English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 89671/119468 (75%)
Visitors : 23935717      Online Users : 207
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/48931


    Title: 訊息正反性、品牌認同與企業回應策略對消費者的影響-公共報導V.S網路轉寄訊息
    Authors: 曾友志
    Contributors: 張愛華
    曾友志
    Date: 2002
    Issue Date: 2010-12-08 01:53:26 (UTC+8)
    Abstract:   網路謠言的興盛,對企業不論是形象或產品,都造成了一定程度的傷害。故此,針對網路轉寄訊息與公共報導對消費者的影響研究和比較,與企業該如何回應負面訊息較為有效,就變成了本研究的主要目的。
      本研究針對不同訊息媒體來源(公共報導與網路轉寄訊息)、不同訊息類型(正面與負面)、不同消費者品牌認同度(高與低)和不同企業回應策略(反駁與論據區隔力不足策略),進行一2*2*2*2的實驗設計,探討在不同情境下,對消費者的影響(包含消費者對品牌的態度轉變、態度矛盾與傳播意願),實驗對象為大學生,共計420個樣本,實驗產品品牌為acer的筆記型電腦。
      經過實驗分析,得出以下幾個結論:
      1.不同訊息媒體來源對消費者確實有顯著的影響,公共報導在對消費者的傳播意願影響上,都較網路轉寄之E-Mail為大。
      2.負面訊息確實較正面訊息對消費者有更大的影響力。實驗結果顯示,負面訊息在對消費者的態度轉變與傳播意願上,都有較正面訊息更大的影響力。
      3.不同訊息類型對消費者造成的影響(包含態度轉變、態度矛盾與傳播意願)差異,不會受到不同訊息媒體來源的影響。
      4.消費者會因其不同之品牌認同,對訊息的解釋會產生了扭曲,產生了不同的態度轉變、態度矛盾與傳播意願﹔其中,負面訊息對高認同消費者影響較小,對低認同消費者影響較大,對正面訊息則效果相反。但值得注意的是,面對正面訊息,認同度高與認同度低者之態度矛盾無差異,而面對負面訊息,認同度高與認同度低者之傳播意願無差異,這代表可能消費者就算不太相信謠言,仍有可能向其他人傳遞訊息。
      5.品牌認同對不同訊息類型對消費者的干擾效果(包括態度轉變、態度矛盾與傳播意願)差異,不會受到不同訊息媒體來源的影響。本研究認為,這可能是因為網路轉寄之E-Mail描述往往都較公共報導來得繪聲繪影,甚至消息是引用內幕消息,論點品質較佳,會產生較預期為大的影響。
      6.對負面訊息來說,同樣的企業負面訊息回應策略,在態度轉變上,對認同度高者的效果較佳。對企業而言,良好的消費者品牌認同度,確實可以抵禦網路謠言與其他負面消息的傷害,實是一件不得不重視的課題。
      7.對負面訊息來說,品牌認同對企業不同的回應策略,不會產生任何干擾效果,與當初Ahluwalia et al.(2000)的結論不同。Ahluwalia et al.認為高品牌認同者,對於負面訊息,本來就有較多的反駁意見,故反駁策略並沒有辦法提供更多的產品有利訊息,但論據區隔力不足策略能提供更多的有利資訊,故論據區隔力不足策略對於高品牌認同度之消費者有較大的態度轉變與較少的態度矛盾;而針對低品牌認同度的消費者,則兩者策略效果相反。而本研究認為,反駁策略是反對負面訊息所傳達的事實,此與高認同者心中對負面訊息懷疑立場一致,故相較於論據區隔力不足策略,反駁策略會對高認同者產生較預期更大的態度轉變與較小的態度矛盾。而論據區隔力不足是企業承認其品牌確實有負面訊息所敘述的現象,此與低認同者認同負面訊息的立場一致,故相較於反駁策略對低認同者,論據區隔力不足策略對低認同者會產生較預期大的態度轉變與較小的態度矛盾。
      8.在態度轉變上,訊息媒體來源、品牌認同與回應策略之交互效果不顯著,但在態度矛盾上,交互效果顯著,本研究以為,品牌認同會影響不同來源之負面訊息之可信度,造成消費者心中的疑惑高低有所不同,進而影響不同回應策略的效果。
      The Internet rumor usually makes a huge damage to the company so that we have an interest in comparing influence between the publicity and Internet rumor, and which kind of strategy will be more effective in handling the rumor.
      We will study the consumer behavior (include attitude change, attitude ambivalence and forward intention) in the different media sources (publicity and forwarded Email), different message types (positive and negative), different brand commitment (high and low) and different company response strategies (counter argumentation and diagnosticity response). So we design the 2*2*2*2 experiment and 420 valentines join this experiment, and acer is our trial brand.
      After our analysis, we finally make some important conclusion.
