線上拍賣忠誠意圖之探討—
從科技接受模式、信任和公平觀點

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：17

、訪客IP：3.145.21.205

姓名

邱俊融(Chun-jung Chiu) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

資訊管理學系

論文名稱

線上拍賣忠誠意圖之探討— 從科技接受模式、信任和公平觀點
(Understanding Online Auction Loyalty Intentions: Contributions from TAM, Trust, and Justice Perspectives )

相關論文

★ 境外器官移植遠距照護需求之探討	★ 個人社會網絡服務使用行為之研究：整合使用與滿足理論和媒體系統依賴理論
★ 虛擬社群知識分享行為研究—期待與價值扮演的角色	★ 虛擬社群知識分享持續意圖之探討—公平與知識品質所扮演的角色
★ 探討虛擬實務社群之持續知識分享意圖	★ 以社會資本理論探討虛擬社群中的認知社會閒散行為與社群凝聚力
★ Exploring Consumers’ Coping Behaviors in Online Double Deviation Scenarios: From Power Perspective

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

近年來伴隨著網際網路的快速發展，提供了電子商務發展的基礎，使得網路已成為僅次於傳統實體通路外的最重要銷售管道。其中線上拍賣的快速成長格外引人注意，其隱藏龐大的市場潛能，未來勢必成為消費者購物的重要管道。因此，對於線上拍賣網站業者及線上拍賣賣家而言，了解線上拍賣買家再次購買意圖的影響因素就變的格外重要。
本研究結合科技接受模式、信任理論，提出一個整合性的解釋模型來探討認知有用性(perceived usefulness)、認知易用性(perceived ease of use)和信任(trust)對於線上拍賣買家忠誠意圖(loyalty intention)之影響，並進一步結合過去常應用在組織行為領域的公平理論，探究分配公平(distributive justice)、程序公平(procedural justice)和互動公平(interactional justice)對於線上拍賣信任建立產生的影響。本研究透過網路問卷收集有線上拍賣經驗的樣本資料，並使用LISREL來進行SEM 分析，以檢驗本研究模型和相關假說。
本研究結果發現認知有用性、認知易用性和信任對於線上拍賣買家的忠誠意圖有顯著且正向的影響，而分配公平、程序公平和互動公平為信任建立的重要因素。本篇研究在學術上的貢獻為首次將公平理論運用在線上拍賣領域，可以作為日後探討網路使用者行為研究的依據。在管理上的貢獻為提供給線上拍賣網站業者及線上拍賣賣家未來經營的一個思考架構，可透過本研究模型來找出可以強化買家忠誠意圖的地方。

摘要(英)

The development of Internet in recent years has facilitated the rapid growth of e-commerce and makes Internet become the most important sales channel. Because of the rapid growth of the online auction market, the online auction market will become one of the most important shopping channels despite traditional channels. Therefore, to understand the loyalty intentions of online auction buyers becomes more and more important for online auction marketplace providers and online auction sellers.
The research extended the technology acceptance model (TAM) by introducing justice perceptions and trust into a theoretical model for studying buyer’’s loyalty intentions in the context of online auction. The research model was tested with data collected from 310 buyers in Yahoo! Kimo’’s online auction marketplace in Taiwan. The study shows that perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and trust are significant positive predictors of buyers’’ loyalty intentions toward online auction. The study also provides evidence that online trust is built through buyers’’ perceptions of distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice. Implications for theory and practice and suggestions for future research are discussed.

關鍵字(中)

★ 公平
★ 信任
★ 科技接受模式
★ 電子商務
★ 線上拍賣
★ 忠誠意圖

關鍵字(英)

★ justice
★ TAM
★ trust
★ online auction
★ e-commerce
★ loyalty intention

論文目次

目錄 i
圖目錄 ii
表目錄 iii
第壹章緒論 1
第一節、研究背景 1
第二節、研究動機與目的 2
第三節、研究流程 4
第貳章文獻探討 6
第一節、科技接受模式 6
第二節、信任理論 14
第三節、公平理論 19
第參章研究模型與假說 26
第一節、研究模型 26
第二節、研究假說 27
第肆章研究方法 32
第一節、問卷設計 32
第二節、資料收集 35
第三節、分析工具及方法 35
第四節、資料分析 36
第伍章結論及建議 48
第一節、研究結果及討論 48
第二節、研究貢獻及管理與實務意涵 50
第三節、研究限制 51
第四節、未來研究方向 52
參考文獻 53
附錄：本研究正式問卷 62

