臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

有賴於網路科技的進步，台灣已邁入數位時代，網路改變了現代人的生活習慣，致使民眾相當依賴藉由網路媒體來獲得所需的資訊，然而網路上充斥著各式的資訊，而標題為讀者最先接觸到的訊息，故為博得讀者們的注意，媒體業者愈發仰賴透過聳動的下標法，意即創造誘餌式標題來衝擊流量，讓讀者們對於隱藏的訊息產生好奇心理，並點擊標題進入內文閱讀。往往讀者進入新聞網頁後會發現，實際內容與想像差距甚遠，進而產生落差感（即期望失驗）或是不信任感，抑或是察覺被欺騙導致憤怒等。而適當的標題命名則除了有助於提升文章的影響力、提高媒體的競爭力外，也能夠提升讀者對於網路媒體的信任與評價，並在獲得讀者青睞的同時，塑造良好的形象。
過往的相關文獻主要以探討傳統標題與誘餌式標題效果之差異，或探討政治、旅遊新聞之標題，鮮少針對生活消費類之新聞標題、浮誇字眼、期望落差、品牌觀感之連帶影響，以及較少結合說服知識進行討論，因此本研究設計兩項實驗以填補缺口，分別為標題種類（傳統標題、誘餌式標題）與說服知識的交互作用對讀者的整體評價之影響（實驗一），及誘餌式標題有無浮誇字眼與說服知識的交互作用對讀者的整體評價之影響（實驗二），而讀者的整體評價包含標題態度、媒體態度及品牌態度。實驗一有效樣本為168份，研究結果顯示，當讀者在單看新聞標題的情況下，若抑制其說服知識，無論標題種類為傳統標題或誘餌式標題，對讀者的整體評價並無明顯差異；反之，若啟動讀者所具備的說服知識時，相較於傳統標題，誘餌式標題會對讀者的標題態度、媒體態度產生較為負面的看法。
而實驗二的有效樣本則為176份，研究結果顯示，當抑制讀者所具備的說服知識時，無論誘餌式標題有無浮誇字眼，對讀者的整體評價並無明顯差異；反之，若啟動讀者所具備的說服知識時，相較於無浮誇字眼，有浮誇字眼的誘餌式標題會對讀者的標題態度產生較為負面的觀感。另外，本研究亦證實說服適當性於上述兩項實驗中皆具有中介效果。藉由本研究之結果，能夠給予媒體發布者及品牌方在設計新聞標題時作為參考，建議適度使用誘餌式標題，避免過度使用誘餌式標題進而導致讀者產生負面看法，若使用傳統標題則有助於獲得較正面的評價與反應。此外，也建議若在設計誘餌式標題時，使用無浮誇字眼的誘餌式標題能獲得讀者對較正面的態度。

