Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/38331
|
| Title: | 電視廣告訊息中「內團體意識」之研究
A study of in-group consciousness in TV advertisements. |
| Authors: | 李朝榮 |
| Contributors: | 鄭自隆
李朝榮 |
| Keywords: | 內團體意識
廣告表現
團體認同
廣告訴求
團體偏私
核心概念
訊息解讀
情感認同
歸因要素
背景歸因
社會歸因
文化歸因
生活型態
個體歸因
廣告創意
訊息策略
說服理論
in-group consciousness
advertisement performance
group acceptance
advertisement requirements
group favoritism
core concept
message interpretation
emotional acceptance
attributes factor
background attribute
social attribute
cultural attribute
lifestyle
individual attribute
advertisement creativity
message tactic
persuading theory |
| Date: | 2008 |
| Issue Date: | 2010-04-09 14:13:34 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 廣告的目的，是用來與「目標消費者」進行訊息溝通與傳達，而不是自我藝術美感的創作與表達。廣告的內容，是將「廣告訊息」，藉由編碼，正確的傳遞給目標消費者（閱聽人）。而有說服力的廣告，就會是可以幫助銷售的好廣告。在消費者對於廣告解讀的論述中，出現了許多影響訊息說服與溝通的閱聽人的心理意識，包括了消費者的特質、生活型態、價值觀，文化、社會認同、社會地位、群體同儕、品味、成就、以及夢想等。越能以這些因素，引起閱聽人共鳴，就能夠越容易完成訊息傳遞的目的。
而這些心理意識，就是「內團體意識」中，區分內、外團體的歸因要素。有了情感上的歸屬，訊息傳遞就可以比較容易。電視廣告在「內團體意識」的包裝下，消費者（想要）及（接受）的心理因素不斷的被提到，被群體「認同」的需求，一再的被滿足，期望一再的被塑造。隨著「內團體意識」的表現，在經歷了認知、情感、行為三個階段後，溝通目的才開始清楚的完成。
為瞭解「內團體意識」如何建構電視廣告訊息？有何表現上的可歸納的操作指標，本研究以內容分析法，選擇自1980年～現今2009年之間，具有「內團體意識」表現方式的電視廣告影片110支，以年代別及FCB模式商品分類別兩種方式，進行包括表達元素、表達形式、背景歸因、社會歸因、文化歸因、生活風格歸因、個體歸因等相關要素的表現分析與研究。
研究整理後發現，「內團體意識」在電視廣告訊息的表現中，以「情感認同」為核心，藉由「滿足需求」、「消費描述」及「建構想像」做為基本創意概念。另外，電視廣告片中大多必要且慣用「內團體意識」，甚至在許多的電視廣告中，會有一個或多個內團體意識的歸因元素同時存在。部份內團體意識，只是創意與橋段的表現，與原本要訴求對象的「團體意識」並不會衝突。最後也發現，似乎越是特殊的商品或勞務，就越需要使用「內團體意識」，來做為電視廣告中重要溝通核心。
關鍵字：內團體意識、廣告表現、團體認同、廣告訴求、團體偏私、核心概念、訊息解讀、情感認同、歸因要素、背景歸因、社會歸因、文化歸因、生活型態、個體歸因、廣告創意、訊息策略、說服理論。
The intention of advertisement is to provide a message to the targeted consumer and communicate rather than a presentation of individual expression and creativity. The core meaning of an advertisement is to transfer a key message embedded with advertising means successfully to its target receiver; furthermore, an outstanding advertisement will be able to fulfill the intention of marketing and sales. An exposition regarding consumer advertisement decoding denoted numerous variables that potentially alter the protocol of message receiver and his way of interpreting a message. This includes an individual consumer’s characteristic, lifestyle, value, culture, social acceptance, social status, social circle, taste, accomplishment, and vision. Messages embedded with such variables tend to create sympathy between the message and the receiver; as a result, creates a psychological bonding in which grows more powerful whenever a new variable reaches its echo with the receiver.
Such psychological behaviors are the essential attributes differentiating the in-group consciousness from out-group consciousness of an individual. With a sentimental bonding, messages can be transmitted more accurately and efficiently. Television advertisement exercise constant implicit of this in-group conscious behavior, by repeating intimation of “desire” and “acceptance” to the receiver, continuous fulfillment of ones the necessitate aspiration, and constant creation of expectation. As the realization of the in-group consciousness continues, the purpose of communication is only fully accomplished after an individual have gone through acknowledgement, emotion, and into action.
