簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

研究生: 張瑞哲
Jui-Che Chang
論文名稱: 不同型式的呈現框架對不一致資訊之效果
The Effects of Different Kinds of Framing on Inconsistent Information
指導教授: 葉明義
Ming-Yih Yeh
口試委員: 李永輝
Yung-Hui Lee
黃崇興
Chung-Hsing Huang
學位類別: 碩士
Master
系所名稱: 管理學院 - 企業管理系
Department of Business Administration
論文出版年: 2005
畢業學年度: 93
語文別: 中文
論文頁數: 39
中文關鍵詞: 廣告主歸因態度預測能力態度結構訊息呈現框架比較性廣告
外文關鍵詞: advertisers' attribution, predictive ability of attitude, attitude structure, comparative advertisement, framing
相關次數: 點閱:206下載:1
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報
  • 在廣大的消費市場中,廠商想盡各種辦法吸引顧客上門,增加其獲利,而這當中,消費者最常看到的手法即是廣告和報導。由於廣告資訊的內容及型態相當眾多,正面資訊和負面資訊充斥其中,消費者極容易先接觸到關於產品品牌的正面資訊,之後又再看到關於產品品牌的負面資訊,換句話說,消費者普遍都經歷過這樣資訊不一致的現象。

      現存的文獻中,對於資訊不一致性在態度強度上的效果並不一致,有學者指出,接觸不一致資訊後會導致更多的深思熟慮,為了達成整合的評價,消費者會產生更強的態度,態度也會有較高的預測價值。相對地,也有其它研究顯示,若資訊的不一致性是以態度結構為基礎,消費者可能同時持有正面和負面的觀點,態度矛盾上升,在這樣的情形下則會減弱態度和行為之間的連結。

    然而資訊本身的型態在不一致資訊對態度、購買意願等之效果上,也有一定的干擾作用,而訊息呈現框架即為相當常見的一種資訊呈現方式,廣告主通常利用正面性或負面性的訊息呈現框架,讓消費者有不同的體會和感受。本研究將驗証:屬性的訊息呈現框架對於不一致資訊和一致資訊在最終態度、態度改變幅度、以及最終態度預測購買意願能力上的效果;另外,也驗証訊息呈現框架的另一種型式:比較性廣告,對於不一致資訊和一致資訊在態度結構和最終態度預測行為能力上的效果,亦進一步審視他們事後對廣告主歸因的感受。經由本研究的結果,必然可提供企業在處理不一致資訊和訊息呈現框架運用策略上一些建議與思考方向。


    In the marketplace, firms try their best to attract consumers in order to increase their profits. Among all the tactics, advertising and publicity are most often encountered by consumers. Because of many kinds of advertising that contains positive as well as negative messages, consumers are more easily to contact positive information about one brand in the first stage; and then read its negative information in the second stage. That is to say, consumers generally encounter such an inconsistent-information.

    Extant literatures show opposite predictions regarding the effects of information inconsistency on attitude strength. Some researchers show that exposure to inconsistent information causes the entire information set to be elaborated on. In order to arrive at an integrated evaluation, consumers’ attitudes should be strengthened and result in higher predictive value. On the other hand, other research suggests that if inconsistency is based on attitude structure, one can feel simultaneously positive and negative toward the object, leading to greater attitudinal ambivalence and weakening the linkage between brand attitudes and behaviors.

    The patterns of information itself, however, will moderate the effects of inconsistent information on attitudes and purchase intention. Message Framing is one common pattern that shows to consumers. Advertisers usually use positive frames or negative frames so that perceptions of consumers will be different. This study intends to verify that the effects of consistent and inconsistent information on the final attitude under positive versus negative frames situation. In addition, we examine the effects of consistent and inconsistent information on the predictive ability of the attitude when we adopt comparative advertising. At last, the study also tests suspicion toward advertisers in different conditions. Through the results of this study, we wish to offer recommendations to businesses on their communication strategy with regard to the treatment of inconsistent information and message frames as well.

