Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/67332
|
| Title: | 網路口碑、雙面廣告、情境涉入程度對消費者態度之影響 —論雙面廣告的效益與風險
The effect of eWOM, two-sided advertising and situational involvement on consumer attitude --The advantage and risk of two-sided advertising |
| Authors: | 李柔萱
Lee, Jou Hsuan |
| Contributors: | 邱志聖
李柔萱
Lee, Jou Hsuan |
| Keywords: | 網路口碑
雙面廣告
情境涉入
electronic word of mouth
tow-sided advertising
situational involvement |
| Date: | 2013 |
| Issue Date: | 2014-07-07 11:13:20 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 隨著網路平台的蓬勃發展，消費者得以從網路上進行各種消費經驗的搜尋及分享，網路平台上流傳的口碑資訊成為了消費者更深入評判產品及服務的參考資訊，相對而言，過去傳統廣告浮誇、隱惡揚善的包裝手法對於產品行銷以及消費者態度的提升效果則日漸趨弱。本研究旨在探討網路口碑、單雙面廣告以及情境涉入對於消費者態度的影響。更重要的是，本研究期望能針對雙面廣告是否具有降低負面評價之傷害的能力做一主題性的探討。
本研究採用了2（情境涉入程度：高涉入、低涉入）×2（廣告訊息：雙面、單面）×2（網路口碑：正面傾向、負面傾向）的三因子實驗設計。實驗結果有幾項發現：首先，正面傾向的網路口碑對受測者對於廣告信任、廣告觀感、產品觀感、產品喜好、購買意願有顯著的正面影響。其次，受測者對廣告的信任程度，會因情境涉入程度和單雙面廣告而有所差異。高情境涉入者對單面和雙面廣告的信任程度並沒有顯著差異，而低情境涉入者則對單面廣告的信任程度較高、對雙面廣告的信任程度較低。再來，在廣告觀感的部分，受測者則會受單雙面廣告和網路口碑正負面傾向的交互影響。當受測者閱讀的是單面廣告，其對單面廣告的觀感會因網路口碑的正負面傾向而有顯著差異；而當受測者閱讀的是雙面廣告，其對雙面廣告的觀感則不會因網路口碑的正負面傾向而有顯著差異。最後，在網路口碑觀感的部分，受測者亦會受單雙面廣告和網路口碑正負面傾向的交互影響。當受測者閱讀的是單面廣告，其正面及負面傾向網路口碑之觀感的評分上有顯著的差異；而當受測者閱讀的是雙面廣告，其正面及負面傾向網路口碑之觀感的評分上則沒有顯著的差異。
整體而言，本研究點出網路口碑對於不同涉入程度消費者的態度皆具有深度影響力，提醒廠商必須採取更積極的作為，同時也討論了雙面廣告的利益與風險，比方預防網路口碑對消費者態度造成波動的可能性等正面效益，以及使廣告及產品觀感降低等風險，給予廠商一個兼具正反面探討的參考策略。
With the rapid development of the network platform , consumers are able to search and share a variety of consumption experiences through the Internet. Electronic word of mouth (eWOM) has become a more reliable reference information of products and services. In contrast, those traditional pompous advertising has weaker marketing effects for products and service. This study aimed to explore the influence of eWOM, one or two -sided advertisement, and situational involvement toward consumer attitudes . More importantly , this study expect to explore if two-sided ad has the ability to reduce the damage of negative eWOM.
The study used a 2 ( situational involvement : high, low ) × 2 ( ad message: one-sided, two-sided ) × 2 ( eWOM : positive tendency, negative tendency ) three-factor experimental design. The result has several findings : First , the positive-tendency eWOM has a significant positive impact on ad-trust, ad-recognition, product- recognition, product-likeness and purchase intention. Second, the trust in ad seems to be impaced by situational involvement and one or two-sided ad . Subjects with high situational involvement have no significant differences in trust of one or two sided-ad. While subjects with low situational involvement have higher degree of trust in one-sided ad , and lower degree of trust in two-sided ad. Third , ad-recognition seems to be impacted by the type of ad and the tendency of eWOM . When the subjects read a one-sided ad , their recognition of one-sided ad have been significantly impacted by positive or negative eWOM; When subjects read a two-sided ad , their recognition of one-sided ad haven’t been significantly impacted by positive or negative eWOM. Forth, eWOM-recognition seems to be impacted by the type of ad and the tendency of eWOM, too . When the subjects read a one-sided ad , their recognition of positive or negative eWOM have significant difference. When subjects read a two-sided ad , their recognition of positive or negative eWOM have no significant differences.
