Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/118928
|
| Title: | 不同論點類型對推敲與決策信心的影響：傳統實驗與腦神經實驗觀點
The Effect of Different Types of Argument on Elaboration and Decision Confidence: Traditional and Neuroscience Experiment Viewpoints |
| Authors: | 成力庚
Cheng, Li-Keng |
| Contributors: | 別蓮蒂
沈永正
Bei, Lien-Ti
Shen, Yung-Cheng
成力庚
Cheng, Li-Keng |
| Keywords: | 論點
涉入程度
代言人
推敲類型
決策信心
Argument
Involvement
Celebrity
Elaboration type
Decision confidence |
| Date: | 2018 |
| Issue Date: | 2018-07-27 11:20:39 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本論文主要探討強論點、弱論點與簡則論點等三種不同類型的廣告論點對廣告說服力、推敲量、推敲種類與決策信心的影響效果。過去研究認為簡則線索是在消費者處於低思考動機時，藉由促發消費者心中簡單的決策準則產生說服效果，與強弱論點是透過思考推敲論點內容才產生說服效果是不相同的。消費者每天面臨無數的廣告訊息與購買決策，大多處時候於低思考的狀態，使得實務環境中簡則線索已逐漸轉變成簡則論點普遍使用於廣告中，如健康食品常用的廣告論點「最多醫師建議食用」、電子類產品廣告或產品包裝上也常見到「日本原裝進口」、「德國原裝進口」…等，因此這種簡則論點的廣告說服力、推敲量、推敲種類非常值得深入探討。此外，代言人可能會提升消費者對廣告的聯想與信任度，進而影響消費者對廣告論點的推敲，因此本論文亦探討廣告加入代言人後對三種論點的影響效果。
針對上述研究目的，本論文設計三個研究來驗證不同論點類型所形成不同的推敲與說服效果。研究一藉由傳統實驗法比較平面廣告所包含的簡則論點、強論點與弱論點三種不同論點類型對廣告說服力的影響效果，並探討藉由搭配代言人提升聯想後，簡則論點、強論點與弱論點在說服效果的改變。研究結果發現相比於強論點與弱論點，簡則論點更容易受到代言人影響而提升其說服力，但研究一雖然效果顯著，但卻無法解釋簡則論點相比於強論點與弱論點更容易受到代言人影響而提升說服力的心理機制。
因此，研究二則藉由功能性核磁共振造影 (fMRI) 進行實驗，透過掃描觀察消費者腦中認知腦區的活動情形，檢驗認知腦區是否有活化以確認受試者是否真的有思考，探討不同論點類型與有無搭配代言人下推敲程度真的有顯著差異，以解釋不同論點搭配代言人後對於說服力的提升效果有差異的原因。研究結果發現相比強論點與弱論點，簡則論點更容易受到代言人影響而提升其認知腦區的活化水準，儘管fMRI實驗可以較準確的確認受試者的腦區在接收不同論點下的推敲程度差異，確知簡則論點搭配代言人的效果是來自於更多的思考推敲，但受限於fMRI技術，對於不同情境下的推敲內容還無法探究。
研究三則採用傳統實驗法，包含兩種實驗產品慢跑鞋與吸塵器，透過電腦計時與紙本問卷的搭配更深入的探討消費者在接收到不同的廣告論點類型時，其產生的推敲內容是否會有差異。此外，根據過去研究可知涉入程度會影響個人的訊息處理模式與推敲程度，所以在分析代言人搭配不同廣告論點對推敲內容、推敲量與廣告說服力的影響效果時，應加入涉入程度作為主要變數之一才完整，因此研究三同時探討不同涉入程度下，消費者接收到不同廣告論點類型與有無搭配代言人與對推敲內容與決策信心的影響。研究三的結果有三個主要發現，第一，當消費者接收到簡則論點時，相較於強論點或弱論點會產生更多相關型的推敲與聯想，反之，當消費者接收到強論點或弱論點時，相較於簡則論點會產生更多項目特定型的推敲。第二，當消費者處於高涉入程度且產品為慢跑鞋時，簡則論點搭配廣告代言人相較於強弱論點搭配廣告代言人，對於產品態度、購買意圖與決策信心有顯著較高的提升效果。第三，當消費者處於高涉入程度時，簡則論點搭配廣告代言人相較於強論點或弱論點搭配廣告代言人有更多的對論點以外的聯想推敲；而強弱論點搭配廣告代言人相較於簡則論點搭配廣告代言人有更多的對論點本身的推敲。
由三個研究結果可知，不同論點類型的廣告在搭配代言人後會對於消費者產生不同的推敲內容、說服效果與決策信心，因此透過本研究一方面可以豐富廣告訊息溝通的相關學術研究，另一方面本研究的結果亦可供廣告廠商未來進行廣告設計或訊息溝通的重要參考。
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the effects of three types of argument—namely strong, weak, and heuristic—on persuasiveness, elaboration, and decision confidence. Research has indicated that persuasiveness from heuristic cues results from the activation of a simple decision rule in a consumer’s mind. Conversely, the persuasiveness of strong and weak arguments is caused by elaborated argument content. Consumers face countless advertising messages and purchasing decisions daily and spending most of their time in a state of low elaboration. Studies have converted heuristic cues into simple descriptions to form one type of argument and used heuristic arguments, such as “most popular” and “limited edition,” to increase the effectiveness of ads. In addition, celebrities improve consumer trust and association with an advertisement, subsequently influencing the elaboration of the argument. This study thus investigated the interactions between arguments and celebrity and their effects on attitude.
