「這是假新聞 !」 — 從信任與不信任看社群上過濾好友之行為

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：26

、訪客IP：3.23.92.71

姓名

劉姝廷(Shu-Ting Liu) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

資訊管理學系

論文名稱

「這是假新聞 !」 — 從信任與不信任看社群上過濾好友之行為
(“This is Fake News!” – A Study on Friend Filtering Behavior in Social Networks from the Perspectives of Trust and Distrust)

相關論文

★ 製藥業的成本會計評估研究─ 一個ABC成本制度的應用	★ 一個保險業的資料採擷應用--業務員的薪酬制度分析
★ 農漁產品電子化交易中分類分級管理之研究	★ 應用類神經網路建構壽險核保決策支援之研究
★ 企業導入ERP之關鍵成功因素-個案研究	★ 體外診斷醫療器材滿足CE及GMP驗證要求之個案研
★ 企業資訊系統委外研究－以個案銀行為例	★ DRAM月平均價格變動分析
★ 定期航運產業運價及運送時間對經營績效影響之研究-以某外商海運公司在台灣經營為例	★ 以交通儲值卡作為電子支付工具的營運模式及可行性分析
★ 軟體公司能力成熟度評估	★ 加速台灣海關的通關便捷化－提升行動化服務的解決方案
★ 以均勻度係數為預測晶圓良率指標之可行性分析-以國內某DRAM廠為例	★ 某公司資訊部門變革失敗之探討
★ 資訊部門導入ITIL 管理機制之現況分析─ 以企業導入ITIL 服務支援為例	★ 導入WCO SAFE 優質企業之可行性分析–以A航空公司為例

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，人們的生活愈來愈離不開社群網站，因此，社群網站變成熱門的研究議題，成為重要的研究方向之一。在2016年美國總統大選後，人們開始注意到社群網站上出現愈來愈多的假新聞。他們開始為此而感到擔憂，他們不知道哪些資訊才是正確的，所以不敢輕易相信這些資訊。比起上網蒐集關於該議題所有的資訊，人們更傾向使用捷思來做判斷，因而造成很多認知偏誤。
為了探討人們在看了社群網站上好友貼的爭議言論後，是否對該好友的態度改變，以及影響到後續的過濾好友之意圖。本研究採用「捷思」、「信任」、「不信任」與「過濾好友」等相關理論基礎，以建構本研究之研究模型與相關假說，進行問卷發放與檢驗。本研究基於網路問卷法，透過立意抽樣，以寄送email與張貼於社群網站的方式發放問卷。本研究回收有效樣本為176份，並以驗證性因素分析、SEM等方法，檢定量表品質與各項研究假說，以及整體研究模型間實質關係的顯著性。
經過以上之資料分析後，本研究八項研究假說中，共有六項獲得支持，其中兩項未獲得支持。在影響「對該好友的信任」的因素方面，「對該爭議文章的判斷」、「信任傾向」，均有顯著影響。而在影響「對該好友的不信任」的因素方面，「對該爭議文章的判斷」、「不信任傾向」，均有顯著影響。最後在影響「過濾好友的意圖」的因素方面，「對該好友的信任」與「對該好友的不信任」，皆有顯著影響。由以上結果發現，在使用者對於社群網站上好友張貼之爭議言論的判斷，會影響到使用者對該好友的信任與不信任，且最後他們會因信任與不信任產生過濾好友的意圖。本研究建議在社群網站上行銷的企業，須積極重視他們在社群網站上的發言與社群使用者對他們的信任與不信任，以達到在社群發文的成效。

摘要(英)

With the proliferation of Internet, social networking services (SNS) have deeply integrated in our lives, and many people cannot live without it. As such, social networking have become a popular and important research issue. During the USA presidential election in 2016, fake news on social media has surfaced as a major problem. One cannot easily distinguish true among the false, and some started to suspect all information received. Compare to active information search on a specific topic on the Internet, people are more inclined to use their own feeling and heuristics to make judgments. That leading a lot of misinformation.
This study employs the theoretical basis of “heuristic,” “trust,” “distrust,” and “friend filtering” to postulate whether people’s attitude towards a friend changes after they read disputed posts post by him/her on the social media, and whether it affects the intention to filter him/her. A theoretical framework and related hypotheses were constructed and tested with a questionnaire survey. Questionnaires were distributed through e-mails and postings on social media. 176 valid responses were collected and analyzed with confirmatory factor analysis, SEM, and other statistical methods.
Data analyses reveal that six of eight hypotheses in this study are support. It supported the hypothesis that “trust” is influence by “judgment on the disputed posts” and “disposition to trust.” Along the same line, “distrust” is influence by “judgment on the disputed posts” and “disposition to distrust.” Finally yet importantly, “intention to filter the friend” is influence by “trust” and “distrust.” This results show that the user′s judgment on the disputed posts posted by friends on the social media will affect the user′s trust and distrust of the friend. They will generate the intention to filter the friends due to trust and distrust. This study also indirectly confirms that the constructs of “trust” and “distrust” are not the two ends of a semantic scale, but rather, two distinct dimensions.
This study suggests that enterprises that advertise on social media must attach importance to their post on social media but also user’s trust and distrust of the enterprises. In order to achieve the effectiveness of advertising on social networking sites.

