(3.235.245.219) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/07 22:41
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:::

: 
twitterline
研究生:謝自筠
研究生(外文):HSIEH, TZU-YUN
論文名稱:文章內容的關鍵特質如何促進或阻礙社群網站資訊分享意圖之研究
論文名稱(外文):How the Key Traits of Contents Promote or Demote The Intention of Information Sharing on Social Networking Sites
指導教授:陳建亮
指導教授(外文):CHEN, JIAN-LIANG
口試委員:黃國光劉忠峰
口試委員(外文):HUANG, KUO-KUANGLIU, CHUNG-FENG
口試日期:2017-06-07
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立澎湖科技大學
系所名稱:行銷與物流管理系服務業經營管理碩士班
學門:民生學門
學類:其他民生學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2017
畢業學年度:105
語文別:中文
論文頁數:65
中文關鍵詞:社會交換理論互惠規範分享敵意
外文關鍵詞:Social Exchange TheoryReciprocityHostility
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:103
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:7
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
社群網站允許使用者創建和交換不同類型的網頁內容。如果這些不同類型的網頁內容在使用者之間不斷的被分享與傳遞,將逐漸形成產品或服務的電子化口碑,對企業品牌知名度的影響不容小覤。社群網站使用者的資訊分享行為可以說是一種口碑參與行為。然而不同類型的網頁內容可能擁有不同的特質而影響到使用者對文章內容知覺價值及知覺風險的認知,造成使用者在資訊分意圖上的差異。為了釐清這些可能的差異,暸解社群網站中不同網路文章的特質如何促進與阻礙社群網站使用者的資訊分享意圖是一項值得研究的重要議題。
基於社會交換理論,本研究將互惠規範及分享敵意視為網路文章分享意圖的促進因素及阻礙因素,並以知覺價值及知覺風險作為互惠規範及分享敵意的前置因素,進而建構出一個嶄新的理論模型以解釋社群網路使用者的資訊分享行為。研究採用問卷調查法對社群網路使用者發送網路問卷,回收487份有效問卷。再以PLS軟體進行結構方程式分析以驗證理論模型。研究發現不同的網路文章特質,其社交、享樂、功利價值對社群網路使用者的互惠規範與分享敵意有不同顯著影響,並且會影響到分享意圖。研究發現功利價值對互惠規範的影響最大,表示社群網站使用者喜歡分享有用的資訊來與網友們互惠交換資訊。在分享敵意方面則是知識接收者抗拒知識的影響最大。本研究結果有助於品牌經營者運用不同的網路文章類型進行口碑行銷,提供品牌經營者決策參考,及未來學者研究方向。

Social networking sites allow users to create and exchange different types of web content. Sharing and delivering these different types of web content among users will gradually form positive or negative electronic word of mouth (e-WoM) regarding products or services, and thus impact the brand awareness of a corporation. Therefore, the information sharing behavior of the community members in social networking sites can be said to be a participation behavior of e-WoM. However, different types of web content may have various traits that may affect users’ perceptions of benefits and risks regarding the sharing of web contents and result in the discrepancy in user intention toward information sharing. In order to clarify these possible differences, it is important to understand how the traits of different web contents promote and demote users’ intention toward information sharing in social networking sites.
Based on the social exchange theory, this study took reciprocity norms and hostility as the promotion and demotion factors of information sharing intention respectively and adopted perceived values and perceived risks as the antecedents of reciprocity norms and hostility to construct a new theoretical model to explain the information sharing behavior in social networking sites. Online questionnaire was used to collect empirical data from users of social networking sites, and finally 487 valid questionnaires were collected. The PLS SEM techniques were adopted to verify the theoretical model. The research results indicated that the social, hedonic, and utilitarian values of various types of web content significantly impact the reciprocity norms of social network sites while knowledge hoarding, rejection, failures also significantly impact the sharing hostility. Reciprocity norms and hostility significantly impact the intention to share information. Implications of the findings and suggestions of future research were also in-depth discussed.