To understand how in-group consciousness establishes and executes television ad messages and its protocols. This research suggested using content analysis; by selecting 110 Television ad clips that possesses in-group consciousness implementation in between 1980 to 2009 and analyze them in two ways–era differentiation and product type under FCB protocol. This study focused on observing and analyzing the performance of variables such as expressing element, expressing form, background, social, cultural, lifestyle, individual attributes, and other related elements.
After the compilation of results, this research suggests that most television ads exercise in-group consciousness intentionally to create a common attribute among its listeners. By establishing sensational acceptance
as the core criteria, advertisements then elaborates on other attributes such as satisfying needs, consuming behavior, and image establishment to create the basic concept of creativity. Furthermore, this research shows that a large number of advertisements exercise one or more in-group consciousness attribute within them. Some of the in-group consciousness exercised in ads is portrayed simply due to creative and plotting needs and doesn’t actually create a conflict with the central in-group consciously. This research also found that the more unique or special a product or service is, the more dependant its advertisement will be on in-group consciousness.
Keywords: in-group consciousness, advertisement performance, group acceptance, advertisement requirements, group favoritism, core concept, message interpretation, emotional acceptance, attributes factor, background attribute, social attribute, cultural attribute, lifestyle, individual attribute, advertisement creativity, message tactic, persuading theory. |
| Reference: | 中文部份
王石番(1991)，《傳播內容分析法─理論與實證》，台北：幼獅文化。
杜瓊瑜(1998)。《團體認同與行為意向的探討》。國立政治大學心理學硏究所碩士論文。
杜瑞澤(2004)。《生活型態設計－文化、生活、消費與產品設計》，台北：亞太。
別蓮蒂主筆(2006)。《E-ICP2006台灣消費者生活型態白皮書》，台北：東方線上。
李永清譯(1993)，《廣告創意：表現的科學》，台北：威仕曼文化。
林盈錫(2000)。《從生活型態觀點探討產品企劃之策略》，國立成功大學工業設計硏究所碩士論文。
林增祥譯(2000)。《本我惡魔—與佛洛依德對談》，台北：商周。（原書：David L Weiner.&Gilbert M. Hefter.Battling the Inner Dummy－The Craziness of Apparently Normal People.）
周文賢、高滋芬(1993)，《市場分析及廣告策略研擬》，台北：華泰書局。
周亦龍(2005)。《做廣告，不要忽略人性》，台北：海鷗文化。
東方史(2004)。《新關係學》，台北：海鷗文化。
徐振興（1993）。《閱聽人族群認同感與其對不同類型廣告偏好度之關聯性研究》，私立中國文化大學新聞研究所碩士論文。
徐光國(1996)。《社會心理學》，台北：五南。
孫蒨如(1997)。《自我肯定對內團體偏私現象的影響》。國立中原大學心理學硏究所碩士論文。
孫智綺譯(2002)。《布赫迪厄社會學的第一課》，台北：麥田。（原書：Patrice Bonnewitz）
孫治平(2004)。《個人化與生活風格社群》，台北：唐山。
祝鳳岡(1996)。《廣告理性訴求策略》。廣告學研究，8，85-112
許正聖(1994)。《中國人的內團體偏私行為─從關係角度探討社會認同理論》。國立政治大學心理學硏究所碩士論文。
許世輝(1994)。《情境差異、內團體類別對內團體偏私的影響：以中國人的人己關係為例》。國立中正大學心理學硏究所碩士論文。
張嘉文(1995)。《FCB廣告策略模型與PLC階段之相關研究》。國立中興大學企業管理硏究所碩士論文。
張永誠(1986)。《決策者謀略》，台北：遠流。
張滿玲譯(1999)。《社會心理學》。台北市：雙葉書廊。
楊國樞等編(1978)，《社會及行為科學研究法》，台北：東華書局。
楊朝陽(1994)，《廣告企劃=Advertising Planning》，台北：朝陽堂。
楊朝陽(1994)，《實用創意法= Operational creativity》，台北：朝陽堂。
楊家驥(2000)，《以內容分析法改進網站內容之探討─以自助旅遊為例》，國立暨南國際大學資訊管理硏究所碩士論文。
榮泰生(1996)，《廣告策略》，台北：五南圖書。
黃識銘(1999)，《「生活型態」、「消費態度」與「消費行為」之關連性硏究 : 臺灣地區世代群剖析》，私立元智大學管理硏究所碩士論文。
錢玉芬(2007)，《傳播心理學：Communication psychology》，台北，威仕曼文化。
黃君慧等譯(2002)。《消費者行為概論》。台北市：台灣培生教育
蔡焜霖譯(1993)，《新廣告心理》，台北：朝陽堂。
謝旭洲(2008)，《社會統計與資料分析》，台北：威士曼文化。
蕭湘文(2005)，《廣告傳播-Advertising communications》，台北：威仕曼文化。
英文部份
Adams, T. (1999). A new dimension for market researchers. Marketing Research, 11(3), 32-33.