參考文獻

1. Adams, J. S., “Toward an understanding of inequity”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67:422-436, 1963.
2. Adams, J. S., “Inequity in Social Exchange”, In L. Berkowitz(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.2, pp. 267-299, New York: Academic Press, 1965.
3. Adams, J. S., & Freedman, S., Equity theory revisited: bibliography. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), psychology , 9, 43-90. New York: Academic Press, 1976.
4. Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R., & Todd, P. A., “Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: A replication”, MIS Quarterly, 16, pp. 227-247, 1992.
5. Alexander S. & Ruderman, M., “The Role of Procedural and Distributive Justice in Organizational Behavior”, Social Justice Research, Vol.1. No.2, pp. 177-198, 1987.
6. Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X., “Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange model”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), pp. 267-285, 2002.
7. Baier, A., Moral Prejudices, London, Routledge, 1994.
8. Bies, R. J. & Moag, J. S., “Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness”, Research on Negotiation in Organizations, Vol.1, pp. 43-55, 1986.
9. Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L., “Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts”, Social Justice Research, 1(2), pp. 199-218, 1987.
10. Binter, Bernard M. Booms, and Mary Stanfield Tetreault, “The Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable Incidents”, Journal of Marketing, 54 (January), pp. 71-85, 1990.
11. Bosnjak, M., Obermeier D., Tuten T.L., “Predicting and explaining the propensity to bid in online auctions: a comparison of two action-theoretical models”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5, 2, pp. 102-115, 2006.
12. Brashear, T.G.,Manolis, C., Brooks, C.M., “The Effects of Control, Trust, and Justice on Salesperson Turnover”, Journal of Business Research, March, Vol.58, 3, pp. 241-250, 2005.
13. Brewer, M. B., and Silver, M., “Ingroup Bias as a Function of Task Characteristics”, European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, pp. 393-400, 1978.
14. Brockner, J., and Siegel, P., Understanding the interaction between procedural and distributive Justice: The role of trust. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler(Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, pp. 390-413, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996.
15. Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R., Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 136–162, 1993.
16. Buckley, P.J., and Casson, M., “A Theory of Cooperation in International Business,” in Cooperative Strategies in International Business, F. J. Contractor and P. Lorange (eds.), Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 31-53, 1988.
17. Chin, W. W., and Gopal, A. "Adoption Intention in GSS: Relative Importance of Beliefs," Data Base (26:2,3), pp. 42-63, May/August 1995.
18. Chin, W. C. and P. A. Todd, “On the Use, Usefulness and Ease of Use of Structural Equation Modeling in MIS Research: A Note of Caution”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 237-246, 1995.
19. Clemmer, E. C., & Schneider, B., Fair service. Advances in services marketing and management, 5(4), pp. 109-126. Coleman, J.S., Foundations of Social Theory, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996.
20. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, O. L., & Ng, K.Y., Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research, American Psychological Association, 86, pp. 425-444, 2001.
21. Davis, F. D., A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-user Information Systems: Theory and Results, Doctoral Dissertation, Sloan school of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1986.
22. Davis, F. D., “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology”, MIS Quarterly, 13(3), pp. 319-340, 1989.
23. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R., “User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, 35, pp. 982-1003, 1989.
24. Deutsch, M., “Trust and suspicion”, Conflict Resolution, Vol.2, pp. 265~279, 1958.
25. Deutsch, M., Distributive justice: A social-psychological per-spective, New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1985.
26. Devaraj, S., Fan, M., & Kohli, R., “Antecedents of b2C channel satisfaction and preference: Validation e-commerce metrics”, Information Systems Research, 13(3), pp. 316-333, 2002.
27. Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P. “An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships,” Journal of Marketing (61), pp. 35-51, April 1997.