Three studies were designed to verify the effect of different arguments on persuasiveness. Study 1 compared the effects of different arguments on the persuasiveness of advertisements using traditional experimental methods and explored the interaction effects between arguments and celebrity on this persuasiveness. The results of Study 1 showed that differences in product attitude between those with and without celebrities was stronger when consumers received heuristic arguments than when they received strong or weak arguments. However, Study 1 did not explain why the heuristic argument was more easily influenced by celebrity than by the weak or strong arguments.
Study 2 was conducted using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which was used to observe activation of brain areas. Thus, fMRI confirmed whether consumers were stimulated to think. Study 2 examined the differences in activation areas when consumers were presented with different arguments. The results of Study 2 indicated a difference in activation areas when consumers received heuristic arguments and strong or weak arguments.
Study 3 used traditional experimental methods involving two types of experimental products: running shoes and vacuum cleaners. This study compared the differences in elaboration type between strong, weak, and heuristic arguments through a combination of digital and print questionnaires. Studies have indicated that different degrees of involvement affect an individual’s information processing model and level of elaboration. Consequently, Study 3 investigated the effects of different arguments with or without celebrities on elaboration and decision confidence under different degrees of involvement.
The results of Study 3 revealed three main findings. First, consumers generated more relational elaboration when they received heuristic arguments than when they received strong or weak arguments. Conversely, consumers generated more item-specific elaboration when they received strong or weak arguments than when they were presented with heuristic arguments. Second, the difference in product attitude between advertisements with and without celebrities was stronger when highly-involved consumers received heuristic arguments than when they received strong or weak arguments. Third, highly-involved consumers generated more relational elaborations beyond the argument content when they received heuristic arguments. Highly-involved consumers generated more item-specific elaborations to the argument content when they received strong or weak arguments.
According to the results of the three studies, consumers generated different levels of elaboration and decision confidence when they received advertisements with different arguments. Therefore, this paper offers two contributions. First, the results can enrich relevant academic research on advertising communication. Second, they can be a vital reference for advertisers to design advertising or communication messages in the future. |
| Reference: | Aaker, J. L. and Maheswaran, D. (1997). The effect of cultural orientation on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(3), 315-328.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research: Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Mikulincer, M., and Zalts, N. (2003). The effects of learned helplessness on the processing of a persuasive message. Current Psychology, 22(1), 37-46.
