角色代言人在推敲可能性模式的影響途徑

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：16

、訪客IP：3.139.79.222

姓名

田治平(Chih-Ping Tien) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

企業管理學系

論文名稱

角色代言人在推敲可能性模式的影響途徑
(Spokes-Characters to Influence the Route of Elaboration Likelihood Model)

相關論文

★ 網頁背景圖片對消費者產品偏好的影響	★ 組合商品的定價模式對消費者的滿意度與價值知覺
★ KTV消費型態與消費者類型之關聯	★ 蘋果沉浸度研究
★ 女性業務人員的配飾、妝容、上衣對業務職能特質知覺之影響	★ 男性業務人員服飾配件對職能特質知覺之影響
★ 個人辦公桌擺設對員工工作投入與專業職能知覺之影響	★ 飯店房間內擺設對消費者知覺與金錢價值之影響 --- 以人格特質為干擾變數
★ 療癒著色本對情緒轉換與風險偏好的影響	★ 名片設計對業務人員的職能特質與工作績效之知覺影響
★ 美語補習班的創新服務	★ 台灣工具機製造商之策略構面、組織構面及財務績效之關係研究：五大廠商之個案分析
★ 服務花朵的創新與競爭優勢:以五家牙科診所的個案分析	★ 反向策略之廣告效果研究
★ 不同性刺激形式所引發的性幻想程度對廣告效果之影響	★ 情緒在消費者決策行為中的影響

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)

角色代言人能避免真實代言人的風險因素，而且在網路行銷上更有諸多優點，因此商業的應用日漸蓬勃。過去之研究多僅探討不同類型的代言人如何透過單一途徑影響消費者，例如透過角色信任等途徑影響消費者的品牌態度。本研究試圖代入推敲可能性模式的思考途徑，亦即中央路徑與邊陲路徑，以探討不同類型角色代言人如何改變品牌態度。作者期望能瞭解角色代言人對消費者態度改變之途徑的影響。
研究採3（角色代言人類型：專家、產品相關、討喜）×2（產品涉入程度：高、低）的兩因子實驗，分6組。主要分析工具為SEM與分群SEM。
本研究發現不同類型的角色代言人會偏向不同的途徑影響態度，消費者會受到專家角色的影響，而偏向以中央路徑進行決策。討喜角色則會促使消費者更依賴邊陲路徑改變態度。產品相關角色透過中央路徑改變態度，但其影響極微。當面對高涉入產品或認知需求高時，消費者重視的是產品的訊息，因為專家角色並非真正的產品訊息，消費者不為其形象所矇騙，仍視其為周邊線索，此時中央路徑的影響下降。但討喜角色則不受影響，因為消費者一直視其為周邊線索，其邊陲路徑仍存在。當面對低涉入產品或認知需求低時，因為消費者不會仔細思索廣告的內容，誤將專家角色視為產品的訊息，亦即專家角色被當成了中央線索，此時中央路徑與邊陲路徑的影響不變。男性較女性更偏向以中央路徑處理訊息，女性消費者則較偏向經由邊陲路徑處理訊息。

摘要(英)

Spokes-characters can avoid the risk of real spokespersons. And there are many advantages in the internet promotion. Therefore the application of spokes-characters is more popular in commerce. Past researches usually probe into how the different kinds of spokespersons influencing consumer attitude by a single route. For example, influence consumer attitude by character trust mediate. This research attempts to draw into the elaboration route of Elaboration Likelihood Model. That is the central route and peripheral route. We discuss how to change the brand attitude of consumers by different kinds of spokes-characters. The author expects to be able to understand how the spokes-characters to influence consumers elaboration route.
This study use 3 (category of spokes-characters: Expert, Relevance and Lovely) * 2 (products involvement: High and Low) the two factor experiments. And divide the sample into 6 groups. Use SEM and multi-group SEM to analyze.
Our results show that the different category of spokes-characters will be partial to different route to influence attitude. Consumers can be influenced by expert characters to lean to central route to change attitude. Consumers can be influenced by lovely characters to lean to peripheral route to change attitude. Consumers can be influenced by relevance characters to change attitude through the central route, but the influence is small. When consumers face the high involvement product or their need for cognition is high, consumers attach importance to the products information. The expert character does not a truly product information so that consumers are not deceived by characters’ image but still regarded it as the peripheral cue. The influence of the central route will drops at this moment. However, it doesn’t have any change in lovely characters because consumers always regard it as the peripheral cue and the peripheral route exists. Facing the low involvement products or their need for cognition is low. Consumers will not consider the content of the advertisement carefully. For this reason they view the expert characters as the product information by mistake. The expert characters had been regarded as a central cue and influence of the central and peripheral route so it does not change at this moment. Male consumers deal with the process information in the central route more than female does. Female consumers are relatively inclined to process information in the peripheral route.

