跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.231.230.177) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/28 20:17
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:黃旭翊
研究生(外文):Huang,Suyi
論文名稱:運用錨定效應提升FACEBOOK個人資料授權率
論文名稱(外文):Using Anchoring Effect to Increase the Authorization Rate of Personal Data in Facebook
指導教授:賴銘哲
指導教授(外文):Lai,,Mngche
口試委員:李義祥黃浩良
口試日期:2012-06-26
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:育達商業科技大學
系所名稱:行銷與流通管理所
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:行銷與流通學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2012
畢業學年度:100
語文別:英文
論文頁數:46
中文關鍵詞:Facebook授權率錨定效應知覺價值
外文關鍵詞:FacebookAuthorization RateAnchoring EffectPercept Value
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:209
  • 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:1
在線社交網絡是在過去幾年中最熱門的討論議題之一。其中最大的一個,Facebook(超過800萬用戶),已成為對許多企業非常有吸引力的營銷平台。企業應該看到Facebook可以為他們做些什麼,並使用它作為一個利基工具。常見的做法是設置的Facebook粉絲團與顧客互動和設計的免費應用程式,以獲取客戶的個人資料。在2010年,美國聯邦貿易委員會指控Facebook,因為它欺騙用戶,告訴他們,他們能保持他們在Facebook上的個人資料,然而卻允許個人資料被共享和公開。 Facebook的隱私問題已成為焦點話題,並吸引公眾的注意。並成為商業活動的問題。因此,如何提高在Facebook的個人資料的授權率是一個非常重要的課題。在這項研究中,我們應用錨定效應來提高授權率,同時提高知覺價值。
結果顯示,使用錨定效應可以有效地提高授權率,提高知覺的價值。此外,錨定效應在行銷上更是具有積極意義。甚至可以應用在其他免費的網站,以獲得企業利潤空間。

Online social networking is one of the hottest discussion topics in the last couple of years. The biggest social network, Facebook with over 800 million users, has become a very attractive marketing platform for many companies. Companies should see what Facebook can do for them and use it as a niche tool. Two common practices are to set up a Facebook page to interact with customers and to design free Facebook applications to obtain customers' personal data. In 2010, the Federal Trade Commission of U.S.A charged Facebook Inc. because it deceived users by telling them that they could keep their personal data on Facebook but repeatedly sharing these data to public.
The privacy problem of Facebook has become the focus topic and attracted public's attention. It will become a problem soon in terms of business activities.Therefore; the research topic, how to increase the authorization rate of personal data in Facebook, is a very important study subject. In this paper, we propose that applying Anchoring Effect in Facebook applications will increase the authorization rate and raise the percept value.
The experiment result shows that using Anchoring Effect can effectively increase the authorization rate and raise the percept value. It has a positive impact on the marketing strategy. In addition, the Anchoring Effect can be used in many other free sites or applications in order to increase companies' profit.

誌謝……………………………………………………………………………….…. …... I
中文摘要……………………………………………………………………………….…. II
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………….. III
TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................…………………….. I
LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................…………………….. V
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………….. V
I INTRODUCTION........................................................................……………………...... 1
1.1 Motivation……………………………………………..……………………. 1
1.2 Research process………………………………………………………….. 4
II Literature review………………………………………………………………. 6
2.1 Anchoring Effect research…………………………... …………………. 6
2.2 The possible factors related to anchor values……........................... 9
2.3 Underlying mechanisms to the Anchoring Effect……................................ 11
2.4 Conclusions……………………………………………………………….. 14
III Methodology................................................................................... 15
3.1 Assumptions and interpretations……………………………………….. 15
3.2 Implementation issue………….…………………………………………………... 19
IV Discussion…………………………………………………………………….. 24
4.1 The result of this experiment……………………………………………. 24
4.2 Analyze of this experiment result………………….................................................. 27
V Conclusion……………………………………………………………………... 31
5.1 Marketing Implication………….………………………………………... 34
5.2 Suggestions for Further Research…………………........................... 35
References………………………………………………………………………… 36
Appendix …………………………………………………………………………………... 43