Thanks to the advancement of Internet technology, Taiwan has entered the Internet era. It has changed people's living habits. As a result, people rely heavily on online media to obtain the information they need. However, the Internet is full of various information. Headline is the first message readers come into contact with, so in order to attract readers' attention, the media industry is increasingly relying on the sensational subscripting method, which means creating clickbait headline to make readers curious about the hidden information, and then want to click on it to read the text. But readers often find that the actual content is far from their imagination after entering the news webpage, which will lead to a sense of gap (i.e. failure of expectations) or a sense of distrust, or anger due to the perception that they have been deceived. Appropriate headline naming not only helps to enhance the influence of the article and the competitiveness of the media, but also enhances readers' trust, evaluation of online media, and creates a good image while gaining the favor of readers.
The related literature in the past mainly discusses the difference between the effect of traditional headlines and clickbait headlines, or the headlines of political and travel news. It rarely focuses on the headlines of life and consumption, exaggerated words, expectations gap, the joint influence of brand perception, and less discussion with persuasive knowledge. Therefore, this study designed two experiments to fill the gap. Experiment 1 is to explore whether the interaction between headline type (traditional vs. clickbait) and persuasion knowledge will influence the overall evaluation of readers when readers only read news headlines. Experiment 2 is to explore whether the interaction between clickbait headline has exaggerated words or not and persuasion knowledge will influence the overall evaluation of readers. And the overall evaluation of readers includes headline attitude, media attitude and brand attitude. The effective sample was 168 in Study 1. The results show that when readers only read news headlines, if they have a low level of persuasive knowledge, no matter which headline type they see, there is no significant difference in the overall evaluation of readers; but if readers have a high level of persuasive knowledge, compared with traditional headlines, clickbait headlines have a more negative perception of readers' headline attitudes and media attitudes.
The effective sample was 176 in Study 2. The results show that when readers have a low level of persuasive knowledge, no matter whether the clickbait headline has exaggerated words or not, there is no significant difference in the overall evaluation of readers; but if readers have a high level of persuasive knowledge, clickbait headlines with exaggerated words will have a more negative perception of readers' headline attitude than those without exaggerated words. In addition, this research also confirms that persuasion appropriateness has a mediation effect in both experiments. The results of this research can be used as a reference for media publishers and brands when designing news headlines. This study suggests that use clickbait headlines in moderation. Using traditional headlines can help get more positive reactions. Furthermore, it also suggests that creating a clickbait headline without exaggerated words can obtain a more positive attitude from readers.

目 錄

第 壹 章 緒論 1
第 一 節 研究背景與動機 1
第 二 節 研究目的 5

第 貳 章 文獻探討 7
第 一 節 誘餌式標題 7
第 二 節 說服知識 20
第 三 節 假說推論 25

第 參 章 研究方法 31
第 一 節 研究架構 31
第 二 節 變數的定義與衡量 33
第 三 節 實驗研究設計 46

第 肆 章 分析與結果 49
第 一 節 標題種類與說服知識對讀者整體評價之影響（實驗一） 49
第 二 節 誘餌式標題有無浮誇字眼與說服知識對讀者整體評價之影響（實驗二） 63
第 三 節 研究結果 79

第 伍 章 結論與建議 81
第 一 節 結論 81
第 二 節 學術研究之貢獻 84
第 三 節 對行銷實務的意涵 86
第 四 節 研究限制與未來建議 88

參考文獻 90
附錄一：實驗一 問卷0-0傳統標題—抑制說服知識 103
附錄二：實驗一 問卷0-1傳統標題—啟動說服知識 110
附錄三：實驗一 問卷1-0誘餌式標題—抑制說服知識 117
附錄四：實驗一 問卷1-1誘餌式標題—啟動說服知識 124
附錄五：實驗二 問卷21-0誘餌式標題—抑制說服知識 131
附錄六：實驗二 問卷21-1誘餌式標題—啟動說服知識 140

