人們有時會因為潛在的偏差因素嘗試更正原本的判斷，例如在電視上可以常常見到相同的名人代言不同產品或是品牌，而當這種情況發生時，人們會對這個廣告產生不同的評價。在廣告學中，許多文獻已經探討過代言人屬性、對廣告的態度以及其他相關議題；但是在重複代言人的態度更正探討上卻很缺乏，另一方面，在社會心理學中，探討態度改變的文獻是使用「提示」的方法，也就是測試者用口語提示受試者要做態度更正。但在現實中，人們很少會被「提示」，大部分人們是在「自我更正」的情況。
因此，本文藉著「重複代言人」當作提示，了解人們在不同的情況下（正/中性代言人×高/低涉入×自我提示/強迫提示）的科技產品（筆記型電腦）評價差異。

Occasionally people attempt to correct their initial perceptions or judgments because of potentially biasing factors. For example, when people read newspapers or watch television, it is not unusually that a given endorser may endorse many different products or different brands at the same period of time. When such a situation (i.e., multiple endorsement) occurs, people may judge the advertisement differently from when the endorser just endorses one and only one product or brand. The literatures in advertisement research have emphasized on the endorser attributes, attitude toward the advertisement and correspondent strategies for practitioners, rather than on the discussion of information process under the condition when a given endorser is repeatedly exposed to audiences. On the other hand, even though the literatures in psychology have already developed solid evidences for explaining the mechanisms of attitude change, previous studies which examined attitude change and explained bias correction only used prompts to make subjects aware of those biasing factors, referred to as “enforced-correction” in this study. Nonetheless, in reality, people are less likely to perceive prompts in advertisements. That is, people in a regular consumption setting will be less likely to engender “enforced-correction” as studied in literature of social psychology. In contrast, people will be more likely to correct the perceived biases in the regular consumption setting by themselves, referred to as “self-activated-correction” process. It is proposed in this study that the correction patterns resulted form “self-activated-correction” process will be quite different from which resulted from “enforced-correction” process.
In this study, a 2x2x2 (positive vs. neutral endorser/high vs. low involvement /enforced vs. self-activated-correction process) experiment will be conducted to investigate direction and degree of correction for perceived bias (i.e., multiple endorsements) in persuasion situations. The students in Sung-Shang Vocation School will be asked to express their attitudes about a product after being exposed to a magazine under condition of either high/low product involvement as well as whether being given an explicit correction instruction or not (i.e., self-activated-correction or enforced-correction). The advertisements will have same arguments for the product and feature either same or different endorser(s). That is, a subject read a persuasive message from a famous endorser (i.e., positive endorser) or unfamiliar endorser (i.e., neutral endorser) who endorses particular product (i.e., Notebook or non-Notebook) in the experiment booklet. This research is meant to find out the different correction processes.

Agrawal, Jagdish, Kamakura, &Wagner A. (1995). The economic worth of celebrity endorsers: an event study analysis. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 56.
Antil, J.H. (1984). Conceptualization and operationalization of involvement. In T.C. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in consumer research, (Vol. 11, pp.203-209). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Brewer, M.B. (2000). Research design and issues of validity. In Reis, H.T., & Judd, C./M (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and psychology (pp.3-16). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
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, 752-766.
Chaiken, S., Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chen, S. (1996). Beyond accuracy: defense and impression motives in heuristic and systematic information processing. In P.M. Gollwitzer, & J.A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking motivation and cognition to behavior (pp.553-578). New York: Guilford.
Chaiken, S. & Liberman, A.E. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J.S. Ulemanm & J.A. Bargh (Ed.), Unintended thoughts (pp.212-252). New York: Guilford.
Chaiken, S. & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task important on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
Chaiken, S., & Stangor, C. (1987). Attitude and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 575-630.
Freiden, J.B. (1984). Advertising spokesperson effects: An examination of endorser type and gender on two audience. Journal of Advertising Research, 24, 33-41.
Garretson, Judith A., & Niedrich, Ronald W. (2004). Creating character trust and positive brand attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 33,2, 25-36.
Greenwald, A.G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. In A.D. Greenwald, T.C. Brock, & T.M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp.147-170). NY: Academic Press.
Kamins, M.A. (1990). An investigation into the “Match-Up” hypothesis in celebrity advertising: When beauty may be only skin deep. Journal of Advertising, 19, 1, 4-13.
Lafferty, Barbara A., Goldsmith, Ronald E., & Newell, Stephen J. (2002). The dual credibility model: the influence of corporate and endorser credibility on attitudes and purchase intentions. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practiec 10 ,3, 1-12.