1.Anderson, C. (2009). Free: The Future of a Radical Price. New York: Hyperion.
2.Ariely, D., & Wallsten, S.T. (1995). Seeking subjective dominance in multidimensional space: An explanation of the asymmetric dominance effect. Organizational behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(3), 223-232.
3.Ariely, D., (1998). Combining experiences over time: The effects of duration, intensity changes and on-papers line measurements on retrospective pain evaluations. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 19-45.
4.Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). Coherent Arbitrariness: stable demand curves without stable preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 73–105.
5.Ariely, D., (2008). Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. New York: HarperCollins.
6.Ariely, D., (2010). The Upside of Irrationality: The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at Work and at Home. New York: HarperCollins.
7.Belsky, G., & Golivich, T. (1999). Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes – and How to correct them. Lessons from the New Science of Behavioural Economics. New York: Simon Schuster.
8.Bergman, O., Ellingsen, T., Johannesson, M., & Svensson, C. (2010). Anchoring and cognitive ability. Economics Letters, 107, 66–68.
9.Blankenship, K.L., Wegener, D.T., Petty, R.E., Detweiler-Bedell, B., & Macy, C.L., (2008). Elaboration and consequences of anchored estimates: an attitudinal perspective on numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1465–1476.
10.Bodenhausen, G.V., Gabriel, S., & Lineberger, M. (2000). Sadness and susceptibility to judgmental bias: the case of anchoring. Psychological Science, 11, 320–323.
11.Brandstätter, H. (1993). Should economic psychology care about personality structure?. Journal of Economic Psychology, 14, 473–494.
12.Brown, D. R. (1953). Stimulus similarity and the anchoring of subjective scales. American Journal of Psychology, 66, 199–214.
13.Cervone, D., & Peake, P.K. (1986). Anchoring, efficacy, and action: the influence of judgmental heuristics on self-efficacy judgments and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 492–501.
14.Chapman, G.B., & Johnson, E.J. (1994). The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 223–242.
15.Chapman, G.B., & Johnson, E.J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 1–39.
16.Critcher, C.R., & Gilovich, T. (2008). Incidental environmental anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 241–251.
17.Dholakia, U., & Durham, E. (2010). One Café Chain's Facebook Experiment. Harvard Business Review, 88(3), 26.
18.Ellison, N., Heino, R. & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 2.
19.Englich, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring Effects in the courtroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1535–1551.
20.Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2005). The last word in court a hidden disadvantage for the defense. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 705–722.
21.Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2006). Playing dice with criminal sentences: the influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 188–200.
22.Englich, B., & Soder, K. (2009). Moody experts – how mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring. Judgmental and Decision Making, 4, 41–50.
23.Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back into the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological Science, 12, 391–396.
24.Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2005). When effortful thinking influences judgmental anchoring: differential effects of forewarning and incentives on self-generated and externally provided anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18,199–212.
25.Eroglu, C., &Croxton, K.L. (2010). Biases in judgmental adjustments of statistical forecasts: the role of individual differences. International Journal of Forecasting, 26,116–133.
26.Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the Anchoring Effect. The Journal of Socio-Economic, 40, 35–42.
27.Galinsky, A.D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: the role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,657–669.
28.Hastie, R., Schkade, D.A., & Payne, J.W. (1999). Juror judgment in civil cases: effects of plaintiff’s requests and plaintiff’s identity on punitive damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 445–470.
29.Huber, J., Payne, M., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90-98.
30.Walther, J.B., Heide, B. V. D., Kim, S.Y., Westerman, D., & Tong, T. (2008). The Role of Friends’ Appearance and Behavior on Evaluations of Individuals on Facebook: Are We Known by the Company We Keep?. Human Communication Research, 34, 28–49
31.LeBoeuf, R.A., & Shafir, E. (2009). Anchoring on the ‘Here’ and ‘Now’ in time and distance judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35, 81–93.
32.Lynch, J.G., & Ariely, D. (2000). Wine online: Search cost affect competition on price, quality, and distribution. Marketing Science, 19 (1), 83-103.
33.Marti, M.W., & Wissler, R.L. (2000). Be careful what you ask for: the effects of anchors on personal injury damages awards. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 91–103.
34.McElroy, T., & Dowd, K. (2007). Susceptibility to Anchoring Effects: how openness-to-experience influences responses to anchoring cues. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 48–53.
35.Mussweiler, T. (2003). The durability of Anchoring Effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 431–442.
36.Mussweiler, T., & Englich, B. (2005). Subliminal anchoring: judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 133–143.
37.Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: a selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 136–164.
38.Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2001). The semantics of anchoring. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 234–255.
39.Mussweiler, T., Strack, F., & Pfeiffer, T. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable Anchoring Effect: considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1142–1150.
40.Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C. & Lamp, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook ‘‘Friends:’’ Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168.
41.Oren, G.O. (2010). Building Consumer Demand by using Viral Marketing Tactics within an Online Social Network. Advances in Management, 3, 7-14.
42.Plous, S. (1989). Thinking the unthinkable: the effects of anchoring on likelihood estimates of nuclear war. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 67–91.
43.Shampan'er, K., & Ariely, D. (2007). How Small is Zero Price? The True Value of Free Products. Marketing Science, 26(6), 742 - 757.
44.Shiloh, S., Salto, E., & Sharabi, D. (2002). Individual differences in rational and intuitive thinking styles as predictors of heuristic responses and framing effects. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 415–429.
45.Smith, V.L. (1982). Microeconomic systems as an experimental science. The American Economic Review, 72(5), 923-955.
46.Smith, V.L. (1989). Theory, experiment and economics. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3(1), 151-169.
47.Smith, V.L. (1991). Papers in Experimental Economics. New York: Cambridge Univ Pr.
48.Simon, H.A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.
49.Slovic, P. (1967). The relative influence of probabilities and payoffs upon perceived risk of a gamble. Psychonomic Science, 9, 223–224.
50.Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic Anchoring Effect: mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,437–446.
51.Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.
52.Tversky, A. (1977). Features of Similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327-352.
53.Van Exel, N., Brouwer, W., van den Berg, B., & Koopmanschap, M. (2006). With a little help from an anchor. Discussion and evidence of Anchoring Effects in contingent valuation. Journal of Socio-Economics, 35, 836–853.
54.Wansink, B., Kent, R.J., & Hoch, S.J. (1998). An anchoring and adjustment model of purchase quantity decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 71–81.
55.Wegener, D.T., Petty, R.E., Blankenship, K.L., & Detweiler-Bedell, B. (2010). Elaboration and numerical anchoring: implications of attitude theories for consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 5–16.
56.Wegener, D.T., Petty, R.E., Detweiler-Bedell, B., & Jarvis, W.B.G. (2001). Implications of attitude change theories for numerical anchoring: anchor plausibility and the limits of Anchor Effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 62–69.
57.Wilson, T.D., Houston, C.E., Etling, K.M., & Brekke, N. (1996). A new look at Anchoring Effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 387–402.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top