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:2021/08/04 01:56
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:張碩涵
研究生(外文):Shuo-Han Chang
論文名稱:產品評價態度修正影響因素:高涉入的情境下,產品訴求和代言人關聯性對消費者判斷產品的交互作用影響
論文名稱(外文):Correction of Product Evaluation under high involvement situation:Endorsement effect v.s. Product Argument
指導教授:簡怡雯簡怡雯引用關係
指導教授(外文):Yi Wen Chien
口試委員:蕭中強練乃華陳建維
口試日期:2015-07-07
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:2015
畢業學年度:103
語文別:中文
論文頁數:60
中文關鍵詞:產品評價彈性修正模型(FCM)ELM模型涉入程度產品訴求代言人相關性
外文關鍵詞:product evaluationflexible correction modelelaboration likelihood modellevel of involvementproduct argumentendorser matchup
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:281
  • 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
本研究將探討消費者在高涉入的情境下,會因為代言人和產品之間的關聯性差異,以及廣告訴求說服力強弱,而對同一項產品進行不同的產品評價。在代言人和產品之間是高度關聯的情況下,無論在任何情況,正面形象的代言人對產品都有加分的作用。然而,若代言人和產品之間的關聯性低,則受測者會將代言人視為一個誤導他們決策的資訊,因而將產品評價得較差。此外,若在同一篇廣告中,同時存在和產品相關的廣告訴求與代言人,則廣告訴求通常會被視為中央路徑訊息、代言人則被視為邊陲路徑訊息,因此,當受測者沒有被促發代言人訊息時,則受測者會把大部份的認知資源投入處理廣告訴求,因此無論有無代言人,產品評價都相似。本研究總計1個實驗和12個操作條件,實驗部分驗證以上之論述。

The current research is intending to investigate how a consumer, under high involvement, would make different product evaluations caused by different level of endorser matchup and the persuasiveness of a target advertisement. That is, when the endorser is highly related to the product he/she promotes, participants treat he/she a value-added info, thus see the product more attractive under any circumstance. In contrary, if the endorser has low relatedness to the product, participants see he/she as misleading information, trying to correct the “perceived bias“, and consequently, the participants’ attitude toward the product is relatively low. Furthermore, in the situation when both product-related information and endorser are presented in one ad, participants usually see the product-related advertisement as a central argument, whereas the endorser as a peripheral cue. Accordingly, when the endorser is not primed, participants put every cognitive resource on processing the ad info, which in term resulted in no difference product judgment among all situations, with or without the endorser.
This research includes 1 study and 12 experiment conditions. The result of the study partially proves the hypothesis.


口試委書審定書...........................................................................................i
致謝..........................................................................................................ii
中文摘要………………………………………………………………………………iii
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………iv
目錄……………………………………………………………………………………v
圖目錄……………………………………………………………………………… vii
表目錄……………………………………………………………………………… viii
第一章 緒論……………………………………………………………………………1
第二章 文獻回顧………………………………………………………………………3
2.1 消費者產品態度修正 ……………………………………………………… 3
2.2 推敲反應模式 ……………………………………………………………… 6
2.3 促發 …………………………………………………………………………10
第三章 研究模型與方法…………………………………………………………… 11
3.1研究假設………………………………………………………………………11
3.2 問卷前測分析……………………………………………………………… 16
3.3 研究設計…………………………………………………………………… 20
第四章 實驗結果…………………………………………………………………… 27
4.1 操弄檢測…………………………………………………………………… 27
4.2 依變數分析………………………………………………………………… 31
4.3 假說驗證與結果…………………………………………………………… 32
第五章 討論與建議………………………………………………………………… 35
5.1 研究討論………………………………………………………………………35
5.2 管理實務建議…………………………………………………………………38
5.3 研究限制………………………………………………………………………40
5.4 未來研究方向…………………………………………………………………42
參考文獻………………………………………………………………………………44 附錄一:實驗問卷……………………………………………………………………49

圖目錄
圖1. 假設一、產品評價示意圖………………………………………………… 14
圖2. 假設二、產品評價示意圖………………………………………………… 14
圖3. 假設三、產品評價示意圖………………………………………………… 15
圖4. 假設四、產品評價示意圖………………………………………………… 15
圖5. 假設五、產品評價示意圖………………………………………………… 15
圖6. Simple Main Effect Plot…………………………………………………… 35
圖7. 問卷廣告—有代言人…………………………………………………… 37
圖8. 問卷廣告—無代言人…………………………………………………… 37

表目錄
表一. 研究假設條件…………………………………………………………… 11
表二. 明星的知名度、喜好程度、與吸引程度………………………………… 16
表三. 筆電產品強弱訴求成對樣本T檢定…………………………………… 17
表四. 牙膏產品強弱訴求成對樣本T檢定…………………………………… 18
表五. 鍋子產品強弱訴求成對樣本T檢定…………………………………… 18
表六. 筆電產品獨立樣本T檢定……………………………………………… 19
表七. 問卷流程………………………………………………………………… 21
表八. 依變項敘述統計………………………………………………………… 31
表九. 依變項ANOVA檢定…………………………………………………… 32
表十. 依變項細格平均數……………………………………………………… 32
表十一. 論文假設檢核表……………………………………………………… 34


Andrews, J. Craig, Srinivas Durvasula, and Syed H. Akhter (1990). “A framework for conceptualizing and measuring the involvement construct in advertising research.” Journal of advertising, 19(4), 27-40.

Baker, Michael J. and Gilbert Churchill A. Jr. (1977), “ The Impact of Physically Attractive Models on Advertising Evaluations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (November), 538-555.

