學生因有感於近年來企業社會責任與企業永續發展等議題受到廣泛關注，而當今許多企業或品牌因渴求其帶來的正面效益，因此，無不爭相往自己的品牌及產品貼上保護環境、成分天然、社會友善的標籤。我們可以看到在實務上，愈來愈多的產品使用近似，甚至完全相同的廣告詞，作為產品核心論點，使得消費者難以透過這些論點判讀出與重要評量標準有關的正確資訊。本研究正是從消費者心理與行為促成機制的角度，整合推敲可能性模型(ELM)，探討企業或品牌提出與善因行銷相關之廣告論點，分析其在不同情境下，如何影響高涉入程度消費者對產品評價的態度。

本研究嘗試歸納並提出四種假設的類型，在消費者為高涉入的前提下，探討四種自變數，分別是(1)假設一：廣告訊息中非論點之產品資訊與廣告訊息中之強論點一致/不一致性；(2)假設二：有/沒有中立消費者評論；(3)假設三：高/低客觀知識；(4) 假設四：有/沒有與重要評量標準無關之正向論點，三種干擾變數，分別是(1)假設一：高/低客觀知識；(2)假設二：有/沒有與重要評量標準無關之正向論點；(3)假設四：有/沒有購買時間的壓力，與應變數皆為受測者對產品評價態度之間是否存在差異。本研究共有四個主實驗，使用實驗設計的研究方法，並將主實驗分成九組不同的問卷情境，針對320位受測者進行組間因子的操弄，採用SPSS統計軟體作為分析工具。

在經歷嚴謹的學術研究鞭策，透過文獻探討、問卷設計與統計分析後，研究結果顯示，假設一：H1a-1其假設成立、H1a-2其假設成立、H1a-3其假設不成立、H1a-4其假設成立；假設二：H2a-1其假設不成立、H2a-2其假設成立、H2a-3其假設成立、H2a-4其假設成立；假設三：H3其假設不成立；假設四：H4a-1其假設不成立、H4a-2其假設不成立、H4a-3其假設不成立、H4a-4其假設成立，詳細研究結果請參見第陸章說明。

In recent years, there has been widespread attention towards corporate social responsibility and sustainable development. Many companies seek to capitalize on the positive benefits brought by these initiatives by labeling their brands and products as environmentally friendly, naturally sourced, and socially responsible. In practice, more and more products use similar or even identical advertising slogans as their central arguments, making it difficult for the consumer to process accurate information related to true merit from these arguments. This study integrates the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) to explore, from the perspective of consumer psychology and behavior, how advertisements related to cause-related marketing promoted by companies affect the product evaluation attitudes of high-involvement consumers in different contexts.

This study attempts to summarize and propose four types of hypotheses. Under the premise that consumers are highly involved, the four independent variables explored are: (1) Hypothesis One: consistency/inconsistency between non-argument product information and strong arguments in advertising messages; (2) Hypothesis Two: presence/absence of neutral consumer reviews; (3) Hypothesis Three: high/low objective knowledge; (4) Hypothesis Four: presence/absence of positive arguments unrelated to true merit. The three moderating variables are: (1) Hypothesis One: high/low objective knowledge; (2) Hypothesis Two: presence/absence of positive arguments unrelated to true merit; (3) Hypothesis Four: presence/absence of time pressure for purchasing, and the dependent variable is whether there is a difference in participants' product evaluation attitudes. This study comprises four main experiments, using experimental design methods, divided into nine scenarios, manipulating between-group factors for 320 participants, and using SPSS statistical software for analysis.

After rigorous academic research, through literature review, questionnaire design, and statistical analysis, the research results show the following: Hypothesis One: H1a-1 is supported, H1a-2 is supported, H1a-3 is not supported, H1a-4 is supported; Hypothesis Two: H2a-1 is not supported, H2a-2 is supported, H2a-3 is supported, H2a-4 is supported; Hypothesis Three: H3 is not supported; Hypothesis Four: H4a-1 is not supported, H4a-2 is not supported, H4a-3 is not supported, H4a-4 is supported. For detailed research results, please refer to Chapter 6.

中文部分
丁菱娟 (2022年7月5日)。企業做CSR，總是成效難計、花錢打水漂？公關教母丁菱娟的建議。商業周刊。https://www.businessweekly.com.tw/management/blog/3010139
王茜穎 (2023年10月17日)。從漂綠到噤綠，為何愈來愈多企業不願公開淨零、永續ESG目標？。CSR@天下。https://csr.cw.com.tw/article/43377
高端訓、陳雅言 (2022年7月1日)。ESG品牌創新六部曲。時報文化出版。
英文部分
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116
Cacioppo, J. T., Marshall-Goodell, B. S., Tassinary, L. G., & Petty, R. E. (1992). Rudimentary determinants of attitudes: Classical conditioning is more effective when prior knowledge about the attitude stimulus is low than high. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(3), 207–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(92)90053-M
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Kao, C. F., & Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(5), 1032–1043. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.5.1032
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407
Gross, S. R., Holtz, R., & Miller, N. (1995). Attitude certainty. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 215–245). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hamid, P. N. (1973). Exposure frequency and stimulus preference. British Journal of Psychology, 64(4), 569–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1973.tb01383.x
Kail, R. V., & Freeman, H. R. (1973). Sequence redundancy, rating dimensions, and the exposure effect. Memory & Cognition, 1(4), 454–458. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208908
Kotler, P. (1998). Strategic Marketing for Non-Profit Organizations (5th edition). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Krugman, H. E. (1965). The impact of television advertising: Learning without involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29(3), 349–356. https://doi.org/10.1086/267335
Barnes, N. G., & Fitzgibbons, D. A. (1992). Strategic Marketing for Charitable Organizations. Health Marketing Quarterly, 9(3–4), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1300/J026v09n03_10
Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-Related Marketing: A Coalignment of Marketing Strategy and Corporate Philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251450
P. “Rajan” Varadarajan. (1986). Horizontal Cooperative Sales Promotion: A Framework for Classification and Additional Perspectives. Journal of Marketing, 50(2), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251600
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 37–72). The Guilford Press.
Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., Tormala, Z. L., & Wegener, D. T. (2007). The role of metacognition in social judgment. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 254–284). The Guilford Press.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 847–855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.847
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1086/208954
Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 210–224. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489526
Ye, Gewei & van Raaij, W. Fred. (1997). What inhibits the mere-exposure effect: Recollection or familiarity?, Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, 18(6), 629–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(97)00027-5
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt.2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848