    第一章 研究背景....................1 第二章 文獻探討和假說.................3 第一節 不一致資訊的效果....................3 第二節 呈現框架........................4 第三節 比較性廣告.......................9 第四節 後見之明偏誤......................10 第三章 前測之設計與結果................17 第一節 前測目的........................17 第二節 產品和產品屬性的選擇..................17 第三節 前測的過程和結果....................17 第四章 實驗一.....................21 第一節 研究架構和假說.....................21 第二節 研究設計........................22 第三節 結果與分析.......................24 第五章 實驗二.....................29 第一節 研究架構和假說.....................29 第二節 研究設計........................30 第三節 結果與分析.......................32 第六章 結論......................36 參考文獻........................37 附錄..........................40

    1. Cacioppo, John T, Wendi L. Gardner, and Gary G. Berntson (1997), "Beyond Bipolar Conceptualizations and Measures: The Case of Attitudes and Evaluative Space," Personality and Social Psychology Review, I (February), 3-25.
    2. Davies, N. F. (1992), “Field Dependence and Hindsight Bias: Cognitive Restructuring and the Generation of Reasons,” Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 58-74.
    3. Dunegan, Kenneth J. (1993), “Framing, Cognitive Modes, and Image Theory: Toward an Understanding of a Glass Half Full,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (June), 491-503.
    4. Entman, R. M. (1993), “Framing: Toward a Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm,” Journal of Communication, 43, 51-58.
    5. Fein, Steven (1991), “The Suspicious Mind,” doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.
    6. Fein, Steven, James L. Hilton, and Dale T. Miller (1989), “The Effects of Suspicion on Dispositional Inference,” paper presented at the Sixty-first Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago (May).
    7. Fischhoff, B. (1977), “Perceived Informativeness of Facts,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 349-358.
    8. Fischhoff, B. (1975), “Hindsight≠Foresight: The Effect of Outcome Knowledge on Judgment Under Uncertainty,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288-299.
    9. Fischhoff, B. and Beyth, R. (1975), “I Knew It Would Happen- Remembered Probabilities of Once-Future Things,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 1-16.
    10. Friestad, Marian and Peter Wright (1994), “The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Attempts,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 1-31.
    11. Grewal, Dhruv, Jerry Gotlieb, and Howard Marmorstein (1994), “The Moderating Effects of Message Framing and Source Credibility on the Price-Perceived Risk Relationship,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 145-153.
    12. Hastie, Reid (1980), "Memory for Information Which Confirms or Contradicts a General Impression," in Person Memory: The Cognitive Basis of Social Perceptions, ed. Reid Hastie, et al. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 155-177.
    13. Jain, Shailendra P. (1993), “Positive Versus Negative Comparative Advertising,” Marketing Letters, 4(4), 309-320.
    14. Jain, Shailendra P. and Steven S. Posavac (2004), “Valenced Comparisons,” Journal of Marketing Research, (February), 46-58.
    15. Janiszewski, Chris and Donald Lichtenstein (1999), “A Range Theory Account of Price Perception,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (March), 353-368.
    16. Janiszewski, Chris, Tim Silk, and Cooke Alan D. J. (2003), “Different Scales for Different Frames: The Role of Subjective Scales and Experience in Explaining Attribute-Framing Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (Dec), 311-325.
    17. Jonas, Klaus, Michael Diehl, and Philip Bromer (1997), “Effects of Attitude Ambivalence on Information Processing and Attitude-Intention Consistency,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33 (March), 190-210.
    18. Kahneman, Daniel and Tversky, Amos (1979), “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,” Econometrica, 47 (March), 263-291.
    19. Levin, I. P. and Gaeth, G. J. (1988), “How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Produc,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (Dec), 374-378.
    20. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., and Gaeth, G. J. (1998), “All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 149-188.
    21. Maheswaran, Durairaj and Shelly Chaiken (1991), "Promoting Systematic Processing in Low-Involvement Settings: Effect of Incongruent Information on Processing and Judgment," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 (July), 13-25.