中文摘要 I
英文摘要. II
誌 謝 III
目 錄 IV
圖目錄 VI
表目錄 VII
一、緒論 1
二、文獻探討 5
2.1 社群網路資訊分享 5
2.1.1 資訊分享定義 5
2.1.2 資訊分享模式 6
2.1.3 資訊分享的價值 7
2.1.4 資訊分享與口碑行銷 8
2.1.5 資訊分享的成因 9
2.1.6 阻礙資訊分享 15
2.2 UGC、MGC 與部落客貼文 16
2.2.1 CONTENT CHARACTERISTICS 文章特性 17
2.3 社會交換理論 19
2.3.1 社會交換理論的發展 19
2.3.2 社會交換理論的假設 20
2.3.3 社會交換理論的型態 20
2.4 資訊分享意圖 21
2.5 互惠 21
2.5.1 社交價值(SOCIAL VALUE): 22
2.5.2 享樂價值(HEDONIC VALUE): 23
2.5.3 功利價值(UTILITARIAN VALUE): 23
2.6 知識分享敵意: 24
2.6.1知識傳遞者藏存知識與社會兩難困境 25
2.6.2 知識接收者拒絕知識分享與抗拒 26
2.6.3 害怕犯錯 26
三、研究方法 27
3.4 問卷設計 31
3.5 蒐集資料的方法 32
3.5.1 研究對象 32
3.5.2 抽樣方法與結果 32
3.5.3 正式問卷抽樣結果 32
四、資料分析 34
4.1 樣本基本資料分析 34
4.2 問卷題項敘述性統計分析 36
4.3 信效度分析 36
4.4 結構方程模式分析 38
五、討論 41
5.1 互惠規範與分享敵意對分享意圖的影響。 41
5.2 社交價值、享樂價值、功利價值對互惠規範的影響。 42
5.3 藏存知識、抗拒知識、失敗犯錯對分享敵意的影響 44
六、結論、限制與建議 45
6.1 學術意涵 45
6.2 管理意涵 46
6.3 研究限制及後續研究建議 47
6.4 後續研究建議 48
參考文獻 49
附錄一 網路問卷 61


[1]Aggarwal, P., Mazumdar, T. (2007). Decision Delegation: A Conceptualization and Empirical investigation. Psychology & Marketing, 25(1), 71-93.
[2]Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M.(1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.Boston, MA: Additon Wesley.
[3]Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.
[4]Bahtar, A. Z., & Muda, M. (2016) The Impact of User–Generated Content (UGC) on Product Reviews towards Online Purchasing–A Conceptual Framework. Procedia Economics and Finance, 37, 337-342.
[5]Baka, V. (2016). The becoming of user-generated reviews: Looking at the past to understand the future of managing reputation in the travel sector. Tourism Management, (53), 148-162.
[6]Bandura. (1986). Social Congnitive Theory of Organizational Management, Academy of Management review, 14(3), 361-384.
[7]Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of social and clinical psychology, 4(3), 359-373.
[8]Barefoot, J. C., Dahlstrom, W. G., & Williams, R. B. (1983). Hostility, CAD incidence, and total mortality: A 25-year follow-up study of 255 physicians. Psychosomatic Medicine, 45(1), 59-63.
[9]Barefoot, J. C., Dodge, K. A., Peterson, B. L., Dahlstrom, W. G., & Williams Jr, R. B. (1989). The Cook-Medley hostility scale: item content and ability to predict survival. Psychosomatic Medicine, 51(1), 46-57.
[10]Bellenger, D. N., Steinberg, E., & Stanton, W. W. (1976). Congruence of store image and self image-As it relates to store loyalty. Journal of retailing, 52(1), 17-32.
[11]Berger, J. (2013) Contagious: Why Things Catch On., New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
[12]Bettman, J. R. (1979). Information processing theory of consumer choice.Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
[13]Bickart, B. and Schindler, R. M. (2001). Internet forums as influential sources of consumer information. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(3), 31-40.
