejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 19-34.
Petty, R. E., Schumann, D. W., Richman, S. A., & Strathman, A. J. (1993). Positive mood and persuasion: Different roles for affect under high and low elaboration conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 5-20.
Pyszczynski, T. A., & Greenberg, J. (1981). Role of disconfirming expectancies in the instigation of attributional processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 31-38.
Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279-301.
Shavitt, S., Swan, S., Lowrey, T. M., & Wanke, M. (1994), The interaction of endorser attractiveness and involvement in persuasion depends on the goal that guides message processing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3,137-162.
Stangor, C., & McMillan, D. (1992). Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-incongruent information: A review of the social and social-developmental literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 42-61.
Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers'' need for uniqueness: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 50-66.
Trost, M. R., Maass, A., & Kenrick, D. T. (1992). Minority influence: Personal relevance biases cognitive processes and reverses private acceptance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 234-254.
Wilder, D. A. (1977). Perceptions of groups, size of opposition, and influence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 253-268.
Wooten, D. B., & Reed, A. II. (1998). Informational influence and the ambiguity of product experience: Order effects on the weighting of evidence. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 79-99.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