      1.Publicity is more powerful than the forwarded Email in forward intention.
      2.Negative message is more powerful than the positive message in consumer's attitude change and forwarded intention.
      3.The difference of influences (include attitude change, attitude ambivalence and forward intention) on consumer, that made by different message types won't be affected by various sources of message media.
      4.Consumer will distort the explanation to messages result from the various brand commitments. It means that the negative message will be more powerful to the low commitment consumer, and the positive message will be more powerful to the high commitment consumer. But in forwarded intention, the influence of different message types will not interfere with brand commitment.
      5.The difference of influence (include attitude change, attitude ambivalence and forward intention) on consumer, that made by various message types and different brand commitment won't be affected by various sources of message media.
      6.The company's response message is more acceptable to the high brand commitment consumer than the lower one.
      7.The company's response strategy can't interfere with the brand commitment.
      8.In the attitude change, there is no interactive effect between the media sources, brand commitment and the company's response strategy. But there is an interactive effect in attitude ambivalence. We think that message's credibility may interfere with the brand commitment, so company's response message will make the different result to the different brand commitment consumer.
    感言
    中文摘要
    ABSRACT
    目錄
    圖目錄
    表目錄
    第壹章 緒論-----1
      第一節 研究背景-----1
      第二節 研究動機-----3
      第三節 研究目的-----5
      第四節 研究流程-----6
    第貳章 文獻探討-----7
      第一節 態度-----7
      第二節 態度轉變-----12
      第三節 態度矛盾-----16
      第四節 謠言傳播意願-----19
      第五節 品牌認同與偏見同化-----21
      第六節 負面效應-----23
      第七節 訊息可信度-----25
      第八節 企業回應策略-----26
    第參章 研究方法-----27
      第一節 研究架構-----27
      第二節 研究假說-----29
      第三節 變數之定義與衡量-----35
      第四節 實驗設計-----38
      第五節 資料分析方法-----44
    第肆章 資料分析-----45
      第一節 樣本分析-----45
      第二節 信度分析-----46
      第三節 操弄檢定-----47
      第四節 假設檢定-----49
      第四節 研究結果整理-----70
    第伍章 結論與建議-----72
      第一節 研究結論-----72
      第二節 研究貢獻-----74
      第三節 研究限制-----76
      第四節 後續研究建議-----77
    參考文獻-----79
    附錄一 前測問卷-----87
    附錄二 正式問卷-----93

    圖目錄
    圖1-4-1 本研究流程圖-----6
    圖2-1-1 態度、行為意向與實際行為關係圖-----9
    圖2-2-1 平衡理論圖解-----13
    圖2-2-2 Hovland and Janis (1975)的溝通說服模式-----15
    圖2-4-1 謠言散佈模式圖-----19
    圖3-1-1 本研究實驗一觀念架構圖-----27
    圖3-1-2 本研究實驗二觀念架構圖-----28
    圖4-4-1 負面報導下品牌認同、回應方式與訊息媒體來源的交互作用-----68
    圖4-4-2 負面E-Mail品牌認同、回應方式與訊息媒體來源的交互作用-----69

    表目錄
    表1-1-1 近期網路謠言整理-----1
    表2-1-1 學者對於態度的定義-----7
    表3-4-1 實驗一之實驗分組-----38
    表3-4-2 實驗二之實驗分組-----38
    表3-4-2 各品牌筆記型電腦品牌聲譽比較-----40
    表3-4-3 訊息可信度比較表-----41
    表3-4-4 訊息有利(不利)程度比較表-----41
    表3-4-5 企業回應策略區分表-----42
    表4-1-1 各實驗組問卷回收情形-----45
    表4-2-1 實驗問卷信度分析-----46
    表4-3-1 訊息類型可信度操弄檢定-----47
    表4-3-2 訊息類型可信度操弄檢定P值表-----47
    表4-3-3 回應可信度操弄檢定-----48
    表4-3-4 訊息類型有利(不利)度操弄檢定-----48
    表4-3-5 訊息類型有利(不利)度操弄檢定P值表-----48
    表4-4-1 實驗一之總檢定表-----50
    表4-4-6 不同訊息媒體來源對消費者影響之組間比較表-----51
    表4-4-3 不同訊息媒體來源對消費者影響之檢定結果表-----54
    表4-4-4 不同訊息類型對消費者影響之組間比較表-----54
    表4-4-5 訊息類型對消費者影響之檢定結果表-----55
    表4-4-6 訊息類型與品牌認同之對比檢定表-----56
    表4-4-7 不同品牌認同與不同訊息類型下的組間比較表-----57
    表4-4-8 品牌認同對訊息類型干擾效果之檢定表-----61
    表4-4-9 實驗二之總檢定表-----62
    表4-4-10 品牌認同對企業回應效果之組間比較表-----63
    表4-4-11 品牌認同對企業回應效果之檢定結果表-----64
    表4-4-12 不同品牌認同與不同回應類型的組間比較表-----62
    表4-4-13 品牌認同對回應策略干擾效果之檢定結果表-----69
    表4-5-1 假設假定結果彙整-----70
    Reference: 中文文獻
    1.林建煌(民91),消費者行為,台北:智勝出版社。
    2.張春興(民73),心理學,台北:東華書局。
    3.張峻榮(民91),「擔保可信度、保證明確度對產品保證效用與購買意願之影響:考慮產品類別級產品知識之干擾效果」,國立政治大學企業管理研究所為出版碩士論文。
    英文文獻
    1.Abelson, R.P., Aronson, E., McGuire, W.J., Newcomb, T.M.,Rosenberg, M.J. & Tannenbaum, P.H.(Eds.)(1968), Theories of cognitive consistency:A sourcebook. Chicago:Tand McNally.