[14]Blau, P. M.(1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
[15]Blau, P. (1986). Exchange and power in social life (2nd printing). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
[16]Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Information Management Resources Journal, 15(2), 14-21.
[17]Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS quarterly, 29(1), 87-111.
[18]Boon, E., Pitt, L., & Salehi-Sangari, E. (2015). Managing information sharing in online communities and marketplaces. Business Horizons, 58(3), 347-353.
[19]Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice (Vol. 16). MA: Cambridge university press.
[20]Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. Cultural theory: An anthology, MA Cambridge university press.
[21]Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (2013) Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control, New York, NY: Academic Press.
[22]Bronner, F. and de Hoog, R. (2010). Consumer-generated versus marketer-generated websites in consumer decision making. International Journal of Market Research, 52(2), 231-248.
[23]Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of consulting psychology, 21(4), 343-355.
[24]Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of personality and social psychology, 63(3), 452-459.
[25]Buss, A. H., Fischer, H. E. R. B. E. R. T., & Simmons, A. J. (1962). Aggression and hostility in psychiatric patients. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 26(1), 84-91.
[26]Cabrera, A˜.and Cabrera, E.F. (2005) “Fostering knowledge sharing through people management ractices”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16 (5), 720-735.
[27]Černe, M., Nerstad, C. G., Dysvik, A., & Škerlavaj, M. (2014). What goes around comes around: Knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 172-192.
[28]Chang, H. H., and Chuang, S. S. (2011).Social capital and individual motivatons on knowledge sharing: Partcipant involvement as a moderator. Information & Management, 48(1), 9-18.
[29]Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of marketing, 65(2), 81-93.
[30]Chen, C. J., & Hung, S. W. (2010). To give or to receive? Factors influencing members’ knowledge sharing and community promotion in professional virtual communities. Information & Management, 47(4), 226-236.
[31]Chen, Z. and Berger, J. (2016). How content acquisition method affects word of mouth. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1), 86-102.
[32]Cheon, Y., Choi, S. K. Kim, J. Kwak, K.T. (2015). Antecedents of relational inertia and information sharing in SNS usage: The moderating role of structural autonomy. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 95, 32-47.
[33]Cheung, C. M., & Lee, M. K. (2010). A theoretical model of intentional social action in online social networks. Decision support systems, 49(1), 24-30.
[34]Cheung, C. M., Chiu, P. Y., & Lee, M. K. (2011). Online social networks: Why do students use facebook? Computers in Human Behavior, 27(4), 1337-1343.
[35]Chesney, M. A., & Rosenman, R. H. (1985) Anger and hostility in cardiovascular and behavioral disorders. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
[36]Chin, w.w. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling, in Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern methods for business research, Mahwah, New Jersey, NY:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp. 295-336.
[37]Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision support systems, 42(3), 1872-1888.
[38]Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2009). Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives. New York, NY:Little Brown and Company.
[39]Chun, J. W., & Lee, M. J. (2016). Increasing individuals’ involvement and WOM intention on Social Networking Sites: Content matters! Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 223-232.
[40]Chung, N., Lee, S., & Han, H. (2015). Understanding communication types on travel information sharing in social media: A transactive memory systems perspective”, Telematics and Informatics, 32,564-575.
[41]Chung, N., Nam, K., & Koo, C. (2016) Examining information sharing in social networking communities: applying theories of social capital and attachment. Telematics and Informatics, 33, 77-91.
[42]Colliander, J., & Dahlén, M. (2011). Following the fashionable friend: The power of social media. Journal of advertising research, 51(1), 313-320.
[43]Cook, W. W., & Medley, D. M. (1954). Proposed hostility and pharisaic-virtue scales for the MMPI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 38(6), 414-418.
[44]Coyle, J. R. and Thorson E. (2001). The Effects of Progressive Levels of Interactivity and Vividness in Web Marketing Sites. Journal of Advertising, 30(3), 65-77.
[45]Cronbach, L. J. (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrik, 16(3), 37-52.