28. Dowling, G.R., and Staelin, R., “A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended Risk-Handling Activity”, Journal of Consumer Research (21:1), pp. 119-134, 1994.
29. Driscoll, J. W., “Trust and participation in organizational decision making as predictors of satisfaction”, Academy of Management Journal, 21, pp. 44-56, 1978.
30. Featherman, M. S., Extending the Technology Acceptance Model by Inclusion of Perceived Risk. American Conference on Information Systems, Boston, 2001.
31. Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I., “Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research,” Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975.
32. Fisk, R. P., & Coney, K. A., “Postchoice evaluation: An equity theory analysis of consumer satisfaction / dissatisfaction with service choices”, In H. K. Hunt & R. L. Day (Eds.), Conceptual and empirical contributions to consumer satisfaction and com-plaining behavior, pp. 9-16, Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University School of Business, 1982.
33. Folger, R. & Konovsky, M. A., “Effects of Procedural Justice and Distributive on Reactions to Pay Raise Decisions”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.32, No.1, pp.115-130, 1989.
34. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F., “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobervables and Measurement Error”, Journal of Marketing Research, 18, pp. 39-50, 1981.
35. Fukuyama, F., Trust: the social virtues and the creation of prosperity, New York: Free Press, 1995.
36. Furby, L., Psychology and Justice. In R. L. Cohen (ED.). Justice: Views from the Social Science, pp. 153-203, New York: Plenum, 1986.
37. Gefen, D., “E-commerce: The Role of Familiarity and Trust” , Omega (28:6), pp. 725-737, 2000.
38. Gefen, D., “TAM or just plain habit: A look at experienced online shoppers”, Journal of End User Computing, 15(3), pp. 1-13, 2003.
39. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W. “Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model”, MIS Quarterly, (27:1), pp. 51-90, 2003.
40. Gefen, D., Straub, D.W., “Managing User Trust in B2C e-Services”, e-Service Journal (2:2), pp. 7-25, Winter2003.
41. Gefen, D., Straub, D.W., “Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: an extension to the technology acceptance model”, MIS Quarterly , 21(4), pp. 389–400, 1997.
42. Gilliland, S. W., “The perceived fairness of selection system: An organizational justice perspective”, Academy of Management Re- view, 18(4), pp. 694-734, 1993.
43. Goodwin, Cathy, and Ivan Ross, “Consumer Response to Service Failure: Influence of Procedural and Interactional Fairness Perceptions,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 25, Iss. 2, pp. 149-163, 1992.
44. Greenberg, J., “Approaching equity and avoiding inequity in groups and organizations”, Equity and justice in social behavior, pp. 389-435. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1982.
45. Greenberg, J., The Quest for Justice on the Job. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996.
46. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., and Black, W.C., Multivariate data analysis, Prentice Hall, 1998.
47. Hart, C. W. L., Heskett, J. L., Sasser, W., The profitable art of service recovery. Harvard BusinessReview, 68(4), pp. 148-156, 1990.
48. Heijden, H., Verhagen,T. and Creemers, M., “Understanding Online Purchase Intentions: Contributions from Technology and Trust Perspectives,” Eurpoean Journal of Informaion Systems, 12, pp. 41-48, 2003.
49. Hocutt, M. A., Chakraborty, G. & Mowen, J. C., The Art of Service Recovery: Fact or Fiction? An Empirical Study of The Effects of Service Recovery. In Debbie Thorne LeClair and Michael Hartline(eds.), Marketing Theory and Applications, Chicago: American Marketing Association, pp. 50-51, 1997.
50. Homans, G. C., Social behavior: Its elemental forms, New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1961.
51. Hu, P.J., P.Y.K. Chau, O.R. Liu Sheng & K.Y. Tam, “Examing the Technology Acceptance Model Using Physician Acceptance of Telemedicine Technology”, Journal of Management Information Systems , 16(2) , pp. 91-112, 1999.
52. Huppertz, J. W., Arenson, S. J., & Evans, R. H., “An application of equity theory to buyer-seller exchange situations”, Journal of Marketing Research, 15(5), pp. 250-260, 1978.
53. Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Tractinsky, N., “Consumer trust in an internet store: a cross-cultural validation,” Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 5(2), pp. 1-35, 1999.
54. Jarvenpaa, S.L., Tractinsky, N., and Vitale, M. “Consumer Trust in An Internet Store”, Information Technology and Management (1), pp. 45–71, 2000.