    2.Ahluwalia,Rohini, RoBert E .Burnkrant and H.Rao Unnava,(2000), "Consumer Response to Negative Publicity : The Moderating Role of Commitment," Journal of Marketing Research,37 (May),203-214.
    3.Allport, G.W.(1935), Attitudes. Inc. Murchison eds., A handbook of social psychology. Worcester, Mass: Clark University Press.
    4.Beatty, Sharon E., Lynn R. Kahle, and Pamela Homer (1998),"The Involvement-Commitment Model:Theory and Implications," Journal of Business Research, Vol.16(2),pp.149-167.
    5.Bem, Daryl(1972), "Self-Perception Theory,"in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. Leonard Berkowitz, New York:Academic Press, PP. 1-62.
    6.Bentele, Gunter(1998),"Der Faktor Glaubwurdigkeit.Forschungsergebnisse und Fragen fur die Sozialisationsperspektive," Publizistik 33 (2-3), 406-26
    7.Berger, Ida E. and Andrew A. Mitchell(1989),"The Effect of Advertising on Attitude Accessibility, Attitude Confidence, and the Attitude-Behavior Relationship," Journal of Consumer Research, 16, December, pp.269-279.
    8.Bond,Jonathan and Richard Kirshenbaum(1998),Under the Radar Talking to Today''s Cynical Consumer.New York:John Wiley&Sons.
    9.Bordia, P. & Rosnow R.L.(1998),"Rumor rest stops on the information highway-Transmission patterns in computer=mediated rumor chain," Human Communication Research, Vol.25(2), pp.163-179.
    10.Cina, Craig(1989),"Creating an Effective Customer Satisfaction Program,"Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.6 (4), Fall pp.31-40.
    11.DiFonzo, N., Bordia, R., & Rosnow, R.L.(1994),"Reining in rumors," Organizational Dynamics, Vol.23, pp.47-62.
    12.Eagly,Alice H.and Shelly Chaiken (1995)," Attitude Strength,Attitude Structure,and Resistance to Change,"in Attitude Strength:Antecedents and Consequences,Ricchard E.Petty and Jon A. Krrosnick,eds.Mahwah,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,269-322.
    13.Edwards, J.D., & Ostrom, T.M.(1971),"Cognitive structure of neutral attitudes,"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.7, pp.36-47.
    14.Engel, J.F., R.D. Blackwell, and P.W. Miniard(1995), Consumer Behavior, 8th edition, Dryder Press.
    15.Fazio, Russell H., Martha C. Powell, and Carol Williams (1989),"The Role of Attitude Accessibility in the Attitude-to-Behavior Process,"Journal of Consumer Research,16, December, pp.280,288.
    16.Feldman, Jack M. and John G. Lynch (1988),"Self-Generated Validity and Other Effects of Measurement on Belief,Attitude,Intention.and Behavior,"Journal of Applied Psychology,73(Auguest),421-35.
    17.Festinger, Leon(1954), A theory of Cognitive Dissonance,Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
    18.Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen(1975), Belief, Attutude, Intention,and Behavior:An introduction to Theory and Research,Addison-Wesley Reading , MA,.
    19.Fiske,Susan T.(1980),"Attention and Weight in Person Perception:The Impact of Negative and Extreme Behavior," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,38(6),889-906.
    20.Fragen fur die Sozialisationsperspektive,"Publizistik, 33 (2-3), 406-26.
    21.Heider, F.(1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations,New York:Wiley.
    22.Herr,Paul M.,Frank R.Kardes,and John Kim(1991),"Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product-Attribute Information on Persuasion:An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research,17(March),454-62.
    23.Hovland, C.I., I.L.Janis, & H.H.Kelley(1953), Communication and Persuasion, New Haven:Yale University Press.
    24.Hovland, Carl I., & Weiss, Walter.(1951),"The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness,"Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650.