[46]Cuadra, C. A., & Katter, R. V. (1967). Opening the black box of'relevance. Journal of Documentation, 23(4), 291-303.
[47]Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
[48]De Vries, L., Gensler, S. and Leeflang, P. S. H. (2012). Popularity of Brand Posts on Brand Fan Pages: An Investigation of the Effects of Social Media Marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(2), 83-91.
[49]Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Pearo, L. K. (2004). A social influence model of consumer participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 241-256.
[50]Dubois, D., Bonezzi, A., & De Angelis, M. (2016). Sharing with Friends Versus Strangers: How Interpersonal Closeness Influences Word-of-Mouth Valence. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5), 712-727.
[51]Emerson, R.M.(1972). Exchange Theory , Part I:A Psychological Basis for Social Exchange. In J.Berger, M. Z. Jr., and B, Anderson (Eds), Sociological Theories in Progress (2) (pp. 38-57).Bonston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
[52]Emerson, R. M. (1981).Social exchange theory. Social psychology: sociological perspectives. New York, NY: Basic Books.
[53]Forne, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
[54]Gammelgaard, J. (2004). Why are we so hostile to sharing knowledge. European Business Forum, (18), 80-81
[55]Gardoni, M., Spadoni, M., & Vernadat, F. (2000). Harnessing non-structured information and knowledge and Know-How capitalisation in integrated engineering: Case study at Aerospatiale Matra. Concurrent Engineering, 8(4), 281-296.
[56]Giamanco , B., & Gregoire, K. (2012). Tweet me, friend me, make me buy. Harvard Business Review, 90(7/8), 88-93.
[57]Gilliam, D.A., & Rayburn, S. W.(2016) Propensity for reciprocity among frontline employees.Journal of Services Marketing, 30(3) ,290-301.
[58]Goh, K.Y., Heng, C.S., & Lin, Z. (2013).Social Media Brand Community and consumer behavior: Quantifying the relative impact of user and marketer-generated content. Information Systems Research, 24(1),88-107.
[59]Ha, L., and James, E. L. (1998), Interactivity reexamined: A baseline analysis of early business Web sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(4), 457-474.
[60]Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. (1998). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (Vol. 7). Upper Saddle River, New York,NY: Pearson.
[61]Hall, S. H. (1962). Theory and practice of advertising: A textbook covering the development and fundamental principles of advertising and methods of representative advertisers, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
[62]Hislop, D. (2013). Knowledge management in organizations: A critical introduction. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
[63]Holbrook, M. B. (1994). The nature of customer value: an axiology of services in the consumption experience. Service quality: New directions in theory and practice, 21, 21-71.
[64]Holten, A. L., Hancock, G. R., Persson, R., Hansen, A. M., & Høgh, A. (2016). Knowledge hoarding: antecedent or consequent of negative acts? The mediating role of trust and justice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(2), 215-229.
[65]Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American journal of sociology, 63(6), 597-606.
[66]Hwang, Y., & Jeong, S. H. (2016). This is a sponsored blog post, but all opinions are my own: The effects of sponsorship disclosure on responses to sponsored blog posts. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 528-535.
[67]Husted, K., & Michailova, S. (2002). Diagnosing and Fighting Knowledge Sharing Hostility”, Organizational Dynamics, 31(1), 60-73.
[68]Husted, K., Michailova, S., Minbaeva, D. B., & Pedersen, T. (2012) Knowledge-sharing hostility and governance mechanisms: an empirical test. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 754-773.
[69]Jang, H., Olfman, L., Ko, I., Koh, J., & Kim, K. (2008). The influence of on-line brand community characteristics on community commitment and brand loyalty. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 12(3), 57-80.
[70]Jens, G. (2004). Access to Competence:An Emerging Acquisition Motive. European Business Forum,17 (Spring), 44-47
[71]Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
[72]Kelly, H., Kerr, G., & Drennan, J. (2013). Avoidance of advertising in social networking sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(2), 16-27.
[73]Kesari, B., & Atulkar, S. (2016) Satifaction of mall shoppers: A study on perceived utilitarian and hedonic shopping values. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31, 22-31.