    22. Maheswaran, D. and Meyers-Levy, J. (1990), “The Influence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement,” Journal of Marketing Research, 27(August), 361-367.
    23. McGuire, William J. (1981), "The Probabilogical Model of Cognitive Structure and Attitude Change," in Cognitive Responses in Persuasion, ed. Richard E. Petty, Thomas M. Ostrom, and Timothy C. Brock, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 291-307.
    24. Mellers, Barbara A. and Alan D. J. Cooke (1994), “Trade-offs Depend on Attribute Range,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20 (October), 1055-1067.
    25. Meyerowitz, Beth E. and Shelly Chaiken (1987), “The Effect of Message Framing on Breast Self-Examination Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (March), 500-510.
    26. Meyers, James H. and Alpert, Mark (1968), “Determinant Buying Attitudes Meaning and Measurement,” Journal of Marketing Research, 5 (October), 13-20.
    27. Norman, Ross (1975), "Affective-Cognitive Consistency, Attitudes, Conformity and Behavior," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32 (July), 83-91.
    28. Petty, Richard E., Curtis P. Haugtvedt, and Stephen M. Smith (1995), "Elaboration as a Determinant of Attitude Strength: Creating Attitudes That Are Persistent, Resistant, and Predictive of Behavior," in Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, ed. Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 93-130.
    29. Pham, Michel Tuan and Muthukrishnan, A.V., (2002), “Search and Alignment in Judgment Revision: Implications for Brand Positioning,” Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (February), 18-30.
    30. Puto, C. P. (1987), “The Framing of Buying Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 301-315.
    31. Rosenberg, Milton J. (1968), "Hedonism, Inauthenticity, and Other Goads toward Expansion of a Consistency Theory," in Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook, ed. R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W J. McGuire, T M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg, and P. H. Tannenbaum, Chicago:71-111.
    32. Sengupta, Jaideep, and Gita Venkataramani Johar (2002), “Effects of Inconsistent Attribute Information on the Predictive Value of Product Attitudes: Toward a Resolution of Opposing Perspectives,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (June) 39-56.
    33. Sharpe, D. and Adair J. G. (1993), “Reversibility of the Hindsight Bias: Manipulation of Experimental Demands,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 233-245.
    34. Shiv, Baba, Juiie Edell, and John W. Payne (1997), “Factors Affecting the Impact of Negatively and Positively Framed Ad Messages,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24(December), 285-94.
    35. Smith, R. E. (1993), “Integrating Information from Advertising and Trial: Processes and Effects on Consumer Response to Product Information,” Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 204-219.
    36. Smith, R. E., and Swinyard, W. R. (1982), “Information Response Model: An Integrated Approach,” Journal of Marketing, 46(1), 81-93.
    37. Smith, R. E., and Vogt, C. A. (1995), “The Effects of Integrating Advertising and Negative Word-of-Mouth Communications on Message Processing and Response,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(2), 133-151.
    38. Srull, Thomas K. and Robert S. Wyer, Jr. (1989), "Person Memory and Judgment," Psychological Review, 96 (January), 58-83.
    39. Thompson, Megan M., Mark P. Zanna, and Dale W. Griffin (1995), "Let's Not Be Indifferent about (Attitudinal) Ambivalence," in Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, ed. Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 361-386
    40. Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman (1981), “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,” Science, 211 (January), 453-458.
    41. Walster, E. (1967), “ Second Guessing Important Events,” Human Relations, 20, 239-249.
    42. Zhang, Yong and Buda, R. (1999), “Moderating Effects of Need of Cogmition on Responses to Positively versus Negatively Framed Advertising Messages,” Journal of Advertising, 28(Summer), 1-15.

    無法下載圖示 全文公開日期 2006/07/29 (校內網路)
    全文公開日期 本全文未授權公開 (校外網路)
    全文公開日期 2006/07/01 (國家圖書館:臺灣博碩士論文系統)
    QR CODE