關鍵字(中)

★ 捷思
★ 選擇性接觸
★ 信任
★ 不信任
★ 過濾好友

關鍵字(英)

★ heuristic
★ trust
★ distrust
★ friend filtering

論文目次

論文摘要 I
Abstract II
致謝 III
目錄 IV
圖目錄 VI
表目錄 VII
第一章緒論 1
第一節研究背景 1
第二節研究動機 5
第三節研究問題 6
第四節預期貢獻與研究範圍 7
第五節論文結構與步驟 8
第二章文獻探討 10
第一節捷思 (heuristic) 10
第二節信任 (trust) 14
第三節不信任 (distrust) 19
第四節過濾好友 (friend filtering) 25
第三章研究模型與設計 28
第一節研究架構與模型 28
第二節研究假說 29
第三節變數定義與操作化 34
第四節研究設計 40
第五節問卷設計 48
第六節資料分析方法 51
第四章資料分析 52
第一節資料蒐集過程與樣本分析 52
第二節量表品質檢測 56
第三節研究假說的實質關係檢定 60
第四節研究發現與分析 63
第五章結論與建議 70
第一節研究結論 70
第二節研究貢獻 72
第三節對管理實務的建議 73
第四節研究限制 74
第五節未來研究方向 76
參考文獻 78
英文文獻 78
中文文獻 83
網路文獻 83
附錄A：前測一問卷 85
附錄B：前測二問卷 89
附錄C：前測三問卷 95
附錄D：正式問卷 102