Andrews, J. C. and Shimp, T. A. (1990). Effects of involvement, argument strength, and source characteristics on central and peripheral processing of advertising. Psychology & Marketing, 7(3), 195-214.
Areni, C. S. and Lutz, R. J. (1988). The role of argument quality in the elaboration likelihood model. NA-Advances in Consumer Research Volume 15, 197-203.
Atkin, C. and Block, M. (1983). Effectiveness of celebrity endorsers. Journal of Advertising Research, 23(1), 57-61.
Axsom, D., Yates, S., and Chaiken, S. (1987). Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 315-339.
Bakamitsos, G. A. (2006). A cue alone or a probe to think? The dual role of affect in product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(3), 403-412.
Baker, M. J. and Churchill Jr, G. A. (1977). The impact of physically attractive models on advertising evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research ,14(4), 538-555.
Baker, S. M. and Petty, R. E. (1994). Majority and minority influence: Source-position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(1), 5-19.
Batra, R. and Stayman, D. M. (1990). The role of mood in advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 203-214.
Bearden, W. O., Hardesty, D. M., and Rose, R. L. (2001). Consumer self-confidence: Refinements in conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 121-134.
Bohner, G., Chaiken, S., and Hunyadi, P. (1994). The role of mood and message ambiguity in the interplay of heuristic and systematic processing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24(1), 207-221.
Bohner, G., Frank, E., and Erb, H. P. (1998). Heuristic processing of distinctiveness information in minority and majority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28(5), 855-860.
Bohner, G., Moskowitz, G. B., and Chaiken, S. (1995). The interplay of heuristic and systematic processing of social information. European review of social psychology, 6(1), 33-68.
Bohner, G., Ruder, M., and Erb, H. P. (2002). When expertise backfires: Contrast and assimilation effects in persuasion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(4), 495-519.
Boller, G. W., Swasy, J. L., and Munch, J. M. (1990). Conceptualizing argument quality via argument structure. NA-Advances in Consumer Research Volume 17, 321-328.
Brucks, M. (1985). The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 1-16.
Calder, B. J. (1978). Cognitive Response, Imagery, and Scripts: What is the Cognitive Basis of Attitude? NA-Advances in Consumer Research Volume 5, 630-634.
Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1387-1397.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752-766.
Chaiken, S. and Eagly, A. H. (1983). Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 241-256.
Chaiken, S. and Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and. Unintended thought, 212-252. New York: Guilford.
Chaiken, S. and Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460-473.
Chen, S. and Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. Dual-process theories in social psychology, 73-96.
Chen, S., Shechter, D., and Chaiken, S. (1996). Getting at the truth or getting along: Accuracy-versus impression-motivated heuristic and systematic processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 262-275.
Cline, T. W. and Kellaris, J. J. (1999). The joint impact of humor and argument strength in a print advertising context: A case for weaker arguments. Psychology & Marketing, 16(1), 69-86.
Coricelli, G. and Nagel, R. (2009). Neural correlates of depth of strategic reasoning in medial prefrontal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(23), 9163-9168.
Coulter, K. S. and Punj, G. N. (2004). The effects of cognitive resource requirements, availability, and argument quality on brand attitudes: A melding of elaboration likelihood and cognitive resource matching theories. Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 53-64.
Darke, P. R., Chattopadhyay, A., and Ashworth, L. (2006). The importance and functional significance of affective cues in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(3), 322-328.
Darke, P. R., Freedman, J. L., and Chaiken, S. (1995). Percentage discounts, initial price, and bargain hunting: A heuristic-systematic approach to price search behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(5), 580-586.
Dean, D. H. and Biswas, A. (2001). Third-party organization endorsement of products: an advertising cue affecting consumer prepurchase evaluation of goods and services. Journal of Advertising, 30(4), 41-57.
Debono, K. G. and Harnish, R. J. (1988). Source expertise, source attractiveness, and the processing of persuasive information: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(4), 541-546.