55. Kane, M., “Online shoppers trust offline brands”, ZDNet News, 1999, http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-517057.html?legacy=zdnn.
56. Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., and Chervany, N. L., “Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs,” MIS Quarterly (23:2), 1999, pp. 183-213.
57. Kelley, SW, Hoffman KD, and Davis MA., “A typology of retail failures and recoveries”, Journal of Retailing, Vol.69 (4), pp. 429-452, 1993.
58. Kernan, M. C., & Hanges, P. J., “Survivor reactions to reorganization: Antecedents and consequences of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), pp. 916-928, 2002.
59. Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., and Sapienza H. J., “Building Commitment, Attachment, and Trust in Strategic Decision-Making Teams: The Role of Procedural Justice,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 60-84, 1995.
60. Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K. and Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M., “The effect of supplier fairness on vulnerable resellers”, Journal of Marketing Research 32 (1), pp. 54-65, 1995.
61. Lapidus, R. S. and Pinkerton, L., “Customer Complaint Situation: An Equity Theory Perspective”, Psychology and Marketing, 12, pp. 105-122, 1995.
62. Lee, C., K.S. Law et P. Bobko., “The Importance of Justice Perceptions on Pay Effectiveness: A Two-Year Study of a Skill-Based Pay Plan”, Journal of Management, vol. 25, no 6, pp. 851–873, 1999.
63. Leventhal, G. A., Fairness in social relationships. In J. W. Thibaut, J. T. Spencer, ＆ R. C. Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology, pp. 211-239, Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press, 1976.
64. Leventhal, G.S., “What Should be Done With Equity Theory?”, In K.J. Gergen, M.S., Greenberg, and R.W., Willis (Eds.). Social Exchange: Advances in Equity and Research, New York: Plenum, pp. 27-55, 1980.
65. Lewis, J. D., and Weigert, A., “Trust as Social Reality”, Social Farces, Vol. 63, pp. 967-985, 1985.
66. Liker, J. K., and Sindi, A. A., “User acceptance of expert systems: a test of the theory of reasoned action,” Journal of engineering and technology management (14), pp. 147-173, 1997.
67. Lind, E. A. & Tyler, T. R., The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum, 1988.
68. Luhmann, N., Trust and Power. Wiley & Sons, New York, 1979.
69. Mathieson, K.(1991). “Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior.” Information Systems Research, 2(3), pp. 173–191, 1991.
70. Matthews, B. A., & Shimoff, E., “Expansion of exchange: monitoring trust levels in ongoing exchange relations”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 23, pp. 538-560, 1979.
71. Maxham J.G.I. and Netemeyer R.G., “Modeling Customer Perceptions of Complaint Handling over Time: The Effects of Perceived Justice on Satisfaction and Intent”, Journal of Retailing, Vol.78 No 4, pp. 239-252, 2002.
72. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., and Schoorman, F.D., An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust, Academy of Management Review, Vol.20, No.3, pp. 709-734, 1995.
73. McColl-Kennedy, Janet R. and Sparks, Beverley A., “Application of Fairness Theory to Service Failures and Service Recovery”, Journal of Service Research, 5 (3), pp. 251-266, 2003.
74. McKnight, H., Cummings, L. and Chervany, N., “Initial Trust Formation in New Organizational Relationship,” Academy of Management Review, Vol.23, No.3, pp. 473-490, 1998.
75. McKnight, D. H. and Chervany N. L., What Trust Means in E-Commerce Customer Relationship: An Interdisciplinary Conceptual Typology, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 2002.
76. Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., and Kramer, R. M., "Swift Trust and Temporary Group," In R. M. Kramer, and T. R. Tyler (ed.) Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 166-195, 1996.
77. Moon, J.W.; Kim, Y.G., “Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context,” Information and Management 38(4), pp. 217-230, 2001.
78. Moorman R. H., “Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, pp. 845-855, 1991.
79. Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D., “The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.58, No.3, pp. 20-38, 1994.
80. Mowen, J. C., and S. J. Grove, Search Behavior, Price Paid and the Consumption Other: An Equity Theory Analysis of Post-Purchase Satisfaction. In R. L. Day, and H. K. Hunt (Eds.), International Fare in Consumer Satisfaction and Complaining Behavior, pp. 57-63, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1983.
81. Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., Mckee, D. O., & McMurrian, R., “An Investigation into the antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context”, Journal of Marketing, 61,pp. 85-98, 1997.