參考文獻

英文文獻
1. Alcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211-236.
2. Babbie, E. R. (2013). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA.
3. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Academic of Marketing Science, 16(1), 76-94.
4. Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., & Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychological Science, 26, 1531-1542.
5. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
6. Bode, L. (2016). Pruning the news feed: Unfriending and unfollowing political content on social media. Research & Politics, 3(3), 1-8.
7. Bouty, I. (2000). Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between r&d researchers across organizational boundaries. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 50-65.
8. Bradach, J., & Eccles, R. (1989). Price, authority, and trust: from ideal types to plural forms. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 97-118.
9. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen, & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
10. Butler, J. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: evolution of a condition of trust inventory. J. Manage, 17, 643-63.
11. Carroll, J. S. (1978). The effect of imagining an event on expectations for the event: an interpretation in terms of the availability heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(1), 88-96.
12. Ceron, A. (2015). Internet, news and political trust: the difference between social media and online media outlets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(5), 487-503.
13. 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.
14. Cho, J. (2006). The mechanism of trust and distrust formation and their relational outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 82, 25-35.
15. Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39-52.
16. Dandekar, P., Goel, A., & Lee, D. T. (2013). Biased assimilation, homophily, and the dynamics of polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15), 5791-5796.
17. Dvir-Gvirsman, S. (2014). It’s not that we don’t know, it’s that we don’t care: explaining why selective exposure polarizes attitudes. Mass Communication and Society, 17, 74-97.
18. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: youth and crisis, Norton, NY.
19. Ferrara, E. (2017). Disinformation and social bot operations in the run up to the 2017 French presidential election. First Monday, 22(8).
20. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston: Row, Peterson.
21. Fornell, C. R., & Larcker, F. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-51.
22. Frey, D. (1986). Recent research on selective exposure to information. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 41-80.
23. Garimella, K., & Weber, I. (2017). A long-term analysis of polarization on Twitter. Conference on Web and Social Media, 528–531.
24. Garimella, K., Morales, G. D. F., Gionis, A., & Mathioudakis, M. (2017). The ebb and flow of controversial debates on social media. The International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media.
25. Leon, C. G.-O. D. (2017). Fake news on social media: illusory truth and the 2016 presidential election. Bachelor’s thesis, Thomas Edison state college.
26. Gutierrez Lopez, M. (2012). Unfriend, unfollow, unsubscribe: unsociability on social network sites. Master’s thesis, university of Tampere.
27. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
28. Hart, W., Albarracín, D., Eagly, A. H., Brechan, I., Lindberg, M. J., & Merrill, L. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: a meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135(4), 555-588.
29. Henry, J. W., & Stone, R. W. (1994). A structural equation model of end-user satisfaction with a computer-based medical information system. Information Resources Management Journal, 7(3), 21-33.
30. Hosmer, L. (1995). Trust: the connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. The Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 379-403.
31. Hu, L. & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
32. Husted, B. W. (1989). Trust in business relations: directions for empirical research. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 8(2), 23-40.
33. Hyman, H. H., & Sheatsley, P. B. (1947). Some reasons why information campaigns fail. Public Opinion Quarterly, 11, 413-423.
34. Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. (2007). Red media, blue media: evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19-39.
35. John, N. A., & Dvir‐Gvirsman, S. (2015). “I don′t like you any more”: Facebook unfriending by israelis during the israel–gaza conflict of 2014. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 953-974.
36. Johnson, T. J., Bichard, S. L., & Zhang, W. (2009). Communication communities or “CyberGhettos?”: a path analysis model examining factors that explain selective exposure to blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(1), 60-82.
37. Kahn, R. (2017). Fake news, safe spaces and ephemeral democracy how the internet revolution is shaping free speech theory. Free Speech and Media Law Discussion Forum, At Budapest Hundary.
38. Klapper, J. T. (1960). The Effects of Mass Communications, Glencoe, Ill., Free Press.
39. Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569-598.
40. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1984). The People′s Choice, 2nd ed., New York, Columbia University Press.
41. Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. Trust in organisations: Frontiers of theory and research, 114-139.
42. Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: new relationships and realities. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438-458.
43. Liao, Q. V., & Fu, W. (2013). Beyond the filter bubble: interactive effects of perceived threat and topic involvement on selective exposure to information. SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2359-2368.
44. Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. John Wiley. New York.
45. MacIver, J. P., & Carmines, E. G. (1981). Unidimensional scaling. California: sage publication.
46. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
47. McAllister, D. H. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.
48. McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (2001). Trust and distrust definitions: one bite at a time. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2246, 27-54.
49. McKnight, D. H., & Choudhury, V. (2006). Distrust and trust in B2C E-commerce: do they differ? International Conference on Electronic Commerce, 482-491.
50. McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 473-490.
51. McKnight, D. H., Kacmar, C. J., & Choudhury, V. (2004), Dispositional trust and distrust distinctions in predicting high- and low-risk internet expert advice site perceptions, e-Service Journal, 35-58.
52. McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002) Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13, 334-359.
53. McMurphy, S. (2013). Trust, distrust, and trustworthiness in argumentation: virtues and fallacies. OSSA Conference Archive. 113.
54. Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2012). Selective exposure in the age of social media: endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41(8), 1-22.
55. Mishra, A. (1996). Organizational responses to crisis: the centrality of trust. R. Kramer & T. Tyler Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, 261-287.
56. Mocanu, D., Rossi, L., Zhang, Q., Karsai, M., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2015). Collective attention in the age of (mis) information. Comput Human Behav, 51, 1198-1204.
57. Neuman, W. L. (2006). Basics of social research: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
58. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
59. Onat, F., Uluçay, M. D., & Gülay, G. (2017). An analysis on unfriending decision of facebook users. Journal of Communication, 26, 109-133.
60. Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95-112.
61. Ribeiro, M.H., Calais, P.H., Almeida, V.A., & Meira, W. (2017). "Everything I disagree with is #fakenews": correlating political polarization and spread of misinformation. Computing Research Repository (CoRR), abs/1706.05924.
62. Robbins, S. P., & DeCenzo, D. A. (2002). Fundamentals of management 3rd. Pearson Education.
63. Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist, 35(1), 1-7
64. Sears, D. O., & Freedman, J. L. (1967). Selective exposure to information: a critical review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 31(2), 194-213.
65. Sharma, N., & Patterson, P. G. (1999). The impact of communication effectiveness and service quality on relationship commitment in consumer, professional services. The Journal of Services Marketing, 13(2), 151-170.
66. Sibona, C. (2013). Facebook fallout: future contact avoidance after being unfriended on Facebook. Proceedings of the 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 3272-3281.
67. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99-118.
68. Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(1), 129-138.
69. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man. New York, Wiley & Sons.
70. Sitkin, S., & Roth, N. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic "remedies" for trust/ distrust. Organization Science, 4(3), 367-392.
71. Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. M. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of factors. Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.
72. Tverskey, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
73. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1130.
74. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293-315.
75. Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Interpersonal trust and attitudes toward human nature. Measures of social psychological attitudes, 1, 373-412.
76. Yang, J. H., Barnidge, M., & Rojas, H. (2017). The politics of “Unfriending”: user filtration in response to political disagreement on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 22-29.
77. Zucker, L. G. (1986). Production of trust: institutional sources of economic structure. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 53-111.