Deval, H., Mantel, S. P., Kardes, F. R., & Posavac, S. S. (2013). How naive theories drive opposing inferences from the same information. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6), 1185-1201
Dimoka, A., Pavlou, P. A., and Davis, F. D. (2007). Neuro-IS: The potential of cognitive neuroscience for information systems research. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Information Systems. 11-13 July, 2007, Melbourne, Australia.
Eagly, A. H. and Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, College Publishers.
Eagly, A. H. and Warren, R. (1976). Intelligence, comprehension, and opinion change. Journal of Personality, 44(2), 226-242.
Eckel, C. C., Grossman, P. J., and Johnston, R. M. (2005). An experimental test of the crowding out hypothesis. Journal of Public Economics, 89(8), 1543-1560.
Elder, R. S. and Krishna, A. (2011). The “visual depiction effect” in advertising: Facilitating embodied mental simulation through product orientation. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 988-1003.
Fock, H., Chan, A. K., and Yan, D. (2011). Member–organization connection impacts in affinity marketing. Journal of Business Research, 64(7), 672-679.
Forehand, M., Gastil, J., and Smith, M. A. (2004). Endorsements as voting cues: Heuristic and systematic processing in initiative elections. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(11), 2215-2231.
Friedman, H. H. and Friedman, L. (1979). Endorser effectiveness by product type. Journal of Advertising Research, 19(5), 63-71.
Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N. J., Mortensen, C. R., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., and Kenrick, D. T. (2009). Fear and loving in Las Vegas: Evolution, emotion, and persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 384-395.
Harkins, S. G. and Petty, R. E. (1981a). Effects of source magnification of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information-processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(3), 401.
Harkins, S. G. and Petty, R. E. (1981b). The multiple source effect in persuasion: The effects of distraction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7(4), 627-635.
Hazlewood, D. and Chaiken, S. (1990). Personal relevance, majority influence, and the law of large numbers. Paper presented at the Poster presented at the 98th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Boston.
Heesacker, M., Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T. (1983). Field dependence and attitude change: Source credibility can alter persuasion by affecting message‐relevant thinking. Journal of Personality, 51(4), 653-666.
Hong, S.-T. and Wyer Jr, R. S. (1989). Effects of country-of-origin and product-attribute information on product evaluation: An information processing perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 175-187.
Hunt, R. R. and Einstein, G. O. (1981). Relational and item-specific information in memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(5), 497-514.
Kahle, L. R. and Homer, P. M. (1985). Physical attractiveness of the celebrity endorser: A social adaptation perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 954-961.
Kamins, M. A. (1990). An investigation into the “match-up” hypothesis in celebrity advertising: When beauty may be only skin deep. Journal of Advertising, 19(1), 4-13.
Kang, Y.-S. and Herr, P. M. (2006). Beauty and the beholder: Toward an integrative model of communication source effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 123-130.
Kanungo, R. N. and Pang, S. (1973). Effects of human models on perceived product quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(2), 172-178.
Karmarkar, U. R., Shiv, B., and Knutson, B. (2015). Cost conscious? The neural and behavioral impact of price primacy on decision making. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(4), 467-481.
Karmarkar, U. R. and Tormala, Z. L. (2010). Believe me, I have no idea what I’m talking about: The effects of source certainty on consumer involvement and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(6), 1033-1049.
Kenning, P. H. and Plassmann, H. (2008). How neuroscience can inform consumer research. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 16(6), 532-538.
Klapp, O. E. (1941). Imitation-value in advertising. Journal of Applied Psychology, 25(2), 243-250.
Klucharev, V., Smidts, A., and Fernández, G. (2008). Brain mechanisms of persuasion: how ‘expert power’modulates memory and attitudes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3(4), 353-366.
Koechlin, E., Basso, G., Pietrini, P., Panzer, S., and Grafman, J. (1999). The role of the anterior prefrontal cortex in human cognition. Nature, 399(6732), 148-151.
Leveroni, C. L., Seidenberg, M., Mayer, A. R., Mead, L. A., Binder, J. R., and Rao, S. M. (2000). Neural systems underlying the recognition of familiar and newly learned faces. Journal of Neuroscience, 20(2), 878-886.
Lien, N.-H. and Chen, Y.-L. (2013). Narrative ads: The effect of argument strength and story format. Journal of Business Research, 66(4), 516-522.
Locander, W. B. and Hermann, P. W. (1979). The effect of self-confidence and anxiety on information seeking in consumer risk reduction. Journal of Marketing Research, 268-274.
Lynch, J. and Schuler, D. (1994). The matchup effect of spokesperson and product congruency: A schema theory interpretation. Psychology & Marketing, 11(5), 417-445.
MacLeod, A., Buckner, R., Miezin, F., Petersen, S., and Raichle, M. (1998). Right anterior prefrontal cortex activation during semantic monitoring and working memory. Neuroimage, 7(1), 41-48.
Maheswaran, D. (1994). Country of origin as a stereotype: Effects of consumer expertise and attribute strength on product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 354-365.
Maheswaran, D. and Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1), 13-25.
Maheswaran, D., Mackie, D. M., and Chaiken, S. (1992). Brand name as a heuristic cue: The effects of task importance and expectancy confirmation on consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(4), 317-336.
Malaviya, P., Kisielius, J., and Sternthal, B. (1996). The effect of type of elaboration on advertisement processing and judgment. Journal of Marketing Research, 410-421.
Martin, B. A., Lang, B., Wong, S., and Martin, B. A. (2003). Conclusion explicitness in advertising: The moderating role of need for cognition (NFC) and argument quality (AQ) on persuasion. Journal of Advertising, 32(4), 57-66.
Martin, R. and Hewstone, M. (2003). Majority versus minority influence: When, not whether, source status instigates heuristic or systematic processing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(3), 313-330.
Martin, R., Hewstone, M., and Martin, P. Y. (2007). Systematic and heuristic processing of majority and minority-endorsed messages: The effects of varying outcome relevance and levels of orientation on attitude and message processing. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 33(1), 43-56.
Meyers-Levy, J. (1991). Elaborating on elaboration: The distinction between relational and item-specific elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(3), 358-367.
Meyers-Levy, J. and Malaviya, P. (1999). Consumers` processing of persuasive advertisements: An integrative framework of persuasion theories. The Journal of Marketing, 45-60.
Moore, D. J. and Reardon, R. (1987). Source magnification: The role of multiple sources in the processing of advertising appeals. Journal of Marketing Research, 412-417.
Park, C. W. and Lessig, V. P. (1981). Familiarity and its impact on consumer decision biases and heuristics. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2), 223-230.
Park, C. W., Mothersbaugh, D. L., and Feick, L. (1994). Consumer knowledge assessment. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 71-82.
Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1915-1926.
Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Issue involvement as a moderator of the effects on attitude of advertising content and context. NA-Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 8, 20-24.
Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 69.
Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. 19, 123-205.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., and Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 847.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., and Heesacker, M. (1981). Effects of rhetorical questions on persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(3), 432-440.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., and Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135-146.
Petty, R. E., Fleming, M. A., and White, P. H. (1999). Stigmatized sources and persuasion: prejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 19-34.
Petty, R. E., Harkins, S. G., and Williams, K. D. (1980). The effects of group diffusion of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information-processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(1), 81-92.
Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., Erb, H.-P., Spiegel, S., and Kruglanski, A. W. (2005). Informational length and order of presentation as determinants of persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(5), 458-469.
Priester, J. R. and Petty, R. E. (1995). Source attributions and persuasion: Perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6), 637-654.
Priester, J. R. and Petty, R. E. (2003). The influence of spokesperson trustworthiness on message elaboration, attitude strength, and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 408-421.
Ramnani, N. and Owen, A. M. (2004). Anterior prefrontal cortex: insights into function from anatomy and neuroimaging. Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 5(3), 184.