[74]Kiselius, J. and Sternthal, B. (1986). Examining the Vividness controversy: an
availability-valence perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(1), 418-431.
[75]Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual review of sociology, 183-214.
[76]Kono, S. (2009). From the marketers [erspective: The interactive media situation in Japan. In D.Gerbarg (Ed), Televison Goes Digital, (1), pp.57-59. New York, NY: Springer.
[77]Lebra, T. S. (1976). Japanese patterns of behaviour. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
[78]Lee H., Park, H., Kim J. (2013). Why do people share their context information on Social Network Services? Aqualitative study and an experimental study on users’ behavior of balancing perceived benefit and risk. Int.J. Human-Computer Studies, 71, 862-877.
[79]Lee, M. R., Yen, D. C., & Hsiao, C. Y. (2014). Understanding the perceived community value of Facebook users. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 350-358.
[80]Lin, M. J. J., Hung, S. W., & Chen, C. J. (2009). Fostering the determinants of knowledge sharing in professional virtual communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 929-939.
[81]Liu, L., Cheung, C. M.K., & Lee, M.K.O. (2016) An empirical investigation of information sharing behavior on social commerce sites. International Journal of Information Management, 36, 686-699.
[82]Liu, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2002). What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing? Implications of definition, person, and situation for the influence of interactivity on advertising effectiveness. Journal of advertising, 31(4), 53-64.
[83]Lu, L. C., Chang, W. P., & Chang, H. H. (2014). Consumer attitudes toward blogger’s sponsored recommendations and purchase intention: The effect of sponsorship type, product type, and brand awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 258-266.
[84]Malinowski, B. (2013).Crime and custom in savage society. New Jersey, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
[85]Michailova, S., & Husted, K. (2003). Knowledge-Sharing Hostility in Rissian Firms. Californa Management Review, 45(3), 59-77.
[86]Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs: Exploring motivations for brand-related social media use. International Journal of advertising, 30(1), 13–46.
[87]Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S., (1998).Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage, Academy of management review, 23(2), 242-266.
[88]Ngai, E. W., Tao, S. S., & Moon, K. K. (2015). Social media research: Theories, constructs, and conceptual frameworks. International Journal of Information Management, 35(1), 33-44.
[89]Nisbett, R. E. & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[90]Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychological theory (3rd Ed). New York, NY: MacGraw-Hill.
[91]Obar, J. A., & Wildman, S. (2015). Social media definition and the governance challenge: An introduction to the special issue. Telecommunications policy. 39 (9), 745–750.
[92]Pai, P., & Tsai, H.T. (2016). Reciprocity norms and information-sharing behavior in online consumption communities: An empirical investigation of antecedents and moderators. Information & Management, 53, 38-52.
[93]Park, M. S., Shin, J. K., & Ju, Y. (2015). A Taxonomy of Social Networking Site Users: Social Surveillance and Self‐surveillance Perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 32(6), 601-610.
[94]Quick, B. L., Scott, A. M., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2011). A close examination of trait reactance and issue involvement as moderators of psychological reactance theory, Journal of health communication, 16(6), 660-679.
[95]Raban, D.R. & Rafaeli, S. R. (2007). Investigating ownership and the willingness to share information online. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5). 2367-2382.
[96]Rafaeli, S., & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2(4).
[97]Ralph. H. Turner.(1978). The Role and the Person. American Journal of Sociology, 84 (1), 1-23.
[98]Ritzer, G. (1983). Sociological theory.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
[99]Seba, I., Rowley, J., & Lambert, S. (2012). Factors affecting attitudes and intentions towards knowledge sharing in the Dubai Police Force. International Journal of Information Management, 32(4), 372-380.
[100]Serenko, A., & Bontis, N., (2016). Negotiate, reciprocate, or cooperate? The impact of exchange modes on inter-employee knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(4), 687-712.
[101]Sherry, J. F. (1990). A sociocultural analysis of a Midwestern American flea market. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(1), 13-30.