中文文獻
1. 丁捷（2008）。家長式領導與部屬效能：信任與不信任主管的中介效果。國立中正大學心理學所碩士論文。
2. 王喆（2016）。社会政治议题网络讨论之认知失调与选择性修正。国际新闻界，38(2)，57-72。
3. 吳品儀（1999）。差項策略、差價策略與促銷訊號線索對消費者價格認知的影響。國立中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
4. 李南錫（2017）。為什麼我們總相信自己是對的？不知不覺掉入的101種慣性思考陷阱。本事出版社。
5. 杜榮瑞，葉鴻銘（1994）。審計機率判斷行為之研究(二)-可用性及定錨與調整經驗法則。會計研究月刊，103，97-101。
6. 周瑞芸（2007）。使用紅利積點意圖、意志力評價與參與紅利積點活動間關係之研究---以可得性捷思為干擾變數。實踐大學企業管理研究所碩士學位論文。
7. 戚宇賢（2015）。你刪除了多少好友？探討太陽花學運期間的Facebook使用行為。政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文。
8. 連文雄、范錚強、張定原、楊惠貞（2006）。影響使用者對資訊系統委外廠商信任的因素探討: 兩階段信任的歷時研究。勤益學報，24，131-149。
9. 陳淑娟（1998）。作決策的認知模式與應用。台中師院學報，12，37-54。
10. 陳弼鉉（2009）。捷思與過度自信之心理特質對過度反應與反應不足之探討。銘傳大學財務金融系碩士班碩士論文。

網路文獻
1. Facebook（2018）。如果在 Facebook 看到不喜歡的內容，該怎麼辦。Facebook使用說明。2018年3月28日取自：https://www.facebook.com/help/www/408955225828742?helpref=platform_switcher&ref=platform_switcher&rdrhc
2. Parkinson, H. J. (2016). Click and elect: how fake news helped Donald Trump win a real election. 2018年2月3日取自：https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/14/fake-news-donald-trump-election-alt-right-social-media-tech-companies
3. TWNIC（2017）。2017 年台灣寬頻網路使用調查報告。財團法人台灣網路資訊中心。2018年4月5日取自：https://www.twnic.net.tw/download/200307/20170721e.pdf
4. 張子超（2000）。立意取樣Purposive Sampling。國家教育研究院，雙語詞彙、學術名詞資料庫。2018年3月30日取自：http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1304283/
5. 創市際（2016）。創市際雙週刊第六十七期。創市際雙週刊。2018年2月2日取自：http://www.ixresearch.com/reports/%E5%89%B5%E5%B8%82%E9%9A%9B%E9%9B%99%E9%80%B1%E5%88%8A%E7%AC%AC%E5%85%AD%E5%8D%81%E4%B8%83%E6%9C%9F-20160715/
6. 創市際（2017）。創市際雙週刊第九十期。創市際雙週刊。2018年4月28日取自：http://www.ixresearch.com/reports/%E5%89%B5%E5%B8%82%E9%9A%9B%E9%9B%99%E9%80%B1%E5%88%8A%E7%AC%AC%E4%B9%9D%E5%8D%81%E6%9C%9F-20170717/
7. 蘇怡文、葉芃（2017）。八成以上台灣人愛用Facebook、Line坐穩社群網站龍頭 1人平均擁4個社群帳號　年輕人更愛YouTube和IG。財團法人資訊工業策進會。2018年2月2日取自：https://www.iii.org.tw/press/newsdtl.aspx?Nsp_sqno=1934&fm_sqno=14#####

指導教授

范錚強

審核日期

2018-6-21

推文