Overall, the study points out the deep influence of eWOM on consumer attitudes, which remind manufacturers must take a more proactive actions. The study also discusses the benefits and risks of two-sided ad, such as reducing the influence of negative eWOM but also lower the ad-recognition , giving manufacturers a reference for strategy development . |
| Reference: | 中文文獻
1.代祺,梁樑,曹忠鵬,古繼寶(2010). 涉入度對雙面信息廣告說服效果的調節機理研究.預測, 29(5). 16-23.
2.江林(2011).消費者心理與行為.中國人民大學出版社
3.李陽(2007).不同產品涉入度的網上購物消費者感知風險研究.西南科技大學.
4.黃俊英,賴文彬(1990).涉入的理論發展與實務應用.管理科學學報,7(1), 15-29.
5.張中科(2011). 消費者行為學.中國人民大學出版社.
6.邱志聖(2011). 行銷研究. 智勝出版社.
英文文獻
1.Apsler, R., & Sears, D. O. (1968). Warning, personal involvement, and attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2p1), 162.
2.Antil, J. H. (1984). Conceptualization and operationalization of involvement. Advances in consumer research, 11(1), 203-209.
3.Arndt, J. (1967). Role of Product-Related Conversations in the Diffusion of a New Product. Journal of Marketing Research, 4(3), 291-295.
4.Babin, B. H., & Harris, E. (2011). Consumer Behavior 3.
5.Bickart, B., & R. M. Schindler. (2001). Internet forums as influential sources of consumer information. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(3), 31-40.
6.Bristor, Julia M. (1990). Enhanced explanations of word of mouth communications: The power of relationships. Research in Consumer Behavior, 4, 51-83.
7.Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Journal of consumer research, 210-224.
8.Chiou, J. S., & Cheng, C. (2003). Should a company have message boards on its web sites?. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17(3), 50-61.
9.Crowley, A. E., & Hoyer, W. D. (1994). An integrative framework for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer research, 561-574.
10.Duhan, D. F., Johnson, S. D., Wilcox, J. B., & Harrell, G. D. (1997). Influences on consumer use of word-of-mouth recommendation sources. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 283-295.
11.Eisend, M. (2006). Two-sided advertising: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(2), 187-198.
12.Ein-Gar, D., Shiv, B., & Tormala, Z. L. (2012). When blemishing leads to blossoming: The positive effect of negative information. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(5), 846-859.
13.Gelb, B., & Johnson, M. (1995). Word-of-mouth communication: Causes and consequences. Journal of Health Care Marketing, 15(Fall), 54-58.
14.Gelb, B. D., & Sundaram, S. (2002). Adapting to word of mouse. Business Horizons, 45(4), 21-25.
15.Gilly, M. C., Graham, J. L., Wolfinbarger, M. F., & Yale, L. J. (1998). A dyadic study of interpersonal information search. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 26(2), 83-100.
16.Hastak, M., & Park, J. W. (1990). Mediators of message sidedness effects on cognitive structure for involved and uninvolved audiences. Advances in consumer research, 17(1), 329-336.
17.Hennig-Thurau, Throsten, Kevin P. Gwinner, Gianfranco Walsh, & Dwayne D. Gremler. (2004). Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: Motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38-52.
18.Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of consumer research, 17(4), 454.
19.Houston, M. J., & Rothschild, M. L. (1978). Conceptual and methodological perspectives on involvement. Research frontiers in marketing: Dialogues and directions, 184, 187.
20.Jarvenpaa, S.L., N.Tractinsky, & M.Vitale.（2000）. Consumer trust in an Internet store. Information Technology and Management, 1(1-2), 45-72.
21.Kamins, M. A., Brand, M. J., Hoeke, S. A., & Moe, J. C. (1989). Two-sided versus one-sided celebrity endorsements: the impact on advertising effectiveness and credibility. Journal of Advertising, 18(2), 4-10.
