簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 桑吉
Gediminas Sungaila
論文名稱： The Effect of Argument Quantity on Product Attitude and Attitude Certainty
The Effect of Argument Quantity on Product Attitude and Attitude Certainty
指導教授： 蕭中強
Hsiao, Chung-Chiang
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 管理研究所
Graduate Institute of Management
論文出版年： 2011
畢業學年度： 99
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 46
中文關鍵詞： 態度確定性 、語境效應 、態度的轉變 、不明確的參數 、確定的 、偏置校正
英文關鍵詞： Attitude Certainty, Context Effect, Attitude Change, Ambiguous Argument, Unambiguous Argument, Bias Correction
論文種類： 學術論文
相關次數： 點閱：196  下載：8 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • The aim of our thesis is to find out: what kind of effect does the amount of information has on consumers attitude and attitude certainty. Our research shows that when people are highly involved, amount of information has more effect on consumers certainty then on their attitude.

    The aim of our thesis is to find out: what kind of effect does the amount of information has on consumers attitude and attitude certainty. Our research shows that when people are highly involved, amount of information has more effect on consumers certainty then on their attitude.

    ABSTRACT...........II CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION....................1 1.1 Motivation and Study Purpose..........1 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...............3 2.1 Elaboration Likelihood Model..........3 2.2The Role of Meta-Cognition in Judgment….5 2.3 Attitude Certainty……………...........8 2.4 Priming Price: Prior Knowledge and Context Effects……….............................11 2.5 Flexible Correction Processes in Social Judgment…………..........................12 2.6 A meta-cognitive analysis of one versus two sided message framing on attitude certainty…….14 CHAPTER 3 PROPOSED THEORY AND HYPOTHESES ..16 3.1 Theory Foundation………................16 3.2 Hypotheses.............................19 CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH METHOD..................20 4.1 Research Overview......................20 4.2Pretest…………………….................21 4.3 Second Pretest…………………….........23 4.4 Study………………………................26 Study Overview………….....................26 4.5 Study Method………………...............27 4.5.1 Participants and Design…………......27 4.5.2. Procedure…………….................28 4.5.3 Independent Variable……………….....30 Argument Quantity ……………...............30 4.5.4 Dependent Variable……………….......31 Attitude…………………………...............31 Attitude Certainty……………...............32 4.5 Study Results……......................32 4.5.1 Manipulation Checks……………………..32 Involvement Check ……………...............32 More Argument vs. Fewer Arguments……......33 Argument Quality………………...............34 Attitude……………….......................35 Certainty……………........................36 4.6 Study Discussion…………….............38 CHAPTER 5 GENERAL DISCUSSION…………….....39 5.1 Conclusion…..........................39 5.2 Academic Contribution and Managerial Implication..41 5.3 Limitations and Future Research........43 REFERENCES.................................44

    Herr, P. M., Sherman, S. J., & Fazio, R. H. (1983). On the consequences of priming: Assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 19, 323-340.

    Yong-Soon Kang, Paul M. Herr (2006).Beauty and the Beholder: Toward an Integrative Model of Communication Source Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 1 (06)Pages: 123-130

    Herr, P. M. (1989). Priming price: Prior knowledge and context effects.Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 67-75.

    Krosnick, J. A., & Abelson, R. P. (1992).The case for measuring attitude strength in surveys. In J. Tanur (Ed.), Questions about survey questions (pp. 177-203). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135-146.

    Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1993). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: Correcting for context induced contrast. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 137-165.

    Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & White, P. H. (1997). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: Implications for persuasion. Social Cognition, 16, 93-113.

    Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken& Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology (pp. 41-72). New York: Guilford Press.

    Petty, R. E., Brinol, P., Tormala, Z. L., & Wegener, D. T. (2007).The role of meta-cognition in social judgment. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social
    psychology: A handbook of basic principles (2nd. ed., pp. 254-284). New York: Guilford Press.

    Barden, Jamie; Petty, Richard E. (2008).The Mere Perception of Elaboration Creates Attitude Certainty: Exploring the Thoughtfulness Heuristic,Journal of Personality and
    Social Psychology, Vol 95(3), Sep 2008, 489-509.

    Tiedens, L. Z., & Linton, S. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality and
    Social Psychology, 81, 973-988.

    Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: The role of naive theories in corrections for perceived bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 36-51.

    Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1997). The flexible correction model: The role of naïve theories of bias in bias correction. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (29, pp. 141-208). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (2001). On the use of naïve theories of bias to remove or avoid bias: The flexible correction model. Advances in Consumer Research, 28, 378-383.

    下載圖示
    QR CODE