表 目 錄

表 3-2 1 標題種類的檢驗題項 35
表 3 2-2 誘餌式標題有無浮誇字眼的檢驗題項 37
表 3-2 3 說服知識的檢驗題項 40
表 3-2 4 說服適當性的衡量題項 41
表 3-2 5 標題態度的衡量題項 41
表 3-2 6 媒體態度的衡量題項 42
表 3-2 7 品牌態度的衡量題項 43
表 4 1-1 實驗一人口統計樣本分佈 49
表 4-1 2 實驗一各變數之信度分析 50
表 4-1 3 實驗一說服知識之操弄性檢驗結果 51
表 4-1 4 實驗一標題種類之操弄性檢驗結果 52
表 4-1 5 實驗一之交互作用檢定結果 53
表 4-1 6 實驗一之單純主效果檢定結果 53
表 4-1 7 實驗一研究結果總表-受測者間效應項的檢定 55
表 4-1 8 標題種類與說服知識對說服適當性之迴歸效果 57
表 4-1 9 不同說服知識與標題種類對說服適當性之影響 58
表 4-1 10 不同標題種類與說服知識之說服適當性平均數 58
表 4-1 11 實驗一 Model 8 迴歸結果-標題態度 60
表 4-1 12 不同說服知識下說服適當性之中介效果(H2a) 60
表 4-1 13 調節中介效果(H2a) 61
表 4-1 14 實驗一 Model 8 迴歸結果-媒體態度 61
表 4-1 15 不同說服知識下說服適當性之中介效果(H2b) 62
表 4-1 16 調節中介效果(H2b) 62
表 4 2-1 實驗二人口統計樣本分佈 63
表 4-2-2 實驗二各變數之信度分析 64
表 4 2-3 實驗二說服知識之操弄性檢驗結果 65
表 4 2-4 實驗二誘餌式標題有無浮誇字眼之操弄性檢驗結果 65
表 4 2-5 實驗二之交互作用檢定結果 66
表 4 2-6 實驗二之單純主效果檢定結果 66
表 4 2-7 實驗二研究結果總表-受測者間效應項的檢定 68
表 4 2-8 標題有無浮誇字眼與說服知識對說服適當性之迴歸效果 70
表 4 2-9 不同說服知識與標題有無浮誇字眼對說服適當性之影響 71
表 4 2-10 不同標題有無浮誇字眼與說服知識之說服適當性平均數 71
表 4 2-11 實驗二 Model 8 迴歸結果-標題態度 73
表 4 2-12 不同說服知識下說服適當性之中介效果(H4a) 73
表 4 2-13 調節中介效果(H4a) 74
表 4 2-14 實驗二 Model 8 迴歸結果-媒體態度 75
表 4 2-15 不同說服知識下說服適當性之中介效果(H4b) 75
表 4 2-16 調節中介效果(H4b) 76
表 4 2-17 實驗二 Model 8 迴歸結果-品牌態度 77
表 4 2-18 不同說服知識下說服適當性之中介效果(H4c) 77
表 4 2-19 調節中介效果(H4c) 78
表 4 3-1 實驗假說檢定結果 79

圖 目 錄

圖 3-1 1 研究架構圖 32
圖 3 2-1 實驗一標題種類 34
圖 3 2-2 實驗二誘餌式標題 36
圖 3 2-3 抑制說服知識之文章 38
圖 3 2-4 啟動說服知識之文章 39
圖 3 2-5 實驗二新聞內文 44
圖 4 1-1 實驗一各依變數交互作用圖 54
圖 4 1-2 標題種類與說服知識對說服適當性之影響 59
圖 4 2-1 實驗二各依變數交互作用圖 67
圖 4 2-2 誘餌式標題有無浮誇字眼與說服知識對說服適當性之影響 70

中文部分
1.財團法人台灣網路資訊中心（TWNIC）（2020）。2020台灣網路報告。財團法人台灣網路資訊中心。https://report.twnic.tw/2020/ （2022年1月31號）
2.張育綺（2013）。說服知識與報導式廣告設計對消費者之影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。輔仁大學企業管理學系管理學碩士班。
3.許雅婷（2016）。消費者的產品知識對專家推薦效果之影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。輔仁大學企業管理學系管理學碩士班。
4.馮紹恩（2019）。「猜猜看：台灣民眾最相信哪些人？最不信任哪些人？」。遠見雜誌【線上查詢】。https://www.gvm.com.tw/article/61091
5.黃哲斌（2016）。「新聞未死，只是活得很喘　2016傳統媒體小報告」。天下雜誌【線上查詢】。https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5079726
6.新聞標題，你太誇張了喔（2019, 12月3號）。史上最盛大！大學生社會實驗結果發表。新聞標題，你太誇張了喔。https://medium.com/%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E%E6%A8%99%E9%A1%8C-%E4%BD%A0%E5%A4%AA%E8%AA%87%E5%BC%B5%E4%BA%86%E5%96%94/%E5%8F%B2%E4%B8%8A%E6%9C%80%E7%9B%9B%E5%A4%A7-%E5%A4%A7%E5%AD%B8%E7%94%9F%E7%A4%BE%E6%9C%83%E5%AF%A6%E9%A9%97%E7%B5%90%E6%9E%9C%E7%99%BC%E8%A1%A8-f4d2268fe925 （2022年1月31號）
7.楊金樺（2019）。鬆弛填充包裝對消費者之影響—以說服知識作為調節變數〔未出版之碩士論文〕。輔仁大學企業管理學系管理學碩士班。
8.資誠聯合會計師事務所（2020）。2020全球與臺灣娛樂暨媒體業展望報告。資誠聯合會計師事務所。https://www.pwc.tw/zh/news/press-release/press-20200907.html （2022年1月31號）
9.劉玿均（2018）。描述型命名與說服知識對消費者態度之影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。輔仁大學企業管理學系管理學碩士班。