Laczniak, R.N., & Muehling, D.D. (1993). Toward a better understanding of the role of advertising message involvement in ad processing. Psychology & Marketing, 10, 4, 301-319.
Louie, T.A., & Obermiller, C. (2002). Consumer response to a firm’s endorser (dis)association decisions. Journal of Advertising, 31, 4, 41-52.
Lutz, R.J. (1985). Affective and cognitive antecedents of attitude toward the ad: A conceptual framework. In L.F. Alwitt & A.A. Mitchell (Eds.), Psychological processes and advertising effects: Theory, research, and applications (pp.45-63). Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Martin, L.L. (1986). Set/reset: Use and disuse of concepts in impression formation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 493-504.
Martin, L.L., Seta, J.J., & Crelia, R.A. (1990). Assimilation and contrast as a function of people’s willingness and ability to expend effort in forming an impression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 27-37.
McDaniel, Stephen R. (1999). An investigation of match-up effects in sport sponsorship advertising: The implications of consumer advertising schemas. Psychology & Marketing, l6,2, 163.
Mitchell, A.A. & Olson, J.C. (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 318-332.
Olson, E.L., & Thjomoe, H.M. (2003). The effects of peripheral exposure to information on brand preference. European Journal of Marketing, 37, 1/2, 243-340.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1981). Attitude and persuasion: classical and contemporary approaches. Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986a). Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer/Verlag.
Petty, R.E., and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986b). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 19, pp.123-205). New York: Academic Press.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986c). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advanced Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Tradition versus integration. Psychological Bulletin,107, 367-374.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Addressing disturbing and disturbed consumer behavior: Is it necessary to change the way we conduct behavioral science? Journal of Marketing Research, 33,1.
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., & Schumann, David. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135-146.
Petty, R.E., Unnnava, R.H., and Strathman, A.J. (1991). Theory of attitude change. In Robertson, T.S., and Kassarjian, H.H. (Ed.), Handbook of consumer behavior (pp.241-280). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Petty, R.E., & Wegener, D.T. (1993). Flexible correction process in social judgment: Correcting for context-induced contrast. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 137-165.
Petty, R.E., Wegener, D.T. & Fabrigar, L.R. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 609-647.
Petty, R.E., Wegener, D.T., & White, P.H. (1998). Flexible correction process in social judgment: implications for persuasion. Social Cognition, 16(1), 93-113.
Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1992a). Constructing reality and its alternatives: An inclusion/exclusion model of assimilation and contrast effects in social judgment. In L.L Martin &, A. Tresser (Eds.), The construction and social judgements (pp. 217-245). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1992b). Scandals and the public’s trust in politicians: Assimilation and contrast effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 574-579.
Shavitt, S. Swan, S., Lowrey, T.M., & Waenke, M. (1994). The interaction of endorser attractiveness and involvement in persuasion depends on the goal that guides message processing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3, 2, 137-162.
Smith, E.R. (2000). Research design. In Reis, H.T., & Judd, C.M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and psychology (pp.17-39). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, R.E. (1993). Integrating information from advertising and trial: Process and effects on consumer response to product information. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 204-219.
Smith, R.E., & Swinyard, W.R. (1982). Information response models: An integrated approach. Journal of Marketing, 46, 81-93.
Shavitt, S., Swan, S., Lowrey, T.M., & Waenke, M. (1994). The interaction of endorser attractiveness and involvement in persuasion depends on the goal that guides message processing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3 ,2, 137-162.
Shimp, T.A. (1981). Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of consumer brand choice. Journal of Advertising, 10(2), 9-15.
Till, Brian D., & Shimp, Terence A. (1998). Endorsers in advertising: the case of negative celebrity information. Journal of Advertising, 27, 1, 67-82.
Tripp, C., Tomas, D.J., & Les Carlson (1994). The effects of multiple product endorsement by celebrities on consumers’ attitudes and intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (March), 535-547.
Wegner, D.T., & Petty. R.E. (1995). Flexible correction process in social judgment: The role of naïve 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 native theories of bias in bias correction. Advances In Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 141-208.
West, S.G., Biesanz, J.C., & Pitts, S.C. (2000). Causal inference and generalization in field settings experimental and quasi-experimental designs. In Reis, H.T., & Judd, C.M. (Eds), Handbook of research methods in social and psychology (pp.40-84). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Wright, P. (1973). The cognitive processes mediating acceptance of advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 38,2,, 192-205.
Zuckerman, A., & Chaiken, S. (1998). A heuristic-systematic processing analysis of the effectiveness of product warning labels. Psychology & Marketing, 15, 7, 621-642.