Allen, V. L., & Wilder, D. A. (1975). Categorization, beliefs similarity, and intergroup discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 971-977.
Alt, M. & Griggs, S. (1988). Can a Brand be Cheeky? Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 6(4), 9-16.
Billig, M. G., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behavior, European Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 27-52.
Birdwell, Al E. (1968). A study of Influence of Image Congruence on Consumer choice, Journal of Business, 41(1), 76-88.
Brierley , S.(1995). The Advertising Handbook, London & New York: Routledge.
Brown, R. J., & Turner, J.C.(1979). The criss-cross categorization effect in intergroup discrimination. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,18,371-383.
Crocker, J., & Schwartz, I. (1985). Prejudice and ingroup favoritism in a minimal intergroup situation: Effects of self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 379-386.
Dale, Carnegie. (1978). How to win friends and influence people . 台灣：皇家圖書。
Doyle, P. (1990). Buliding Successful brands: the strategic options. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 7(6), 5-20.
Englis, B. G. (1994). Global and Multinational advertising, Hillsadle, New Jersey: Lawence Erlbaum Associates.
Ewen , S.(1988). All Consumong Images:The Politics of Style in Contemporary Culture. New York: Basic Books.
Fournier, Susan. (1994). A consumer-Brand Relationship Framework for Strategy Brand Management: Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida.
Fowles , J.(1996). Advertising and Popular Culture, Sage.
Gengler, C. E. & Reynolds, T. J. (1995). Consumer understanding and advertising strategy：Analysis and strategic translation of laddering data. Journal of Advertising Research, 35(4), 19-36.
Haley, Russell L., Richardson, Jack, & Baldwin, Beth M. (1984). The effects of Nonverbal Communications in Television Advertising, Journal of Advertising Research, 24, 11-18.
Hofstede, Geert(1984). Culture’s Consequence. London: Sage Publications,15-20.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988).Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group process. New York:Routledge.
Jones, G. V. (1983). Identifying basic categories. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 423-428.
Kahn, A., & Ryan, A. H. (1972). Factors influencing the bias towards one’s own group. International Journal of Group Tension, 2, 33-50.
Kolter, P. (2003). Marketing Management. New Jersey：Pearson Education.
Macleod, C. (2002). Marketing must show its insight into consumers, Marketing,4,18.
Michael E. Sobel. (1981). Lifestyle and social structure : concepts, definitions, analysis . New York: Academic Press.
Oakes, P. J., Turner, J.C.(1980). Social categorization and intergroup behavior: does minimal intergroup discrimination make social identity more positive? European Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 295-301.
Ogilvy, D. (1985). Ogilvy on advertising. New York：First Vintage House, Random House.
Polley, R. W. (1983). Measuring the cultural values manifest in advertising. Current Issue and Research in Advertising, 5, 71-92.
Rabbie, J. M., & Horwitz, (1969).Arousal of ingroup-outgroup bias by a chance win or loss. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,13, 269-277.
Solomon, Michael R.(2002). Consumer Behavior, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Tajfel, H. (1982). The social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1-39.
Weber, Robert P. (1985). Basic Content Analysis, Beverly Hills, Calif：Sage Publications, 9-10.
Wilder, D. A. (1986). Cognitive factors affecting the success of intergroup contact. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin(Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Wilson, W., & Miller, N.(1961).Shifts in evaluations of participants following intergroup competition. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 428-431.
Zukeman, M.(1979). The motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory. Journal of Personality, 47, 245-287. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
傳播學院碩士在職專班
96941014
97 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0096941014 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [傳播學院碩士在職專班] 學位論文
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