 
英文部分
1.Amazeen, M. A., & Muddiman, A. R. (2018). Saving media or trading on trust? The effects of native advertising on audience perceptions of legacy and online news publishers. Digital journalism, 6(2), 176-195.
2.Amyx, D. A., & Lumpkin, J. R. (2016). Interaction effect of ad puffery and ad skepticism on consumer persuasion. Journal of Promotion Management, 22(3), 403-424.
3.Anderson, R. E. (1973). Consumer satisfaction: the effect of disconfirmed expectancy on perceived product performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 120-132.
4.Bearden, W. O., & Teel, J. E. (1983). Selected determinants of consumer satisfaction and complaint reports. Journal of marketing Research, 20(1), 21-28.
5.Bearden, W. O., Hardesty, D. M., & Rose, R. L. (2001). Consumer self-confidence: Refinements in conceptualization and measurement. Journal of consumer research, 28(1), 121-134.
6.Berlyne, D. E. (1954). An experimental study of human curiosity. British Journal of Psychology, 45(4), 256.
7.Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. McGraw-Hill Book Company.
8.Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS quarterly, 25(3), 351-370.
9.Blom, J. N., & Hansen, K. R. (2015). Click bait: Forward-reference as lure in online news headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 76, 87-100.
10.Boerman, S. C., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Rozendaal, E., & Dima, A. L. (2018). Development of the persuasion knowledge scales of sponsored content (PKS-SC). International Journal of Advertising, 37(5), 671-697.
11.Boush, D. M., Friestad, M., & Rose, G. M. (1994). Adolescent skepticism toward TV advertising and knowledge of advertiser tactics. Journal of consumer research, 21(1), 165-175.
12.Bradley, S. D., Angelini, J. R., & Lee, S. (2007). Psychophysiological and memory effects of negative political ads: Aversive, arousing, and well remembered. Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 115-127.
13.Brake, D. R. (2012). Who do they think they’re talking to? Framings of the audience by social media users. International journal of communication, 6, 1056-1076.
14.Campbell, M. C. (1995). When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer inferences of manipulative intent: The importance of balancing benefits and investments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(3), 225-254.
15.Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers' use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of consumer research, 27(1), 69-83.
16.Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2008). I know what you're doing and why you're doing it: The use of the persuasion knowledge model in consumer research. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. Herr & F. Kardes (Eds.), The handbook of consumer psychology (pp.549-571). Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.Campbell, M. C., Mohr, G. S., & Verlegh, P. W. (2013). Can disclosures lead consumers to resist covert persuasion? The important roles of disclosure timing and type of response. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4), 483-495.
18.Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Blackwell.
19.Chakraborty, A., Paranjape, B., Kakarla, S., & Ganguly, N. (2016, August). Stop clickbait: Detecting and preventing clickbaits in online news media. Paper presented at the meeting of 2016 IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining (ASONAM), San Francisco, CA, USA.
20.Chan, E., & Sengupta, J. (2010). Insincere flattery actually works: A dual attitudes perspective. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(1), 122-133.
21.Chang, Y. W., Hsu, P. Y., & Shiau, W. L. (2014). An empirical study of managers’ usage intention in BI. Cognition, Technology & Work, 16(2), 247-258.
22.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.
23.Clark, B. (2013). Relevance theory. Cambridge University Press.
24.Clark, P. R. (2014, June 16). Top 8 Secrets of How to Write an Upworthy Headline. Poynter. https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2014/top-8-secrets-of-how-tt-write-an-upworthy-headline/ (2022, January 31).
25.Darke, P. R., Ashworth, L., & Main, K. J. (2010). Great expectations and broken promises: Misleading claims, product failure, expectancy disconfirmation and consumer distrust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(3), 347-362.