82. Neumann, P., Identity-related misuse. Communications of ACM, 40(7), 1997.
83. Oliver, R. L., & DeSarbo, W. S., “Response determinants in sat-isfaction judgement”, Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), pp. 495-507, 1988.
84. Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. E., “Consumer perceptions of inter- personal equity and satisfaction in transactions: A field survey approach”, Journal of Marketing, 53(4), pp. 21-35, 1989.
85. Pavlou, P.A., “Integrating Trust in Electronic Commerce with the Technology AcceptanceModel: Model Development and Validation”, Proceedings of the Seventh AmericasConference in Information Systems, Boston, MA, 2001.
86. Pavlou, P. A., “Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 101-134, 2003.
87. Pavlou, P.A. and Gefen, D., “Building Effective Online Marketplaces with Institution-Based Trust,” Information Systems Research (15:1), pp. 37–59, March 2004.
88. Pillai, R., Williams, E. S., & Tan, J. J., “Are the scales tipped in favor of procedural or distributive justice? An investigation of the U.S., India, Germany, and Hong Kong (China)”, International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(4), pp. 312-332, 2001.
89. Reichheld, F. F. and P. Schefter, “E-loyalty: Your Secret Weapon on the Web, Harvard Business Review”, 78, 4, pp. 105-113, 2000.
90. Rosenburg, H., Occupations and Values, Free Press, Glencoe, IL, 1957.
91. Rotter, J.B., “A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust”, Journal of Personality, Vol.35, pp. 651-665, 1967.
92. Rotter, J.B., “Generalized Expectancies for Interpersonal Trust”, American Psychologist, Vol.26, pp.443~452, 1971.
93. Saunders, M.N.K., Thornhill, A., “Organizational justice, trust and the management of change, an exploration”, Personnel Review, Vol. 32 No.3, pp. 360-75, 2003.
94. Saunders, M.N.K., Thornhill, A., “Trust and mistrust in organizations: An exploration using an organizational justice framework”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 4, pp. 492-515, 2004.
95. Shapiro, D., B. H. Sheppard, and L. Cheraskin, “Business on a Handshake,” Negotiation Journal, 8(4), pp. 365-377, 1992.
96. Szajna, B., “Software evaluation and choice: predictive evaluation of the Technology Acceptance Instrument”, MIS Quarterly, 18(3), pp. 319-324, 1994.
97. Szajna, B., “Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model”, Management Science, 42(1), pp. 85-92, 1996.
98. Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M., “Customer evaluation of service complaint experience: Implications for re-lationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing, 62(4), pp. 60-77, 1998.
99. Thibaut, J. and Walker L., Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Eribaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1975.
100. Taylor, S., “Waiting for service: The relationship between de-lays and evaluations of service”, Journal of Marketing, (58), pp. 56-69, 1994.
101. Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J., Beyond formal procedure: The interoersonal contest of procedural justice. IN J. Carrol (Ed.), Advances in applied social psychology: Business settings. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989.
102. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D., “A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test”, Decision Sciences, 27(3), pp. 451, 1996.
103. Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F. D., “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies,” Management Science, Vol.46, No.2, pp. 186–204, 2000.
104. Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G..B. and Davis, F.D., “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View”, MIS Quarterly, 27, pp. 425-478, 2003.
105. Walker, L., Lind, E.A. and Thibaut. J., “The Relation Between Procedural Justice and Distributive Justice,” Virginia Law Review, 65, pp. 1401-1420, 1979.
106. Wang, Y. D., & Emurian, H. H., (2005). Trust in E-commerce: Consideration of Interface Design Factors1. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, 3(4), pp. 42-60, 2005.
107. Wrightsman, L. S., and Robinson, P. R., “Interpersonal trust and attitudes toward human nature.” Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes: Volume1—Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes. Academic, pp. 373–412, 1991
108. Zand, D. E., “Trust and Managerial Problem Solving”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 229-239, 1972.
109. Zucker,L.G. ,"Production of Trust: Institutional Sources of Economic Structure,1840-1920"Research in Organizational Behavior Vol.8, pp. 53-111, 1986.

指導教授

邱兆民(Chao-min Chiu)

審核日期

2007-7-4

推文