現今網絡產業持續地蓬勃發展，如何說服使用者註冊並使用新穎的網絡產品與服務是各個電子商務公司的一大挑戰。過去雖已有許多文獻著墨於說服性科技與電子商務的情境中，然而聚焦在有決策象徵的註冊按鈕上的研究卻頗為稀少。本研究是以說服性科技的觀點切入，進而探討訊息框架置入在網站的註冊按鈕中，是否會產生說服度之影響。藉由科技接受模型中的使用態度和行為意圖來測量其說服度，同時設定性別與產品知識度為調節變數。本量化研究方法是以單因子變數分析和單純主要效果檢測為統計方法，分析結果顯示負面訊息框架 (負面組)相較中性訊息框架 (控制組)與正面訊息框架 (正面組)，會對說服度 (使用態度、行為意圖)有顯著的影響。而調節變數的統計結果顯示，性別並未影響訊息框架對說服度 (使用態度、行為意圖)之影響；而產品知識則會對使用態度產生明顯影響效果，特別在負面訊息框架中，較低的產品知識度的使用者會對訊息框架和使用態度之間有顯著的影響效果。最後，本研究將創新決策過程作為理論基礎，特別針對理論中的說服階段和決策階段加以探討，期望研究結果與討論能提供相關專業人士和未來研究些見解。

To persuade internet users to sign-up to use an innovative website product is the number one priority for e-Commerce companies nowadays. Although message framing effect is an established cognitive phenomenon and has been discussed in the context of e-Commerce and decision making domains. However, researches of message framing effect specifically on a sign-up button, an interface function from a website to best represent decision making are still lacking. From the perspective of persuasive technology, the present study focused on the persuasiveness of message framing effects on sign-up buttons which was assessed by attitude towards using (ATT) and behavioral intention (BI) derived from the technology acceptance model (TAM). Investigations on possible moderating influences of gender and product knowledge were also conducted at the same time. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the negatively framed message on a sign-up button had significant effects on both ATT and BI when compared to the control group and the positive group. The results also had shown that the moderating influence of low product knowledge was presented between message framing effects on ATT but not for BI. Gender on the other hand, had shown none moderating influence between message framing effects and the overall persuasiveness of a sign-up button. As a theoretical parameter overview, this study comprised representations of the persuasion and decision stages referenced from the innovation-decision process theory. This article explored the possibility of using message framing effect as a persuasive technique focusing on a single website interface function such as a sign-button. The findings provided diverse directions for future research as well as practical insights for persuasive design practitioners and professionals in the e-Commerce industry.

Reference

Alhammad, Muna M. and Stephen R. Gulliver (2014), “Persuasive Technology and Users Acceptance of E-commerce: Users Perceptions of Website Persuasiveness,” Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, 12 (2), 1-13.
Benartzi, Shlomo and Richard Thaler (1995), “Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110 (1), 73-92.
Berkovsky, S., Freyne, J., and Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2012), “Influencing Individually: Fusing Personalization and Persuasion.,” ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 2 (2), 1-8.
Brown, Susan A., Alan R. Dennis, and Viswana Venkatesh (2010), “Predicting Collaboration Technology Use: Integrating Technology Adoption and Collaboration Researc,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 27 (2), 9-54.
Bunt, Andrea, Giusepp Carenini , and Cristina Conati (2007), “Adaptive Content Presentation for the Web,” The Adaptive Web Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 409-432.
Chittaro, Luca (2016), Tailoring Web Pages for Persuasion on Prevention Topics: Message Framing, Color Priming, and Gender, in International Conference on Persuasive Technology, 3-14.
Davis, Fred D. (1989), “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 319-340.
Davis, Fred D., Richard P, Bagozzi, and Paul R. Warshaw (1989), “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models,” Management science, 35 (8), 982-1003.
Fagley, N. S. and Paul M. Miller (1990), “The Effect of Framing on Choice: Interactions with Risk-Taking Propensity, Cognitive Style, And Sex,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16 (3), 496-510.
Ferebee, Susan (2007), “An Examination of The Influence of Involvement Level of Web Site Users on The Perceived Credibility of web Sites,” Persuasive Technology Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 176-186.
Fogg, Brian J. (2003), Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do, Morgan Kaufmann.
Fogg, Brian J. (2009), “A Behavior Model for Persuasive Design,” in Proceedings of the 4th international Conference on Persuasive Technology , ACM, 40.
Halko, Sajanee and Julie A. Kientz (2010), “Personality and Persuasive Technology: An Exploratory Study on Health-Promoting Mobile Applications,” Persuasive Technology Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 150-161.
Hasseldine, John and Peggy A Hite (2003), “Framing, Gender and Tax Compliance,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 24 (4), 517-533.
Kim, Heejun and Daniel R. Fesenmaier (2008), “Persuasive Design of Destination Web Sites: An Analysis of First Impression,” Journal of Travel Research, 47 (1), 3-13.
Kühberger, Anton (1998), “The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis,” Organizational behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75 (1), 23-55.
Kurila, Jonila, Lambros Lazuras, and Panagiotis H. Ketikidis (2016), “Message Framing and Acceptance of Branchless Banking Technology,” Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 17, 12-18.
Levin, Irwin P., Gary J. Gaeth, Judy, Schreiber, and Marco Lauriola (2002), “A New Look at Framing Effects: Distribution of Effect Sizes, Individual Differences, and Independence of Types of Effects,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88 (1), 411-429.
Levin, Irwin P., Sandra L. Schneider, and Gary J. Gaeth (1998), “All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76 (2), 149-188.
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 (3), 500-510.
Moynihan, Donald P. and Stephan Lavertu (2012), “Cognitive Biases in Governing: Technology Preferences in Election Administration,” Public Administration Review, 72 (1), 68-77.
Novemsky, Nathan and Daniel Kahneman (2005), “The Boundaries of Loss Aversion,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (2), 119-128.
Payne, John W., James R. Bettman, and Eric J. Johnson (1993), The Adaptive Decision Maker, Cambridge University Press.
Rogers, E. M. (2010), Diffusion of innovations, Simon and Schuster.
Sundar, S. Shyam, Saraswathi Bellur, and Haiyan Jia (2012), Motivational Technologies: A Theoretical Framework for Designing Preventive Health Applications, in International Conference on Persuasive Technology, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 112-122.
Thaler, Richard H., A. Tversky, A., D. Kahneman, And A. Schwartz (1997), “The Effect of myopia and Loss Aversion on Risk Taking: An Experimental Test,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 (2), 647-661.
Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman (1981), “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,” Science, 211 (4481), 453-458.
Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman (1986), “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions,” The Journal of Business, 59 (4), 251-278.
Weinschenk, Susan M (2009), Neuro Web Design: What Makes Them Click?, New Riders.
Winn, Wendy and Kati Beck (2002), “The Persuasive Power of Design Elements on an E-commerce Web Site,” Technical Communication, 49 (1), 17-35.
Wu, Chin-Shan and Fei-Fei Cheng (2011), “The Joint Effect of Framing and Anchoring on Internet Buyers’ Decision-making,” Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 10 (3), 358-368.
Wu, Chin-Shan, Fei-Fei Cheng, and David C. (2012), “The Role of Internet Buyer's Product Familiarity and Confidence in Anchoring Effect,” Behaviour & Information Technology, 31 (9), 829-838.