26.Dor, D. (2003). On newspaper headlines as relevance optimizers. Journal of pragmatics, 35(5), 695-721.
27.Fazio, R. H., Herr, P. M., & Powell, M. C. (1992). On the development and strength of category-brand associations in memory: The case of mystery ads. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(1), 1-13.
28.Fein, S. (1996). Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the correspondence bias. Journal of personality and social psychology, 70(6), 1164.
29.Fein, S., Hilton, J. L., & Miller, D. T. (1990). Suspicion of ulterior motivation and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 753.
30.Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
31.Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of consumer research, 21(1), 1-31.
32.Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1995). Persuasion knowledge: Lay people's and researchers' beliefs about the psychology of advertising. Journal of consumer research, 22(1), 62-74.
33.Gibbons, J. A., Lukowski, A. F., & Walker, W. R. (2005). Exposure increases the believability of unbelievable news headlines via elaborate cognitive processing. Media Psychology, 7(3), 273-300.
34.Grabe, M. E., Zhou, S., Lang, A., & Bolls, P. D. (2000). Packaging television news: The effects of tabloid on information processing and evaluative responses. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(4), 581-598.
35.Ham, C. D., Nelson, M. R., & Das, S. (2015). How to measure persuasion knowledge. International Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 17-53.
36.Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. Guilford Press.
37.Hebb, D. O. (1949). The Organization of Behavior. John Wiley & Sons.
38.Hindman, M. (2015, April 3). Stickier news: what newspapers don’t know about web traffic has hurt them badly-but there is a better way. The Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. https://shorensteincenter.org/stickier-news-matthew-hindman/ (2022, January 31).
39.Hunt, J. McV. (1963). Motivation inherent in information processing and action. In O. J. Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and Social Interaction (pp.35-45, 46-94). Ronald Press.
40.Hurst, N. (2016). To clickbait or not to clickbait? an examination of clickbait headline effects on source credibility [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Missouri-Columbia.
41.Ifantidou, E. (2009). Newspaper headlines and relevance: Ad hoc concepts in ad hoc contexts. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(4), 699-720.
42.Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
43.Kaushal, V., & Vemuri, K. (2021). Clickbait-Trust and Credibility of Digital News. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 2(3), 146-154.
44.Kilgo, D. K., & Sinta, V. (2016). Six things you didn’t know about headline writing: Sensationalistic form in viral news content from traditional and digitally native news organizations. The International Symposium on Online Journalism, 6(1), 111-130.
45.Kim, S. J., & Hancock, J. T. (2017). How advertorials deactivate advertising schema: MTurk-based experiments to examine persuasion tactics and outcomes in health advertisements. Communication Research, 44(7), 1019-1045.
46.Kirmani, A., & Zhu, R. (2007). Vigilant against manipulation: The effect of regulatory focus on the use of persuasion knowledge. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 688-701.
47.Kleemans, M., & Hendriks Vettehen, P. (2009). Sensationalism in television news. In R. P. Konig, P. W. M. Nelissen & F. J. M. Huysmans (Eds.), Meaningful media: Communication research on the social construction of reality (pp. 226-243). Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
48.Koch, T., & Zerback, T. (2013). Helpful or harmful? How frequent repetition affects perceived statement credibility. Journal of Communication, 63(6), 993-1010.
49.Koechley, P., (2012, May 19). Why the Title Matters More Than the Talk. https://blog.upworthy.com/why-the-title-matters-more-than-thetalk-867d08b75c3b (2022, January 31).
50.Lang, A., Bolls, P., Potter, R. F., & Kawahara, K. (1999). The effects of production pacing and arousing content on the information processing of television messages. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43(4), 451-475.
51.Lang, A., Dhillon, K., & Dong, Q. (1995). The effects of emotional arousal and valence on television viewers’ cognitive capacity and memory. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 39(3), 313-327.
