負面事件比正面事件更能達到引起人們注意的效果，然而消費者的品牌依賴程度和負面事件之間的相互作用關係過去很少被研究。因此，本研究希望能透過調查年輕的品牌手機使用族群，以瞭解負面事件的嚴重性、負面事件的來源可靠性，和消費者的品牌依賴程度對消費者的負面品牌態度改變、負面產品評估改變、及風險認知改變程度的影響。
本研究發現，當一個品牌被負面事件攻擊時，消費者的品牌依賴程度及負面事件的嚴重程度會分別對其負面產品評估改變、及風險認知改變程度產生影響；而消費者的負面品牌態度改變只會被其品牌依賴程度影響。並且，負面事件發生時，消費者的品牌依賴程度並不能解決負面內容對消費者所帶來的影響，真正重要的是反而是負面事件的嚴重程度和來源可靠性。品牌管理者應該多加注意的負面事件的組合為高風險且來自較可靠的管道，因為這樣的組合會對消費者產生負面影響最大；而較不需注意的是低風險且來自較不可靠的管道的負面事件組合，因為這樣的組合對消費者產生負面影響最小。

Negative events are known to drawn more attention than positive events, but how consumers’ brand attachment would interact with negative events is rarely discussed in the literature. As a result, this research would like to investigate how severity level and source credibility of a negative event, and consumers’ brand attachment would affect consumers’ negative brand attitude change, negative product evaluation change and perceived risk change through studying of young adults who use brand cell phone.
In this research, it is found that when a brand is attacked by a negative event, consumer’s brand attachment and the severity level of a negative event would both affect consumer’s negative product evaluation and negative product evaluation changes, though only brand attachment would affect consumers’ brand attitude. Furthermore, brand attachment cannot resolve negative impacts of a negative event to the consumers; instead, the severity level and the source of a negative event would affect consumers’ negative brand attitude, negative product evaluation and perceived risk changes. Specifically, it is worth the brand managers the most attention when a negative event involves high severity level and comes from a more credible source, as this combination bring more negative changes to consumers, and the least attention when a negative event involves low severity level and comes from a less credible source, as this combination would bring least negative changes to consumers.

Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION................................1
1.1 Background..................................1
1.2 Research Questions..........................4
1.3 Research Process............................5

II. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS............6
2.1 Brand Attachment............................6
2.2 Source Credibility..........................9
2.3 Event Severity..............................12
2.4 Hypothesis Model............................18

III. METHODOLOGY................................19
3.1 Research Design.............................19
3.2 Variables Manipulation and Measurement......23
3.3 Sample Screening............................32

IV. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS.......................33
4.1 Data Summary................................33
4.2 Data Analysis and Discussion................38
4.3 Hypothesis Results..........................51

V. CONCLUSION...................................52
5.1 Theoretical Contribution....................52
5.2 Managerial Implication......................53
5.3 Limitation and Future Research..............54

APPENDICES.........................................56
REFERENCES.........................................70

1. Abdulla, R. A., Garrison, B., Salwen, M., Driscoll, P., & Casey, D. (2002). The Credibility of Newspapers, Television News and Online News. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.
2. Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., & Tormala, Z. L. (2004). The self-validation of cognitive responses to advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 559-573.
3. Chaiken, S., & 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.
4. Chaplin, N., & John, D. R. (2005). The Development of Self-Brand Connections in Children and Adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 119-129.
5. Collins, N. L. (1996). Working Models of Attachment: Implications for Explanation, Emotion, and Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 810-832.
6. DeBono, K. G., & Harnish, R. J. (1988). Source expertise, source attractiveness, and the processing of persuasive information: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(541-546).
7. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes: Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
8. Escalas, J. E. (2004). Narrative Processing: Building Consumer Connections to Brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1), 168-179.
9. Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G. (1988). Self-Generated Validity and Other Effects of Measurement on Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 421-435.
10. Fiske, S. 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.
11. Greer, J. D. (2003). Evaluating the Credibility of Online Information: A Test of Source and Advertising Influence. Mass Communication and Society 6(1), 11-28.
12. Heesacker, M. H., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1983). Field dependence and attitude change: Source credibility can alter persuasion by affecting message-relevant thinking. Journal of Personality, 51, 653-666.
13. Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product-Attribute Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility and Diagnosticity Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 454-462.
14. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L. ,& Kelley, H. H. . (1953). Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Obvious Change: New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15. Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650.
16. Johar, G. V., Birk, M. M., & Einwiller, S. A. (2010). How to Save Your Brand In the Face of Crisis. MIT Management Review, 51(4).
17. Kaufman, D. Q., Stasson, M. F., & Hart, J. W. (1999). Are the tabloids always wrong or is that just what we think? Need for cognition and perceptions of articles in print media. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1984-1997.
18. Keller, P. A., & Block, L. G. . (1996). Increasing the Persuasiveness of Fear Appeais: The Effect of Arousal and Elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 448-461.
19. Kelman, H. C., & Hovland, C. I. (1953). "Reinstatement" of the communicator in delayed measurement of opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 327-335.
20. Klein, J. G. (1996). Negativity in Impression of Presidential Candidates Revisited: The 1992 Election. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 289-296.
21. Kroloff, G. (1988). At Home and Abroad: Weighing In. Public Relations Joumal, 44(October), 8.
22. Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1999). Persuasion by a single route: A view from the unimodel. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 83-109.
23. 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.
24. MacKenzie, A., & Evans, S. (2010). The Toyota Recall Crisis. Retrieved 05/13, 2011
25. Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The Influence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(August), 361-367.
26. Marconi, J. (1997). Crisis Marketing: When Bad Things Happen to Good Companies: Chicago: American Marketing Association.
27. Mikulincer, M. (1998). Attachment Working Models and the Sense of Trust: An Exploration of Interaction Goals and Affect Regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1209-1224.
28. Milberg, S. J., Park, C. W., & McCarthy, M. S. (1997). Managing Negative Feedback Effects Associated with Brand Extensions: The Impact of Alternative Branding Strategies. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6(2), 119-140.
29. Mills, J., & Jellison, J. M. (1967). Effect on opinion change of how desirable the communication is to the audience the communicator addressed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 98-101.
30. Park, C. W., MacInnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Lacobucci, D. (2010). Brand Attachment and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual and Empirical Differentiation ofTwo Critical Brand Equity Drivers. Journal of Marketing, 74, 1-17.
31. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change: New York: Springer-Verlag.
32. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847-855.
33. Rhine, R., & Severance, L. (1970). Ego-involvement, discrepancy, source credibility, and attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 175-190.
34. Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and Physiological Processes in Fear Appeals and Attitude Change: A Revised Theory of Protection Motivation: New York: Guilford.
35. Romeo, J. B. (1991). The Effect of Negative Information on the Evaluations of Brand Extensions and the Family Brand (Vol. 18): UT : Association for Consumer Research.
36. Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. . (1987). Social Judgment and Social Memory: The Role of Cue Diagnosticity in Negativity, Positivity, and Extremity Biases. Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 689-699.
37. Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and Extremity in Impression Formation: A Review of Explanation. Psychological Bulletin,, 105, 131-142.
38. Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence: Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Toffler, A. (1970). Future Shock Random House.
40. Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2004). Source Credibility and Attitude Certainty: A Metacognitive Analysis of Resistance to Persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 427-442.
41. Zanna, M. P. (1993). Advertising Exposure, Memory, and Choice New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.