[102]Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. Journal of business research, 22(2), 159-170.
[103]Shi, Z., Rui, H., & Whinson, A. B.,(2014). Content sharing in a social broadcasting environment : evidence from twitter.MIS Quarterly, 38(1), 123-142.
[104]Silva, L., & Panahi, H. (2017). Catch me if you can: Online protests on sites powered by user-generated content. Information & Management, 54(1),103-114.
[105]Solis, B., & Breakenridge, D. K. (2009). Putting the public back in public relations: How social media is reinventing the aging business of PR, New Jersey , NJ: FT Press.
[106]Su, B.C., Chih, W. H., & Fu, D. G. (2015).The eWOM engagement behavior in social networking sites: posting, acquiring, and passing information.Marketing Review(Xing Xiao Ping Lun).12(1), 49-97.
[107]Surma, J. (2016). Social exchange in online social networks. The reciprocity phenomenon on Facebook. Computer Communications, 73, 342-346.
[108]Sveiby, K. (2007). Disabling the context for knowledge work: the role of managers’ behavior. Management Decision, 45(10), 1636-1655.
[109]Sweeney, J. C. and Soutar, G. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203-222.
[110]Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203-222.
[111]Talja, S. (2002). Information sharing in academic communities: Types and levels of collaboration in information seeking and use. New Review of Information Behavior Research, 3(1), 143-159.
[112]Taylor, D. G., Lewin, J. E. L. and Strutton, D. (2011). Friends, Fans, and Followers: Do Ads Work on Social Networks? Journal of Advertising Research, 51(1), 258-275.
[113]Taylor, S. E., & Thompson, S. C. (1982). Stalking the elusive" vividness" effect. Psychological review, 89(2), 155-181.
[114]Trusov, M., Bodapati, A. V., & Bucklin, R. E. (2010). Determining influential users in internet social networks. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(4), pp.643-658.
[115]Tsai, H. T., & Pai, P. (2014). Why do newcomers participate in virtual communities? An integration of self-determination and relationship management theories. Decision Support Systems, 57, 178-187.
[116]Turner, J. H. (1986). The Structure of Sociological Theory, Chicago, IL: The Dorsey Press.
[117]Baka, V. (2016). The becoming of user-generated reviews: Looking at the past to understand the future of managing reputation in the travel sector. Tourism Management, 53, 148-162.
[118]Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R. and Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 310-320.
[119]Wang, T., Yeh, R.K.J., Chen, C., & Tsydypov, Z. (2016). What drives electronic word-of-mouth on social networking sites? Perspectives of social capital and self-determination. Teltmatics and Informatics, 33, 1034-1047.
[120]Wei, P. S., & Lu, H. P. (2013). An examination of the celebrity endorsements and online customer reviews influence female consumers’ shopping behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 193-201.
[121]Willem, A. and Scarbrough, H. (2006) Social capital and political bias in knowledge sharing: an exploratory study, Human Relations, 59(10), 1343-1370.
[122]Wise, K., Hamman, B. and Thorson, K. (2006). Moderation, Response Rate, andMessage Interactivity: Features of Online Communities and Their Effects onIntent to Participate. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(1), 24-41.
[123]Xiao, Y., Zhang, H., & Basadur, T. M. (2016). Does information sharing always improve team decision making? An examination of the hidden profile condition in new product development. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 587-595.
[124]Yan, Z., Wang, T., Chen, Y., & Zhang, H. (2016). Knowledge sharing in online health communities: A social exchange theory perspective. Information and Management, 53(5), 643-653.
[125]Yau, O.H.M., Lee, J.S.Y., Chow, R.P.M., Sin, L.Y.M., & Tse, A.C.B., (2000) Relationship marketing the Chinese way. Business Horizons, 43(1), 16-24.
[126]Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. The Journal of marketing, 2-22.
[127]Zhang, Y., Fang, Y., Wei, K. K., & Chen, H. (2010). Exploring the role of psychological safety in promoting the intention to continue sharing knowledge in virtual communities. International Journal of Information Management, 30(5), 425-436.
