臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

過去研究表明，慈善捐贈訴求中參考享樂產品或功利產品等參考替代品對捐贈意願之影響密切相關，且參考替代品可能讓消費者擁有不同的自我訊號。本研究旨在探討參考替代品對捐贈意願的影響關係，並擴展了自我訊號、自我覺察與道德信念在參考替代品與捐贈意願之間的調節影響效果。研究發現，享樂產品之參考替代品提升捐贈意願高於功利產品之參考替代品。在調節變數方面，自我訊號與自我覺察等變數有顯著的調節效果，其中無論參考替代品為何，低自我訊號者之捐贈意願皆高於高自我訊號者；高自我覺察者之捐贈意願皆高於低自我覺察者。惟道德信念並無調節效果。本研究結果將有助於非營利組織和其他意旨在籌集資金的組織可以考慮引用搭配參考產品作為行銷策略。

Past studies have proven that reference to alternatives such as hedonic products or utilitarian products in charitable donations is closely related to the effect of donation intention, and that reference alternatives may give consumers a different self-signal. The purpose of this study is to explore the impact of reference substitutes on the donation intention and to extend the effects of self-signals, self-awareness and ethical belief in the reference alternatives and donation intention. The study found that the reference to alternatives for hedonic products increased the donation intention higher than the reference alternatives for utilitarian products. In the moderation, self-signal and self-awareness have significant moderation effect, which regardless of the reference alternatives, low self-signal donors are willing to donate higher than the high self-signal; high self-awareness of those who are willing to donate low self-awareness. But ethical belief does not hove moderation. The results of this study will help nonprofit organizations and other organizations that intend to raise funds to consider referencing alternatives as marketing strategies.

目錄

摘要……………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………..……I
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................. II
目錄.............................................................................................................................. III
表目錄.......................................................................................................................... IV
圖目錄.......................................................................................................................... IV
第一章 緒論.................................................................................................................. 1
1.1研究背景與動機.................................................................................................. 1
1.2研究目的.............................................................................................................. 2
1.3研究流程.............................................................................................................. 3
第二章 文獻探討.......................................................................................................... 4
2.1享樂產品（HEDONIC PRODUCT）與功利產品（UTILITARIAN PRODUCT）....... 4
2.2自我訊號（SELF-SIGNALING）............................................................................ 5
2.3自我覺察（SELF-AWARENESS）............................................................................... 6
2.4道德信念（ETHICAL BELIEF）............................................................................ 7
第三章 研究方法..........................................................................................................8
3.1研究假說.............................................................................................................. 8
3.2研究設計............................................................................................................ 10
3.3資料分析方法.................................................................................................... 11
第四章 研究分析結果................................................................................................ 12
4.1 樣本結構分析.................................................................................................... 12
4.2信度檢驗............................................................................................................ 14
4.3 變異數分析檢驗................................................................................................ 15
第五章 結論................................................................................................................ 20
5.1 研究結果............................................................................................................ 20
5.2 研究限制與未來研究方向................................................................................ 24
參考文獻...................................................................................................................... 25







表目錄

表1 樣本結構............................................................................................................. 13
表2信度檢驗表......................................................................................................... 14
表 3 ANOVA分析參考替代品與自我訊號對捐贈意願影響之結果....................... 16
表 4 ANOVA分析參考替代品與自我信念對捐贈意願影響之結果....................... 18
表 5 ANOVA分析參考替代品與道德信念對捐贈意願影響之結果....................... 19
表6假說驗證結果..................................................................................................... 20



圖目錄

圖1研究流程圖........................................................................................................... 3
圖2研究架構圖........................................................................................................... 9
圖3參考替代品(功利產品與享樂產品)對捐贈意願的影響................................. 15
圖 4參考替代品與自我訊號之交互作用對捐贈意願的影響................................. 17
圖5參考替代品與自我覺察之交互作用對捐贈意願的影響................................. 18

Ahn, Jisoo, and Hyun Soon Park. "Reward for organ donation: is it effective or not as a promotion strategy?." International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 21.2 (2016): 118-129.

Ariely, Dan, Anat Bracha, and Stephan Meier (2009), “Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially,” American Economic Review, 99 (1), 544-55.

Basil DZ, Weber D. 2006. Values Motivation and Concern for Appearances: The Effect of Personality Traits on Responses to Corporate Social Responsibility. Interna- tional Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing 11: 61–72.

Berger, Jonah and Chip Heath (2007), “Where Consumers Diverge from Others: Identity-Signaling and Project Domains,” Journal o f Consumer Research, 34 (2), 121-34.

Bodner, Ronit and Drazen Prelec (1995), “The Diagnostic Value of Actions and the Emergence of Personal Rules in a Self-Signaling Model,” in Self-Knowledge and the Diagnostic Value of One’s Actions, Ronit Bodner, ed., doctoral dissertation, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 53-67.

Bodner, Ronit and Drazen Prelec (2003), “Self-Signaling in a Neo-Calvinist Model of Everyday Decision Making,” in Psychology o f Eco nomic Decisions, Isabelle Brocas and Juan Carillo, eds. New York: Oxford University Press, 105-126.

Clary EG, Snyder M, Ridge RD, Copeland J. 1998. Under- standing and Assessing the Motivations of Volunteers: A Functional Approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(6): 1516–1530.

Deci, Edward L., Richard Koestner, and Richard M. Ryan (1999), “A Meta-Analytic Review of Experiments Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation,” Psycho logical Bulletin, 125 (6), 627-68.