關鍵字(中)

★ 分群SEM
★ 認知需求
★ 涉入程度
★ 推敲可能性模式
★ 角色代言人

關鍵字(英)

★ spokes-characters
★ ELM
★ involvement
★ need for cognition
★ multi-group SEM

論文目次

第一章緒論 1
第二章文獻探討 4
第一節角色代言人 4
第二節推敲可能性模式 5
第三節涉入程度 9
第四節涉入程度與ELM 11
第五節認知需求 13
第六節推敲可能性模式的中介 14
第七節研究概念 17
第八節研究假設 18
第三章研究方法 19
第一節準備實驗題材 19
第二節設計模擬廣告 23
第三節問卷設計與抽樣 23
第四章分析 27
第一節信度衡量 27
第二節操弄檢定 28
第三節模型的適配 30
第四節基準模型分析 32
第五節分群模式分析 40
第五章結論與建議 53
參考文獻 57
附錄一、產品涉入衡量量表 61
附錄二、中文認知需求量表 61
附錄三、模擬廣告 62
附錄四、正式問卷（碳酸飲料） 65

參考文獻

吳統雄（1985），態度與行為的研究的信度與效度：理論、反應、反省，民意學術專刊，夏季號。
林建煌（2002），消費者行為，智勝。
邱皓政（2003），結構方程模式：LISREL的理論、技術與應用，雙葉。
高泉豐（1994），認知需求的概念與測量，中華心理學刊，36卷1期，1-20。
黃芳銘（2004），社會科學統計方法學：結構方程模式，五南。
陳順宇（2004），多變量分析，第三版，華泰書局。
Ajzen, Icek and Martin Fishbein (1977), “Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of Empirical Research,” Psychological Bulletin, September, 888-918.
Andaleeb, Syed Saad and Syed Ferhat Anwar (1996), ”Factor Influencing Customer Trust in Salespersons in a Developing Country,” Journal of International Marketing, 4 (4), 35-52.
Andrews, J. Craig and Terence A. Shimp (1990), “Effects of Involvement: Argument Strength and Source Characteristics on Central and Peripheral Processing of Advertising,” Psychology and Marketing, 7 (3), 195-214.
Cacioppo, John T., Richard E. Petty, Chuan Feng Kao and Regina Rodriguez (1986), ”Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion: An Individual Difference Perspective,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (5), 1032-1043.
Callcott, Margaret F. and Wei-Na Lee (1995), “Establishing the Spokes-Character in Academic Inquiry: Historical Overview and Framework for Definition,” Advances in Consumer Research, 22, 144-151.
Callcott, Margaret F. and Barbara J. Phillips (1996), “Observations: Elves Makes Good Cookie: Creating Likable Spokes-character Advertising,” Journal of Advertising Research, 36 (5), 73-79.
Cohen, J. (1988), “Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences,” Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dotson, Michael J. and Eva M. Hyatt (2000), ”Religious Symbols as Peripheral Cue in Advertising: A Replication of the Elaboration Likelihood Model,” Journal of Business Research, 48, 63-68.
Garretson, Judith A. and Scot Burton (1998), “Alcoholic Beverage Sales Promotion: An Initial Investigation of the Role of Warning Messages and Brand Characters Among Consumers Over and Under the Legal Drinking Age,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17 (1), 35-47.
Garretson, Judith A. and Ronald W. Niedrich (2004), “Spokes-Characters: Creating Character Trust and Positive Brand Attitudes,” Journal of Advertising, 33 (2), 25-36.
Garretson, Judith A. and Scot Burton (2005), “The Role of Spokes-Characters as Advertisement and Package Cues in Integrated Marketing Communications,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (October), 118-132.
Gates, Michael (1989), “Creative Licensing,” Incentive, 163 (April), 32-36.
Goodstein, Ronald C. (1993), “Category-Based Applications and Extensions in Advertising: Motivating More Extensive Ad Processing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (1), 87-99.
Hair, Joseph F., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham and William C. Black (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis 5th,New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Houston, Michael J. and Michael L. Rothschild (1978), “Conceptual and Methodological Perspectives on Involvement,” Research Frontiers in Marketing: Dialogues and Directions, ed. S. Jain, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 184-187.
Jöreskog, K. G. and D. Sörbom (1981), LISREL 5th: Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by the Method of Maximum Likelihood, Chicago: National Educational Resources.
Krugman, Herbert E. (1965), ”The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning Without Involvement,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 29 (Fall), 349-356.
Lord, Kenneth R., Myung-Soo Lee and Paul L. Sauer (1995), ”The Combined Influence Hypothesis: Central and Peripheral Antecedents of Attitude toward the Ad,” Journal of Advertising, 24 (Spring), 73-85.