    25.Jacoby, Jacob and Chestnut, Robert W.(1978), Brand Loyalty Measurement and Management, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
    26.Jaeger, M.E., Anthony S.M. & Rosnow, R.L.(1980),"Who hears what from whom and with what effect:A study of rumor," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol.6, pp.473-478.
    27.Jonas, K., Diehl, M., & Bromer, P.(1997), "Effect of attitudinal ambivalence on information precession and attitude-intention consistency," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.33, pp.190-210.
    28.Kamins, M., Folkes, V. and Perner, L.(1997),"Consumer Responses to Rumor:Good News, Bad News," Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol.6(2), pp.165-187.
    29.Kapferer, J.N.(1990), Rumors-Uses, Interpretations, and Images, New Brunswich:Transaction Publishers.
    30.Kaplan, K.J.(1972),"On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement:Asuggested modification of the semantic differential technique," Psychological Bulletin, Vol.77, pp.361-372.
    31.Klein,Jill G.(1996)," Negativity in Impression of Presidential Candidates Revisited:The 1992 Election,"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,22(March),289-96.
    32.Klopfer, F.J., & Madden, T.M.(1980),"The middlemost choice on attitude items:Ambivalence, neutrality, or uncertainty? ," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol.6, pp.97-101.
    33.Kotler, P.(1991), Marketing management: Analysis, planning,implementation, and control. London: Prentice-Hall.
    34.Lastovicka, John L. and Gardner, David M.(1978),"Components of Involvement,"in Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes,pp.53-73.
    35.Lord, C.R., Ross, L.,& Lepper, M.R.(1979),"Biased assimilation and attitude polarization:The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence,"Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,2098-2109.
    36.Maio, G.R., Bell, D.W., & Esses, V.M.(1996),"Ambivalence and persuasion:The Processing of messages about immigrant groups," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.32, pp.513-536.
    37.Moore, M.(1973),"Ambivalence in attitude measurement," Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol.33, pp.481-483.
    38.O''Keffe, D.J.(1992),Persuasion: Theory and research, Newbury Park: Sage. Reagan, Joey & Zenaty, Janye (1979).Local News Credibility: Newspaper vs. TV Revisited. Journalism Quarterly, 56(1), 168-172.
    39.Osgood, C.E. & P.H.Tannenbaum(1955),"The Principle of Congrity in the Prediction of Attitude Change," Psychological, Vol.62,pp.42-55.
    40.Paul E. Green(1978),Analyzing Multivariate Data, Hinsdale,Ill.: Dryden Press.
    41.Petty,Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo(1986),Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change .New York: Springer-Verlag
    42.Rasnow, R.L.(1988),"Rumor as Communication:A Contextual Approach," Journal of Communication, Vol.38, pp,1-17.
    43.Robertson , Thomas S.(1976),"Low-Commitment Consumer Behavior,"Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.16, pp.19-24.
    44.Schiffman, L.G., & Kanuk, L.L.(1994), Consumer Behavior 5thed.Singapore:Prentice Hall.
    45.Sears, D.O., L.A. Peplau, and S.E. Taylor(1991), Social Psychology, 7th ed., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice Hall
    46.Sherif, Muzafer and Carl I. Hovland(1961), Social Judgment:Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change, New Haven, CT:Yale Univeristy Press.
    47.Skowronski,John J.and Donal E.Carlston (1989),"Negativity and Extremity in Impression Formation:A Review of Explanation," Psychological Bulletin,105(January),131-42.
    48.Thompson, M.M., & Zanna, M.P.(1995),"The conflicted individual:Personality-based and domain-soecific antecedents of ambivalent social attitudes," Journal of Personality, Vol.63, pp.259-288.
    49.Thompson, M.M., Zanna, M.P., & Griffin, D.W.(1995),Let''s not be indifferent about(attitudinal)ambivalence. In R.E. Petty & J.A. Krosnick(Eds.), Attitude Strength:Antecedents and consequences, pp.361-386, Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
    50.Traylor, Mark B.(1981),"Product Involvement and Brand Commitment,"Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.21, No.6, (December, 1981), pp.51-56.
    51.Wilson, Elizabeth J. and Daniel L. Sherrell(1993),"Source Effects in Communication and Persuasion Research:A Meta-Analysis of Effect Size,"Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21, Spring, pp.101-112.
    52.Wright Peter (1974),"The Harassed Decision Maker: Time Pressures, Distraction,and the Use of Evidence," Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(May),555-61.
    53.Zanna, M.P.(1993), Message receptivity:A new look at the old problem of open-versus closed-mindedness. In A.A. Mitchell(Ed.),Advertising exposure, memory, and choice (pp.141-162). New Jersy:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    科技管理研究所
    91
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#A2010000118
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[科技管理研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML151View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback