政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/59222
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113392/144379 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51230100      線上人數 : 903
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋
    政大機構典藏 > 商學院 > 企業管理學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/59222


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/59222


    題名: 企業社會責任類型對消費者認知之影響-以調節焦點與構念階層為調節變數
    Type of Corporate Social Responsibility Impact on Consumer Awareness - Regulatory Focus and Construal Level as Moderators
    作者: 鄭佩蓉
    貢獻者: 張愛華
    鄭佩蓉
    關鍵詞: 企業社會責任
    焦點調節
    構念階層
    日期: 2012
    上傳時間: 2013-09-02 15:15:02 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 企業的營運範圍越趨擴大也面臨更多的挑戰，除了做好基本的營運外，若能夠以消費者的觀點來實施企業社會責任，可能使在後續經營的成效更為卓越、永續。近來企業對於企業社會責任越趨重視，然而企業對社會責任的活動類型應如何選擇？應如何溝通？其效果是否與被溝通的對象之特性有關？仍有待釐清，本研究嘗試對這些問題加以探討，期能對企業的社會責任之策略選擇有所助益。
    本研究透過預試的調查法以及兩階段的實驗法，共計發放766份問卷，並經由迴歸分析、變異數分析等方法得出下列研究結論：
    1.將企業社會責任歸類為興利型與除弊型兩類，其中興利型為積極提供對社會有益的福利；而除弊型為減少或避免在合法營運過程中對於社會造成的不利衝擊。
    2.當企業執行興利型的社會責任活動時，消費者對該企業的「社會責任認知」高於企業執行除弊型的社會責任活動時之認知。
    3.當企業社會責任活動為興利型時，不論何種調節焦點的消費者皆會對該企業有較高的社會責任認知。
    4.當企業社會責任活動為除弊型時，採用高構念階層溝通會使消費者對該企業的社會責任認知顯著高於採低構念階層溝通。
    5.當企業社會責任活動為除弊型時，CSR活動之溝通表達較為具體時，運用社會距離較遠的代言人時，將較社會距離近的代言人能使消費者有較佳的企業CSR形象認知。
    6.企業社會責任認知為企業社會責任類型(興利型、除弊型)與購買意願之關係的中介因子。
    綜合研究結果，本研究建議企業應謹慎選擇企業社會責任類型，且應該選擇容易被消費者了解的溝通方式，才能有良好的企業社會責任認知。
    Increasingly expanding the scope of business operations also face more challenges, in addition to doing the basic operations, but if the consumer`s point of view to be able to implement corporate social responsibility, may be more effective in subsequent operations excellence, and sustainable. Recently, enterprises are increasingly attach importance to corporate social responsibility,but which type of activities should be selected? How to communicate? Whether the effect of the characteristics of the object being to communicate about? Remains to be clarified, this study attempts to explore these issues, hoping for corporate social responsibility strategy selection helpful.
    This study pretest survey method and two-stage experiment, a total of 766 questionnaires were distributed, via regression analysis, variance analysis and other methods draw the following conclusions:
    1. Classified the corporate social responsibility into proactive and reactive types.Proactive type is active in providing socially useful benefits; while reactive type is to reduce or avoid the legitimate operation of the process of the adverse impact on society.
    2. When corporate social responsibility executive proactive type activities, the enterprises of consumers` awareness of social responsibility will better than when corporate social responsibility executive reactive type.
    3. When corporate social responsibility executive proactive type activities, regardless of consumers` regulatory focus will have a higher awareness of social responsibility for the enterprises than executive reactive type activities.
    4. When corporate social responsibility executive reactive type activities, with high construal level of communication, consumers will construct the social responsibility of the enterprise significantly higher than low construal level of communication.
    5. When corporate social responsibility executive reactive type activities, and CSR activities express more specific, using the spokesperson`s social distance farther to consumers will have a better image of corporate CSR awareness than using the spokesperson`s social distance closer to consumers.
    6. CSR awareness of corporate social responsibility is CSR type (proactive type and reactive type) and purchase intention mediator.
    Based on the findings, this study suggests that companies should carefully select the type of corporate social responsibility, and should choose easily understood by consumers of communication, in order to have a good awareness of corporate social responsibility
    參考文獻: 一、中文部分
    林宜諄、高希均(2008)。企業社會責任入門手冊。台灣:天下文化出版。
    林怡萱(2011)。企業社會責任表現對消費者知覺及購買意向之研究。國立台灣中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
    涂金堂(2011)。SPSS與量化研究。台北：五南文化出版
    馬慶玲(2011)。調節焦點影響廣告之研究。國立政治大學心理學研究所碩士論文。
    張懷予(2009)。企業社會責任與行銷溝通工具、企業特徵對購買態度影響之研究－以食品業為例。東吳大學國際經營與貿易學系碩士班國際企業組碩士論文。
    陳文姿(2011)。從企業社會責任與綠色智慧資本探討台灣銀行業的永續經營效益。國立東華大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
    簡以潔(2011)。以消費者－公司認同為中介變數探討企業社會責任認知與購買意願之關係。國立政治大學企業管理學系碩士論文。

    二、外文部分
    Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2001). ‘I’ seek pleasures and ‘We’ avoid pain: The role of self-regulatory goal in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (1), 33-49.
    Aaker, J. L., & Maheswaran, D. (1997). The effect of cultural orientation on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (3), 315-328.
    Aaker, J. L., & Williams, P. (1998). Empathy versus pride: The influence of emotional appeals across cultures. Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (3), 241-261.
    Agerstrom, J., Bjo¨rklund, F., & Allwoodm, C. M. (2009). The influence of temporal distance on justice and care morality. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51(1), 46-p55.
    Alcaniz, E. B., Caceres, R. C., & Perez, R. C. (2010). Alliances between brands and social causes: The influence of company credibility on social responsibility image. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 169-186.
    Amaeshi, K. M., Osuji, O. K., & Nnodim, P.(2008). Corporate social responsibility in supply chains of global brands: A boundaryless responsibility? Clarifications, exceptions, and implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 223–234.
    Ambady, N., Koo, JF., & Rosenthal, R. (1996). More than words: Longuistic and nonlinguistic politeness in two cultures. Journal of Personaality and Social Psychology, 70, 996-1011
    Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 46–53
    Berens, G., Riel, C. B. M., & Bruggen, G. H. (2005). Corporate associations and consumer product responses: The moderating role of corporate brand dominance. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 35-48.
    Berger, C. P. H., & Drumwright, M. E. (2006). Identity, identification, and relationship through social alliances. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 128-137.
    Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identifican: A framework for understanding consumers` relationships with companies. Journal of Market -ing, 67(2), 76-88.
    Bornemann, T., & Homburt, C. (2011). Psychological distance and the dual role of price. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 490-504.
    Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. N.Y.: Harper and Brothers.
    Brown, T. J., Dacin, P. A., Pratt, M. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2006). Identity, intended image, construed image, and reputation: An interdisciplinary framework and suggested terminology. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 99.
    Brunk, K. H. (2010). Exploring origins of ethical company/brand perceptions: A consumer perspective of corporate ethics. Journal of Business Research, 63(3), 255-262.
    Brunk, K.H., & Blümelhuber, C. (2011). One strike and your`re out: Qualitative insights into the formation of consumers` ethical company or brand perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 64 (2), 134-141
    Carroll, A. B. (1978). Linking business ethics to behavior in organizations. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 43(3), 4-11.
    Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48.
    Collier, J., & Esteban, R. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and employee commitment. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16(1), 19-33.
    Creyer, E. H. (1997). The influence of firm behavior on purchase intention: Do consumers really care about business ethics? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(6), 421-432.
    Darigan, K. H., & Post, J. E. (2009). Corporate citizenship in China. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 35(3), 39-52.
    Douglas, L., & Medin, H. G. (2012). Construal levels and moral judgment：Some complications. Judgment and Decision Making ,7(5),630.
    Ebert, J. E. J. (2005). Self-sympathy in the short term: Self-other differences in long term benefits and short term costs. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 182-183.
    Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of twenty first century business. Oxford: Capstone.
    Freitas, A. L., Gollwitzer, P., & Trope, Y. (2004). The influence of abstract and concrete mindsets on anticipating and guiding others’ self-regulatory efforts. Journal of Experimental Social psychology, 40 (6), 739–52.
    Freitas, A., Salovey, P., & Liberman, N. (2001). Abstract and concrete self-evaluation goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (3), 410-424
    Gardberg, N. A., & Fombrun, C. J. (2006). Corporate citizenship: Creating intangible assets across institutional environments. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 329-346.
    Guenster, N., Bauer, R., Derwall, J., & Koedijk, K. (2011). The economic value of corporate eco-efficiency. European Financial Management, 17(4), 679-704 .
    Hakkyun, K., Akshay, R. R., & Angela, Y. L. (2009). It’s time to vote: The effect of matching message orientation and temporal frame on political persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 877-889.
    Haws, K. L., Dholakia, M. U., & Bearden, W. O. (2010). An assessment of chronic regulatory focus measures. Journal of Marketing Research,47(2),p.967-982.
    Heslin, P. A., & Ochoa, J. D. (2008). Understanding and developing strategic corporate social responsibility. Organizational Dynamics, 37(2), 125-144.
    Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300.
    Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1217-1230.
    Higgins, E. T. (2002). How self-regulation creates distinct values: The case of promotion and prevention decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(3), 177-191.
    Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological Review, 113, 439-460
    Higgins, E. T., & Mark, P. Z. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1-46.
    Higgins, E. T., Idson, L. C., Freitas, A. L., Spiegel, S., & Molden, D. C. (2003). Transfer of value from fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1140-1153.
    Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J. R., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance: Distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(2), 276-286.
    Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and losses from nongains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(3), 252-274.
    Joireman, J., David, E. S.,& Spangenberg, E. R. (2005). Fiscal responsibility and the consideration of future consequences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39 (6), 1159–1168
    Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 (2), 205-218.
    Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (6), 1122-1134.
    Liberman, N., & Trope Y. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322, 1201-1205.
    Liberman, N., Y., & Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles(pp. 353-383),, N. Y.: Guilford Press.
    Liberman, N. I., & Camacho, C. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1999). Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 (12), 1135-1145.
    Lin, C. P. (2010). Modeling corporate citizenship, organizational trust, and work engagement based on attachment theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(4), 517-531.
    Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1256-1269.
    Marin, L., & Ruiz, S. (2007). I need you too! Corporate identity attractiveness for consumers and the role of social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(3), 245-260.
    Mark, D. G., Pronschinske, M. R., & Matthew, W. (2011). Perceived organizational motives and consumer responses to proactive and reactive CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 639-652.
    McGuire, J. W. (1963). Business and society: McGraw-Hill Companies.
    Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45-72.
    O’Connor, A., Shumate, M., & Meister, M. (2008). Walk the line: Active moms defines corporate social responsibility. Public Relations Review, 34(4), 343- 350.
    Perez, R. C. (2009). Effects of perceived identity based on corporate social responsibility: the role of consumer identification with the company. Corporate Reputation Review, 12(2), 177-191.
    Porter, E. M., & Kramer, R. M. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56-69.
    Porter, E. M., & Kramer, R. M. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility and environmental management. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92.
    Ricks, J. M. Jr. (2005). An assessment of strategic corporate philanthropy on perceptions of brand equity variables. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(3), 121– 134.
    Sethi, S. P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytical framework. California Management Review, 17(3), 58-64.
    Sharma, D., Borna, S., & Stearns, J. M. (2009). An investigation of the effects of corporate ethical values on employee commitment and performance: Examining the moderating role of perceived fairness. Journal of business ethics, 89(2), 251-260.
    Singh, J., de los Salmones Sanchez, M. M. G., & del Bosque, I. R. (2008). Understanding corporate social responsibility and product perceptions in consumer markets: A cross-cultural evaluation. Journal of business ethics, 80(3), 597-611.
    Smith, P. K.,, & Trope, Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 578–596.Stephan, E., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2010). Politeness and psychological distance: A construal level perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 268-280.
    Stephan, E., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2011). The effects of time perspective and level of construal on social distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 397-402.
    Sweller,J.,Van Merrienboer,J. G., & Paas, F. G.W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review,10(3),251-297.
    Tangari, A., Heintz, J. A. Garretson, F., Scot, B., & Jeremy, K. (2010). The moderating influence of consumers’ temporal orientation on the framing of societal needs and corporate responses in cause-related marketing campaigns. Journal of Advertising, 39(2), 35–50.
    Tumasjan, C., Christopher, J., Higgins E. T., & Lugar, L. (2003). Moral value transfer from regulatory fit: What feels right is right and what feels wrong is wrong. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (3), 498-510
    Tumasjan, A., Strobel, M., & Welpe, I. (2011). Ethical leadership evaluations after moral transgression: social distance makes the difference. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 609–622
    Vallacher, R. R., & Daniel, M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94 (1), 3–15.
    Vilanova, M., Lozano, J. M., & Arenas, D. (2009). Exploring the nature of the relationship between CSR and competitiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 57-69.
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    企業管理研究所
    100355059
    101
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100355059
    資料類型: thesis
    顯示於類別:[企業管理學系] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 大小格式瀏覽次數
    505901.pdf2223KbAdobe PDF2200檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