52.Lang, A., Potter, D., & Grabe, M. E. (2003). Making news memorable: Applying theory to the production of local television news. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47(1), 113-123.
53.Lang, P. J., Greenwald, M. K., Bradley, M. M., & Hamm, A. O. (1993). Looking at pictures: Affective, facial, visceral, and behavioral reactions. Psychophysiology, 30(3), 261-273.
54.Liang, C. C., & Wu, R. Y. (2018, April). A pilot study of the impact of emotions to exaggerated news title. Paper presented at the meeting of International Conference on Internet Studies (Nets 2018), Takamatsu, Japan.
55.Lim, D., Evans, N., & Primovic, M. (2021). Exploring How Disclosure Works for Listicle-Style Native Advertising: The Role of Persuasion Knowledge, Persuasion Appropriateness, and Supplementary Disclosure Effect of Brand Social Media. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 21(1), 1-16.
56.Literat, I. (2014). Measuring New Media Literacies: Towards the Development of a Comprehensive Assessment Tool. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 6(1), 15-27.
57.Litman, J. A., & Spielberger, C. D. (2003). Measuring epistemic curiosity and its diversive and specific components. Journal of personality assessment, 80(1), 75-86.
58.Litt, E. (2012). Knock, knock. Who's there? The imagined audience. Journal of broadcasting & electronic media, 56(3), 330-345.
59.Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological bulletin, 116(1), 75-98.
60.Lombardi, C. (2017). Competition and the public interest in the digital market for information (No. 1/17). Discussion Paper.
61.Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New media & society, 13(1), 114-133.
62.McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G. (2003). Visual and verbal rhetorical figures under directed processing versus incidental exposure to advertising. Journal of consumer research, 29(4), 579-587.
63.Menon, S., & Soman, D. (2002). Managing the power of curiosity for effective web advertising strategies. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 1-14.
64.Mitchell, A., Holcomb, J., & Weisel, R. (2016, June 15). State of the News Media 2016. Pew Research Center. https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2016/06/30143308/state-of-the-news-media-report-2016-final.pdf (2022, January 31).
65.Mittal, B. (1990). The relative roles of brand beliefs and attitude toward the ad as mediators of brand attitude: A second look. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(2), 209-219.
66.Molina, M. D., Sundar, S. S., Rony, M. M. U., Hassan, N., Le, T., & Lee, D. (2021, May). Does Clickbait Actually Attract More Clicks? Three Clickbait Studies You Must Read. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Yokohama, Japan.
67.Molyneux, L., & Coddington, M. (2020). Aggregation, clickbait and their effect on perceptions of journalistic credibility and quality. Journalism Practice, 14(4), 429-446.
68.Mundorf, N., Drew, D., Zillmann, D., & Weaver, J. (1990). Effects of disturbing news on recall of subsequently presented news. Communication Research, 17(5), 601-615.
69.Munger, K., Luca, M., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. (2018). The effect of clickbait. https://csdp.princeton.edu/sites/csdp/files/media/munger_clickbait_10181018.pdf (2022, January 31).
70.Nunally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Book Company.
71.Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of consumer psychology, 7(2), 159-186.
72.Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of marketing research, 17(4), 460-469.
73.Ormond, D., Warkentin, M., Johnston, A. C., & Thompson, S. C. (2016). Perceived deception: Evaluating source credibility and self-efficacy. Journal of Information Privacy and Security, 12(4), 197-217.
74.Pengnate, S. F. (2016, November). Measuring emotional arousal in clickbait: Eye-tracking approach. Paper presented at the meeting of Americas' Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2016), San Diego, USA.
75.Pengnate, S. F. (2019). Shocking secret you won’t believe! Emotional arousal in clickbait headlines: An eye-tracking analysis. Online Information Review, 43(7), 1136-1150.