MacKenzie, Scott B. and Richard J. Lutz (1989), “An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context,” Journal of Marketing, 53 (April), 48-65.
Miniard, Paul W., Sunil Bhatla, Kenneth R. Lord, Peter R. Dickson and H. Rao Unnava (1991), ”Picture-Based Persuasion and the Moderating Role of Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (June), 92-107.
Mitchell, Andrew A., J. C. Olson (1981), “Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (August), 318-332.
Ohanian, Roobina (1991), ”The Impact of Celebrity Spokespersons’ Perceived Image on Consumers’ Intention to Purchase,” Journal of Advertising Research, 31 (1), 46-54.
Pedhazur, Elazar J. (1982), Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and Prediction 2nd, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Petroshius, Susan M. and Meg Schulman (1989), “An Empirical Analysis of Spokesperson Characteristics on Advertisement and Product Evaluation,” Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 17 (3), 217-255.
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1982), “The Need for Cognition,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo and David Schumann (1983), “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (September), 135-146.
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1984a), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion,” Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 673-675.
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1984b), “Source Factors and the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion,” Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 668-672.
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1986), Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, New York: Springer-Verlag.
Putrevu, Sanjay and Kenneth R. Lord (1994), “Comparative and Noncomparative Advertising: Attitudinal Effects under Cognitive and Affective Involvement Conditions,” Journal of Advertising, 23 (2), 77-91.
Ray, Michael L. (1973), “Marketing Communication and Hierarchy of Effects,” In New Models of Mass Communication Research, ed. P. Clarke, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 147-176.
Reise, S. P., K. F. Widaman and R. H. Pugh (1993), “Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Item Response Theory: Two Approaches for Exploring Measurnemet Invariance,” Psychological Bulletin, 114, 552-566.
Sawyer, Alan G. and Daniel J. Howard (1991), “Effects of Omitting Conclusions in Advertisements to Involved and Uninvolved Audiences,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (November), 467-474.
Schiffman, Leon G. and Leslie Lazar Kanuk (2000), Consumer Behavior 7th, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Sengupta, Jaideep, Ronald C. Goldstein and David S. Boninger (1997), ”All Cues are Not Created Eaual: Obtaining Attitude Persistence Under Low-Involvement Conditions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (March), 351-361.
Shimp, Terence A. (1981), “Attitude Toward the Ad as a Mediator of Consumer Brand Choice,” Journal of Advertising, 10 (2), 9-15.
Tanaka, J. S. and Huba G. J. (1989), “A General Coefficient of Determination for Covariance Structure Models under Arbitrary GLS Estimation,” British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 42, 233-239.
Urde, Mats (1994), “Brand Orientation: A Strategy for Survival,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 11 (3), 18-32.
Walker, D. and T. M. Dubitsky (1994), “Why Liking Matters,” Journal of Advertising Research, 34 (30), 9-18.
Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1985), “Measuring the Involvement Construct,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (3), 341-353.
Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1986), “Conceptualizing Involvement,” Journal of Advertising, 15 (2), 4-16.
Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1994), “The Personal Involvement Inventory: Reduction, Revision, and Application to Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 23 (4), 59-70.

指導教授

林建煌(Chien-Huang Lin)

審核日期

2006-7-4

推文