22.Kamins, M. A., & Assael, H. (1987). Two-sided versus one-sided appeals: A cognitive perspective on argumentation, source derogation, and the effect of disconfirming trial on belief change. Journal of marketing Research, 29-39.
23.Kotler, P. (1965). Behavioral models for analyzing buyers. The Journal of Marketing, 37-45.
24.Krugman, H. E. (1965). The impact of television advertising: Learning without involvement. Public opinion quarterly, 29(3), 349-356.
25.Krugman, H. E. (1967). The Measurement of Advertising Involvement. Public opinion quarterly, 30, 583-596.
26.Laczniak, R. N., Muehling, D. D., & Grossbart, S. (1989). Manipulating message involvement in advertising research. Journal of Advertising, 18(2), 28-38.
27.Lastovicka, J. L., & Gardner, D. M. (1978). Low involvement versus high involvement cognitive structures. Advances in consumer research, 5(1), 87-92.
28.Lastovicka, John L. and David M. Gardner (1979), "Components of Involvement," in Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes, eds. John C. Maloney and Bernard Silverman, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 53-73.
29.Schiffman, L. G., & Kanuk, L. L. (2000). Consumer behavior. International. Inc.: Prentice-Hall.
30.Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 374-378.
31.Lutz, R. J. (1975). Changing brand attitudes through modification of cognitive structure. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(4), 49-59.
32.Maheswaran, D., & Sternthal, B. (1990). The effects of knowledge, motivation, and type of message on ad processing and product judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 66-73.
33.Meyers-Levy, J., & Peracchio, L.A. (1996). Moderators of the impact of self-
reference on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research 22 (4) 408–423.
34.McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and Validating Trust Measure for E-commerce: A integrative Typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334-359
35.Muncy, J. A., & Hunt, S. D. (1984). Consumer involvement: definitional issues and research directions. Advances in Consumer Research, 11(1), 193-196.
36.Murry, K.B. 1991. A test of service marketing theory：Consumer information acquisition activities. Journal of Marketing. 55(1). 10-25
37.Park, C., & Lee, T. M. (2009). Information direction, website reputation and eWOM effect: A moderating role of product type. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 61-67.
38.Reichheld, F. F., & W. Sasser. (1990). Zero defections: quality comes to services. Harvard Business Review, 68(5), 105-111.
39.Robertson, Thomas S. (1976) "Low-Commitment Consumer Behavior," Journal of Advertising Research, 16 (April), 1 9-24
40.Robertson,T.S.,S.Zielinski & J.Ward (1985). Consumer Behavior. Illinois：Scott Foresman and Company，p.279.
41.Rothschild, M. L. (1984). Perspectives on involvement: current problems and future directions. Advances in consumer research, 11(1), 216-217.
42.Schiffman, L. G., & Kanuk, L. L. (2004). Consumer Behavior. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
43.Schlosser, Ann E. (2005). Source perceptions and the persuasiveness of internet word-of-mouth communication. Advances in Consumer Research, 32(1), 202-203.
44.Sherif, M., & Cantril, H. (1947). The psychology of ego-involvements: Social attitudes and identifications.
45.Silverman G.(1997). How to harness the awesome power of word-of-mouth. Direct Marketing, 60(7), 32-37.
46.Smith, R. E., & Hunt, S. D. (1978). Attributional processes and effects in promotional situations. Journal of Consumer Research, 149-158.
47.Tanimoto, J., & Fujii, H. (2003). A study on diffusional characteristics of information on a human network analyzed by a Multi-Agent simulator. The Social Science Journal, 40(3), 479-485.
48.Tyebjee, Tyzoon T. (1979), "Response Time, Conflict, and Involvement in Brand Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, 6 (December), 295-304.
49.Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/consumption-based affective responses and postpurchase processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 258-270.
50.Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1985), "Measuring the Involvement Construct", Journal of Consumer Research, 12(December). 341-352.
51.Zimbardo, P. G. (1960). Involvement and communication discrepancy as determinants of opinion conformity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60(1), 86. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
國際經營與貿易研究所
101351040
102 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101351040 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [國際經營與貿易學系 ] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 104001.pdf | | 7925Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 488 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