76.Pengnate, S. F., Chen, J., & Young, A. (2021). Effects of Clickbait Headlines on User Responses: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of International Technology and Information Management, 30(3), 1-18.
77.Potthast, M., Gollub, T., Komlossy, K., Schuster, S., Wiegmann, M., Fernandez, E. P. G., Hagen, M., Stein, B. (2018, August). Crowdsourcing a large corpus of clickbait on twitter. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.
78.Potthast, M., Köpsel, S., Stein, B., & Hagen, M. (2016). Clickbait detection. Springer.
79.Rochlin, N. (2017). Fake news: Belief in post-truth. Library hi tech, 35(3), 387-392.
80.Rony, M. M. U., Hassan, N., & Yousuf, M. (2017, July). Diving deep into clickbaits: Who use them to what extents in which topics with what effects?. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining 2017, Sydney, Australia.
81.Scacco, J. M., & Muddiman, A. (2016). Investigating the influence of “clickbait” news headlines. Engaging News Project Report.
82.Scacco, J. M., & Muddiman, A. (2020). The curiosity effect: Information seeking in the contemporary news environment. New Media & Society, 22(3), 429-448.
83.Scott, D. K., & Gobetz, R. H. (1992). Hard news/soft news content of the national broadcast networks, 1972-1987. Journalism quarterly, 69(2), 406-412.
84.Scott, K. (2021). You won't believe what's in this paper! Clickbait, relevance and the curiosity gap. Journal of Pragmatics, 175, 53-66.
85.Smith, J. A., & Murphy, B. J. (1987). U.S. Patent No. 4,690,821. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
86.Spears, N., & Singh, S. N. (2004). Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions. Journal of current issues & research in advertising, 26(2), 53-66.
87.Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Harvard University Press.
88.Sundar, S. S. (1999). Exploring receivers' criteria for perception of print and online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(2), 373-386.
89.Turcotte, J., York, C., Irving, J., Scholl, R. M., & Pingree, R. J. (2015). News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: Effects on media trust and information seeking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(5), 520-535.
90.Tutaj, K., & Van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2012). Effects of online advertising format and persuasion knowledge on audience reactions. Journal of Marketing Communications, 18(1), 5-18.
91.Van Noort, G., Antheunis, M. L., & Van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2012). Social connections and the persuasiveness of viral campaigns in social network sites: Persuasive intent as the underlying mechanism. Journal of Marketing Communications, 18(1), 39-53.
92.Vonk, R. (1998). The slime effect: Suspicion and dislike of likeable behavior toward superiors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 849-864.
93.Weaver, D., & Brickman, P. (1974). Expectancy, feedback, and disconfirmation as independent factors in outcome satisfaction. Journal of personality and social psychology, 30(3), 420.
94.Wei, M. L., Fischer, E., & Main, K. J. (2008). An examination of the effects of activating persuasion knowledge on consumer response to brands engaging in covert marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 27(1), 34-44.
95.Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and relevance. Cambridge University Press.
96.Wojdynski, B. W., & Evans, N. J. (2016). Going native: Effects of disclosure position and language on the recognition and evaluation of online native advertising. Journal of Advertising, 45(2), 157-168.
97.Wu, M., Huang, Y., Li, R., Bortree, D. S., Yang, F., Xiao, A., & Wang, R. (2016). A tale of two sources in native advertising: Examining the effects of source credibility and priming on content, organizations, and media evaluations. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(12), 1492-1509.
98.Yoo, C. Y. (2009). The effects of persuasion knowledge on click-through of keyword search ads: Moderating role of search task and perceived fairness. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 401-418.
99.Zhang, W., Du, W., Bian, Y., Peng, C. H., & Jiang, Q. (2020). Seeing is not always believing: an exploratory study of clickbait in WeChat. Internet Research, 30(3), 1043-1058.
100.Zhou, Y. (2017, October 15). Clickbait detection in tweets using self-attentive network. Cornell University. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1710.05364 (2022, January 31).