Bandura, Albert. (1977). “Social learning theory.”

Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Govender, R., & Pratto, F. (1992). “ The generality of the automatic attitude activation effect.” Journal of personality and social psychology, 62(6), 893.

Bargh, John A., Mark Chen, and Lara Burrows. (1996). “ Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action.” Journal of personality and social psychology, 71(2), 230.

Berkowitz, Leonard, and Bartholomeu T. Troccoli. (1990), “Feelings, Direction of Attention, and Expressed Evaluations of Others.” Cognition and Emotion, 4, 305-25.

Bettman, James R. (1974). “A threshold model of attribute satisfaction decisions.” Journal of Consumer Research, 30-35.

Cacioppo, John T., and Richard E. Petty. (1980). “ Persuasiveness of communications is affected by exposure frequency and message quality: A theoretical and empirical analysis of persisting attitude change.” Current issues and research in advertising, 3(1), 97-122.
Chaiken, Shelly, and Alice H. Eagly. (1976). “Communication modality as a determinant of message persuasiveness and message comprehensibility.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(4), 605.
Cook, Thomas D. (1969). “Competence, counter-arguing, and attitude change.” Journal of Personality, 37(2), 342-358.

Dijksterhuis, A., Spears, R., Postmes, T., Stapel, D., Koomen, W., Knippenberg, A. V., & Scheepers, D. (1998). “Seeing one thing and doing another: Contrast effects in automatic behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75(4), 862.

Fazio, Russell H. (1986). “How do attitudes guide behavior.” Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior, 1, 204-243.

Festinger, Leon (1957). A Theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Greenwald, Anthony G. (1968). “ Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change.” Psychological foundations of attitudes, 147-170.

Gillig, Paulette M., and Anthony G. Greenwald. (1974) “Is it time to lay the sleeper effect to rest?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29.1: 132.
Gilbert, Daniel T., Michael J. Gill, and Timothy D. Wilson. (2002). “ The future is now: Temporal correction in affective forecasting.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(1), 430-444.

Gorn, Gerald J. (1982). “ The effects of music in advertising on choice behavior: A classical conditioning approach.” The Journal of Marketing, 94-101.

Erdem, Tülin, and Michael P. Keane. (1996). “Decision-making under uncertainty: Capturing dynamic brand choice processes in turbulent consumer goods markets. “ Marketing science, 15(1), 1-20.

Hovland, Carl I., Irving L. Janis, and Harold H. Kelley. (1953). “Communication and persuasion; psychological studies of opinion change.”

Hovland, C. I., McGuire, W. J., Abelson, R. P., & Brehm, J. W. (1960). Attitude organization and change (pp. 1-14). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Isen, Alice M. (2001). “ An influence of positive affect on decision making in complex situations: Theoretical issues with practical implications.” Journal of consumer psychology, 11(2), 75-85.

Krugman, Herbert E. (1965). “ The impact of television advertising: Learning without involvement.” Public opinion quarterly, 29(3), 349-356.

Langer, Ellen J., Arthur Blank, and Benzion Chanowitz. (1978). “The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of" placebic" information in interpersonal interaction.” Journal of personality and social psychology, 36(6), 635.

Lombardi, Wendy J., E. Tory Higgins, and John A. Bargh. (1987). “The role of consciousness in priming effects on categorization assimilation versus contrast as a function of awareness of the priming task. “ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13(3), 411-429.

Martin, Leonard L. (1986). “Set/reset: use and disuse of concepts in impression formation.” Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(3), 493.
Martin, Leonard L., and John W. Achee. (1992). “Beyond accessibility: The role of processing objectives in judgment.”

Mills, Judson, and John Harvey. (1972). “Opinion change as a function of when information about the communicator is received and whether he is attractive or expert, ” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 52-53.

Payne, John W. (1976). “Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis.” Organizational behavior and human performance, 16(2), 366-387.

Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo (1979). “Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses.” Journal of personality and social psychology, 37(10), 1915.

Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo, and Rachel Goldman (1981). “Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.” Journal of personality and social psychology, 41(5), 847.

Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion (pp. 1-24). Springer New York.

Petty, Richard E., and Duane T. Wegener (1993). “Flexible correction processes in social judgment: Correcting for context-induced contrast.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29(2), 137-165.

Schwarz, Norbert and Gerald L. Clore (1983), “Mood, Misattribution, and Judgments of Well Being: Informative and Directive Functions of Affective States,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 (September), 513–23.

Schwarz, Norbert, and Herbert Bless. (1992). “Constructing reality and its alternatives: An inclusion/exclusion model of assimilation and contrast effects in social judgment.” Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Wänke, M., & Winkielman, P. (2003). “Accessibility revisited.” Foundations of social cognition: A Festschrift in honor of Robert S. Wyer, Jr, 51-77.

Strack, F., Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Kübler, A., & Wänke, M. (1993). “Awareness of the influence as a determinant of assimilation versus contrast.” European journal of social psychology, 23(1), 53-62.

Wegener, Duane T., and Richard E. Petty. (1995). “ Flexible correction processes in social judgment: the role of naive theories in corrections for perceived bias.” Journal of personality and social psychology, 68(1), 36.

Wegener, Duane T., and Richard E. Petty. (1997) “ The flexible correction model: The role of naive theories of bias in bias correction.” Advances in experimental social psychology, 29, 142-208.
Wilson, Timothy D., David B. Centerbar, and Nancy Brekke. (2002). Mental contamination and the debiasing problem.

Wright, Peter (1973), “The Cognitive Processes Mediating Acceptance of Advertising.” Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (February), 53-62.


QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top