Ramsay, I. S., Yzer, M. C., Luciana, M., Vohs, K. D., and MacDonald Iii, A. W. (2013). Affective and executive network processing associated with persuasive antidrug messages. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(7), 1136-1147.
Rao, A. R. and Monroe, K. B. (1988). The moderating effect of prior knowledge on cue utilization in product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 253-264.
Ratneshwar, S., and Chaiken, S. (1991). Comprehension`s role in persuasion: The case of its moderating effect on the persuasive impact of source cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 52-62.
Reardon, J., Miller, C., Vida, I., and Kim, I. (2005). The effects of ethnocentrism and economic development on the formation of brand and ad attitudes in transitional economies. European Journal of Marketing, 39(7/8), 737-754.
Reimann, M., Schilke, O., Weber, B., Neuhaus, C., and Zaichkowsky, J. (2011). Functional magnetic resonance imaging in consumer research: A review and application. Psychology & Marketing, 28(6), 608-637.
Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. and Fazio, R. H. (1992). The accessibility of source likability as a determinant of persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(1), 19-25.
Rugg, M. D., Fletcher, P. C., Chua, P. M., and Dolan, R. J. (1999). The role of the prefrontal cortex in recognition memory and memory for source: An fMRI study. Neuroimage, 10(5), 520-529.
Sanbonmatsu, D. M. and Kardes, F. R. (1988). The effects of physiological arousal on information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 379-385.
Shamosh NA, DeYoung CG, Green AE, Reis DL, Johnson MR, Conway ARA, et al (2008). Individual differences in delay discounting: relation to intelligence, working memory, and anterior prefrontal cortex. Psychological Science, 19(9), 904-911.
Shavitt, S., Swan, S., Lowrey, T. M., and Wänke, M. (1994). The interaction of endorser attractiveness and involvement in persuasion depends on the goal that guides message processing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3(2), 137-162.
Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative Behavior. (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Stallen, M., Smidts, A., Rijpkema, M., Smit, G., Klucharev, V., and Fernández, G. (2010). Celebrities and shoes on the female brain: The neural correlates of product evaluation in the context of fame. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(5), 802-811.
Swasy, J. L. and Munch, J. M. (1985). Examining the target of receiver elaborations: Rhetorical question effects on source processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 877-886.
Trampe, D., Stapel, D. A., Siero, F. W., and Mulder, H. (2010). Beauty as a tool: The effect of model attractiveness, product relevance, and elaboration likelihood on advertising effectiveness. Psychology & Marketing, 27(12), 1101-1121.
Tripp, C., Jensen, T. D., and Carlson, L. (1994). The effects of multiple product endorsements by celebrities on consumers` attitudes and intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 535-547.
Tsai, C. I. and McGill, A. L. (2010). No pain, no gain? How fluency and construal level affect consumer confidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 807-821.
Wang A.L. Ruparel K. Loughead J.W. et al. (2013). Content matters: neuroimaging investigation of brain and behavioral impact of televised anti-tobacco public service announcements. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(17), 7420-7427.
Wang, Q. and Shukla, P. (2013). Linking sources of consumer confusion to decision satisfaction: the role of choice goals. Psychology & Marketing, 30(4), 295-304.
Woo, K.-s., Fock, H. K., and Hui, M. K. (2006). An analysis of endorsement effects in affinity marketing: The case for affinity credit cards. Journal of Advertising, 35(3), 103-113.
Yoon, C., Gutchess, A. H., Feinberg, F., and Polk, T. A. (2006). A functional magnetic resonance imaging study of neural dissociations between brand and person judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 31-40.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 59-70.
Zhu, R. and Meyers-Levy, J. (2007). Exploring the cognitive mechanism that underlies regulatory focus effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(1), 89-96. |
| Description: | 博士
國立政治大學
企業管理學系
100355503 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1003555033 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/DIS.NCCU.BA.002.2018.F08 |
| Appears in Collections: | [企業管理學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 503301.pdf | 3414Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 5 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