Dhar, Ravi and Klaus Wertenbroch (2000), “Consumer Choice Between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal o f Marketing Research, 37 (February), 60-71.

Dholakia, Utpal M. and Itamar Simonson (2005), “The Effect of Explicit Reference Points on Consumer Choice and Online Bid ding Behavior,” Marketing Science, 24 (2), 206-217.

Feeley TH. 2007. College Students’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors Regarding Organ Donation: An Inte- grated Review of the Literature. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 37(2): 243–271.

Fenigstein A, Scheier M, Buss A. 1975. Public and Private Self-consciousness: Assessment and Theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 43: 522–527.

Froming, W. J and Carver, C. S. (1981). Divergent influences of private and public self-consciousnss in a compliance paradigm.Journal of research in personality,15,159-171

Furnham A. 1986. Response Bias, Social Desirability and Dissimulation. Personality and Individual Differences 7(3): 385–400.

Glazer A, Konrad KA. 1996. A Signaling Explanation for Charity. American Economic Review 86(4): 1019–1028.

Gneezy, Ayelet, Uri Gneezy, Gerhard Riener, and Leif D. Nelson (2012), “Pay-What-You-Want, Identity, and Self-Signaling,” Proceedings o f the National Academy o f Sciences, 109 (19), 7236-40.

Gneezy, Ayelet, Uri Gneezy, Gerhard Riener, Leif D. Nelson and Aldo Rustichini (2000), “Pay Enough or Don’t Pay at All,” Quarterly Journal ofEconomics, 115 (3),791-810.

Grace D, Griffin D. 2006. Exploring Conspicuousness in the Context of Donation Behavior. International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing 11(2): 147–154.

Griskevicius, Vladas, Joshua Tybur, Jill Sundie, Robert Cialdini, Geoffrey Miller, and Douglas Kendrick (2007), “Blatant Benevo lence and Conspicuous Consumption: When Romantic Motives Elicit Costly Displays,” Journal of Personality and Social Psy chology,93 (1), 85-102.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. and Morris B. Holbrook (1982), “Hedo nic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods, and Proposi tions,” Journal ofMarketing, 46 (Summer), 92-101.

Hutchinson L, Skinner N. 2007. Self-Awareness and Cognitive Style: Relationships Among Adaption- Innovation, Self-monitoring, and Self-consciousness. Social Behavior and Personality 35(4): 551–560.

Kavak B, Gurel E, Eryigit C, Tektas O. 2009. Examining the Effects of Moral Development Level, Self-concept, and Self-monitoring on Consumers’ Ethical Attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics 88: 115–135.

Khan, Uzma and Ravi Dhar (2006), “Licensing Effect in Consumer Choice,” Journal ofMarketing Research, 43 (May), 259-66.

Kim S. 2011. The Influence of Social Desirability to Ques- tionnaire Response and Data Analysis: Focus on the In- fluence of Social Face Sensitivity to Clothing Shopping Behavior. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles 35(11): 1322–1332.

Kivetz, Ran and Anat Keinan (2006), “Repenting Hyperopia: An Analysis of Self-Control Regrets,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (2), 273-82.

Kivetz, Ran and Yuhuan Zheng (2006), “Determinants of Justification and Self-Control,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 135 (November), 572-87.

Lalwani A, Shrum L, Chiu C. 2009. Motivated Response Styles: The Role of Cultural Values, Regulatory Focus, and Self-consciousness in Socially Desirable Responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology 96(4): 870–882.

Levy, Sidney J. (1959), “Symbols for Sale,” Harvard Business Review, 37 (July-August), 117-24.

Louie T, Obermiller K. 2000. Gender Stereotypes and So- cial Desirability Effects on Charity Donation. Psychol- ogy and Marketing 17: 121–136.

Marshall H, Feeley TH. 2006. A Normative Approach to Shaping College Students’ Attitudes Toward Organ Donation. Communication Studies 57(4): 435–453.

Mick, David Glen (1986), “Consumer Research and Semiotics: Exploring the Morphology of Signs, Symbols, and Signifi cance,” Journal o f Consumer Research, 13 (2), 196-213.

Oosterhof, Liesbeth, Ard Heuvelman, and Oscar Peters. "Donation to disaster relief campaigns: Underlying social cognitive factors exposed." Evaluation and program planning 32.2 (2009): 148-157.

Pagano V, DeBono K. 2011. The Effects of Mood on Moral Judgment: The Role of Self-monitoring. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 41(12): 2928–2942.

Savary, Jennifer, Kelly Goldsmith, and Ravi Dhar. "Giving against the Odds: When Tempting Alternatives Increase Willingness to Donate." Journal of Marketing Research 52.1 (2015): 27-38.
 

Scheier MF. 1980. Effects of Public and Private Self- consciousness on the Public Expression of Personal Beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39: 514–521.

Simonson, Itamar, James R. Bettman, Thomas Kramer, and John W. Payne (2012), “Comparison Selection: An Approach to the Study of Consumer Judgment and Choice,” Journal of Con sumer Psychology, 23 (1), 137-49.

Smith DH. 1981. Volunteers, and Volunteerism. Journal of Voluntary Action Research 10(1): 21–36.

Strahilevitz, Michal and John Myers (1998), “Donations to Charity as Purchase Incentives: How Well They Work May Depend on What You Are Trying to Sell,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 434-46.

Stroebe, Wolfgang and Fritz Strack (2014), “The Alleged Crisis and the Illusion of Exact Replication,” Perspectives on Psycho logical Science, 9(1), 59-71.