[128]Zhao, L. (2010). Sharing Knowledge in Virtual Communities: Factors Affecting A Member's Intention to Share. (Doctoral thesis, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada).
中文部份
[1]王仕茹、黃恆獎、楊昀璇 (2016)。發言或緘默:心理安全與自我效能在社會資本影響社群網站使用者知識分享行為上所扮演的中介角色。臺大管理論叢, 26(2),37-72。
[2]江義平,蔡坤宏,黃耀德 (2015)。網路口碑行銷效果探究-以經驗品為例。中原企管評論,13(2),33-64。
[3]江義平、賴欣怡 (2014)。網路社群媒體使用者資訊分享行為探究。創新與管理,11(1),23-45。
[4]何冠昇 (2014)。以社會資本角度探討虛擬社群成員分享意圖-以虛擬路跑社群為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學,台北市。
[5]余思慧、翁楊絲茜、黃麗衡 (2014)。網路親子社群參與者資訊分享行為之研究。朝陽人文社會學刊,22(2),97-120。
[6]吳仁和 (2015)。資訊管理:企業創新與價值創造。台北市:智勝文化。
[7]吳盛、林東清、林杏子 (2006)。以社會交換理論觀點探討影響虛擬團隊成員知識分享行為因素。資訊管理學報,13(1),193219。
[8]李慶長、張銀益、蔡聰源、陳主慶、胡俊之 (2011)。影音分享網站之享樂價值模型研究。北商學報,20,99-122。
[9]林東清 (2013) 資訊管理e化企業的核心競爭能力。台北:智勝文化。
[10]邱光輝、紀東昀 (2014)。共依附對虛擬社群成員繼續分享知識意圖之影響。輔仁管理評論,21(1),1-32。
[11]翁良杰、李怡靜 (2015)。轉換型領導對群體成員知識分享影響之跨層次研究:社會兩難觀點之分析。商略學報,7(1),53-70。
[12]翁嘉英、林宜美、呂碧鴻、陳秀蓉、吳英璋、鄭逸如 (2008)。“短式華人敵意量表” 之發展與信效度考驗。測驗學刊,55(3), 463-487。
[13]張珠萍、鄭天浚、蔡佳臻、張碩芳(2015)。探討知識分享行為對於社會交換理論與跨院電子病歷交換意願之中介效果。台灣衛誌,34(3),302-318。
[14]郭貞 (2015)。 Web 2.0 時代台灣消費者購物模式的轉變: 檢驗 AISAS 網路消費模式。中華傳播學刊,(27),139-165。
[15]洪新原、黃于紋、 賴慧敏。(2015)。以彙總分析法探討影響知識分享之關鍵因素。資訊管理學報,22(4),403-443。
[16]曾光華 (2016)。消費者行為:洞察生活、掌握行銷 3/e。台北:前程文化。
[17]溫慕垚 (2014)。這就是行銷:行銷金三角。新北市:集夢坊。
[18]葉建亨、黃文楨 (2011)。整合社會資本與社會交換理論探討虛擬社群知識分享意願。資訊管理學報,18(3),76-100。
[19]劉秀雯、林涵婷 (2013)。訊息特性對網路口碑傳遞效果的影響-以非營利網路社群為例。2013第16屆科技整合管理研討會,1-15。
[20]樊祖燁、劉芳梅、齊忠勇 (2014)。社群網站之關係品質、資訊分享意願與購買意願對忠誠度影響之研究-以Mobile01為例。中華管理評論,17(1),1-19。
[21]蔡至欣、賴玲玲 (2011)。虛擬社群的資訊分享行為。圖書資訊學刊,9(1),161-196。
[22]蘇柏全、池文海、符定國 (2015)。社群網站口碑參與行為:發佈資訊、取得資訊、以及轉載資訊。行銷評論,12(1),49-97。

網路部份

[1]Bao, X., & Bouthillier, F. (2007). Information sharing as a type of information behavior. McGill University, Montreal, Information Sharing in a Fragmented World: 35th Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Information Science. Retrieved from http://www.cais-acsi.ca/proceedings/2007/bao_2007.pdf
[2]eMarketer.(2013, November 14). Re: The Year of Social? Nearly nine in 10 marketers will use social media marketing next year [Market research company websites]. Retrieved from http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Social-Networking-Reaches-Nearly-One-Four-Around-World/1009976
[3]Erdelez, S. (1995). Information encountering: An exploration beyond information seeking. The School of Information Studies: Dissertations. 38. Retrieved from http://surface.syr.edu/it_etd/38
[4]Mutum, D., & Wang, Q. (2010). Consumer generated advertising in blogs. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.tw/books?hl=zh-TW&lr=&id=ZPWs1xbB4ysC&oi=fnd&pg=PA198&dq=Consumer+generated+advertising+in+blogs&ots=OBQaC1PnC6&sig=soxCJd1q0a63jsipSweIl4UI694&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Consumer%20generated%20advertising%20in%20blogs&f=false.
