國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	廖曉彤 Hsiao-Tung Liao
論文名稱：	低涉入度消費者如何透過中央說服途徑處理產品核心特性 How May Low Involvement Consumers Process Persuasive Messages via Central Routes
指導教授：	蕭中強 Hsiao, Chung-Chiang
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	全球經營與策略研究所 Graduate Institute of Global Business and Strategy
論文出版年：	2013
畢業學年度：	101
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	95
中文關鍵詞：	推敲可能性模式、勸服變數的多重角色、態度確定性
英文關鍵詞：	Elaboration Likelihood Model, Multiple Role, Attitude Certainty
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：186 下載：3
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

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

The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) has been widely used by marketing industry and researchers in explaining advertising persuasion effectiveness since 1980’s. ELM proposed that low elaboration likelihood tends to process peripheral cues rather than arguments. However, in this study we examined the effect of misconceived arguments on ad processing and product assessment.
In this study, we define low involvement is the group who are low in objective knowledge regardless their motivation. We found that consumers who are low in objective knowledge (e.g., novices) are capable of processing central arguments as long as they have high motivation and abundant subjective knowledge. The result showed that even without high level of expertise, the attitude certainty of novices is as great as high involvement group (e.g., experts) when they are high in motivation. In contrast, the product attitudes formed by low objective consumers are opposite to high involvement consumers.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
1 Motivation and Study Purpose ....................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................... 3
1 Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) ........................................................... 3
2 Multiple Roles ................................................................................................ 8
3 Attitude Certainty......................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 3 PROPOSED THEORY AND HYPOTHESES ................................ 13
1 Proposed Theory .......................................................................................... 13
2 Hypotheses ................................................................................................... 17
2.1 Effect of Objective Knowledge .......................................................... 17
2.3 Effect of Peripheral Cue...................................................................... 18
2.4 Effect of Motivation on Attitude Certainty ......................................... 19
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...................................................... 20
1 Overview ...................................................................................................... 20
2 Pretest ........................................................................................................... 20
2.1 Participants and Design....................................................................... 20
2.2 Result .................................................................................................. 21
3 Main Experiment ......................................................................................... 22
3.1 Participants and Design....................................................................... 22
3.2 Experimental Procedure ...................................................................... 23
3.3 Independent Variables ........................................................................ 24
3.3.1 Motivation ................................................................................ 24
3.3.2 Objective Knowledge............................................................... 25
3.3.3 Argument ................................................................................. 26
2.3.4 Endorser ................................................................................... 26
3.4 Dependent Variables ........................................................................... 27
3.4.1 Attitude .................................................................................... 27
3.4.2 Attitude Certainty..................................................................... 27
3.5 Manipulation Check ............................................................................ 28
3.5.1 Motivation ................................................................................ 28
3.5.2 Objective Knowledge............................................................... 28
3.5.3 Argument ................................................................................. 29
3.5.4 Endorser ................................................................................... 29
CHAPTER 5 RESULT .............................................................................................. 31
1 Manipulation Check ..................................................................................... 31
1.1 Motivation ........................................................................................... 31
1.2 Objective Knowledge .......................................................................... 32
1.3 Argument Quality ............................................................................... 33
1.4 Endorser .............................................................................................. 36
2 Dependent Measures .................................................................................... 37
2.1 Attitude ............................................................................................... 37
2.2 Attitude Certainty................................................................................ 41
3 Tests for Hypotheses .................................................................................... 43
3.1 Effect of Objective Knowledge .......................................................... 44
3.2 Effect of Argument Quality ................................................................ 46
3.3 Effect of Peripheral Cue...................................................................... 50
3.4 Effect of Attitude Certainty ................................................................ 51
CHPATER 6 GENERAL DISCUSSION ................................................................. 54
1 Contribution ................................................................................................. 54
2 Limitations ................................................................................................... 57
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 58
APPENDIX(A) ........................................................................................................... 61
QUESTIONNAIRE OF PRETEST
APPENDIX(B)............................................................................................................ 73
QUESTIONNAIRE OF MAIN EXPERIMENT

                                

Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, No. 4 (March), 411-453.

Christine Moorman, Kristin Diehl, David Brinberg and Blair Kidwell (2004), ”Subjective Knowledge, Search Locations, and Consumer Choice”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Dec.), 673-680.

Gross, Sharon R., Rolf Holtz, and Norman Miller (1995), “Attitude Certainty in Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences,” Eds. Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 215-245.

Harris, R. J., T. M. Dubitsky and K. J. Bruno (1983), “Psycholinguistic Studies of Misleading Advertising,” Information Processing Research in Advertising, Hillsdale, N. J.：L. Erlbaum Associates, 241-262.

J. Edward Russo, Barbara L. Metcalf, Debra Stephens (1981). “Identifying Misleading Advertising,” The Journal of Consumer Research Vol. 8, No. 2 (Sep.), 119-131.
Jacob Jacoby, Margaret C. Nelson and Wayne D. Hoyer(1982). “Corrective Advertising and Affirmative Disclosure Statements: Their Potential for Confusing and Misleading the Consumer,” The Journal of Marketing, Vol.46, No.1 (Winter), 61-72.

Jim Sidanius (1988).” Political sophistication and political deviance: A structural equation examination of context theory,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 55, No. 1 (Jul.), 37-51.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979b). “Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37, No. 10, 1915-1926.

Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, No. 4 (March), 411-453.

Durairaj Maheswaran and Brian Sternthal (1990). ”The effects of knowledge, motivation, and type of message on ad processing and product judgments,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Jun.), 66-73.
Gross, Sharon R., Rolf Holtz, and Norman Miller (1995), “Attitude Certainty in Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences,” Eds. Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 215-245.

Wegener, D. T., Downing, J., Krosnick, J. A., & Petty, R. E. (1995).Measures and Manipulations of Strength-related Properties of Attitudes: Current Practice and Future Directions. In R. E. Petty and J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 455-487.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文