[5]Urquhart, C., & Vaast, E. (2012). Building social media theory from case studies: A new frontier for IS research. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2012/proceedings/ResearchMethods/8/
[6]經濟合作暨發展組織OECD. (2006). Working Party on the Informatsion Economy. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7278/fa8872dabd69b754b5d225d98a2a3f081144.pdf

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. [2] 江義平,蔡坤宏,黃耀德 (2015)。網路口碑行銷效果探究-以經驗品為例。中原企管評論,13(2),33-64。
2. [3] 江義平、賴欣怡 (2014)。網路社群媒體使用者資訊分享行為探究。創新與管理,11(1),23-45。
3. [5] 余思慧、翁楊絲茜、黃麗衡 (2014)。網路親子社群參與者資訊分享行為之研究。朝陽人文社會學刊,22(2),97-120。
4. [7] 吳盛、林東清、林杏子 (2006)。以社會交換理論觀點探討影響虛擬團隊成員知識分享行為因素。資訊管理學報,13(1),193219。
5. [8] 李慶長、張銀益、蔡聰源、陳主慶、胡俊之 (2011)。影音分享網站之享樂價值模型研究。北商學報,20,99-122。
6. [10]邱光輝、紀東昀 (2014)。共依附對虛擬社群成員繼續分享知識意圖之影響。輔仁管理評論,21(1),1-32。
7. [11]翁良杰、李怡靜 (2015)。轉換型領導對群體成員知識分享影響之跨層次研究:社會兩難觀點之分析。商略學報,7(1),53-70。
8. [12]翁嘉英、林宜美、呂碧鴻、陳秀蓉、吳英璋、鄭逸如 (2008)。“短式華人敵意量表” 之發展與信效度考驗。測驗學刊,55(3), 463-487。
9. [14]郭貞 (2015)。 Web 2.0 時代台灣消費者購物模式的轉變: 檢驗 AISAS 網路消費模式。中華傳播學刊,(27),139-165。
10. [15]洪新原、黃于紋、 賴慧敏。(2015)。以彙總分析法探討影響知識分享之關鍵因素。資訊管理學報,22(4),403-443。
11. [18]葉建亨、黃文楨 (2011)。整合社會資本與社會交換理論探討虛擬社群知識分享意願。資訊管理學報,18(3),76-100。
12. [20]樊祖燁、劉芳梅、齊忠勇 (2014)。社群網站之關係品質、資訊分享意願與購買意願對忠誠度影響之研究-以Mobile01為例。中華管理評論,17(1),1-19。
13. [21]蔡至欣、賴玲玲 (2011)。虛擬社群的資訊分享行為。圖書資訊學刊,9(1),161-196。
14. [22]蘇柏全、池文海、符定國 (2015)。社群網站口碑參與行為:發佈資訊、取得資訊、以及轉載資訊。行銷評論,12(1),49-97。
 
無相關點閱論文
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