How May Knowledge- and Information-induced Confidence Affect the Magnitude of Bias Correction

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	陳威翰 Wei-Han Chen
論文名稱：	How May Knowledge- and Information-induced Confidence Affect the Magnitude of Bias Correction
指導教授：	蕭中強 Chung-Chiang Hsiao
口試委員:
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	科技管理學院 - 科技管理研究所 Institute of Technology Management
論文出版年：	2008
畢業學年度：	96
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	105
中文關鍵詞：	思考可能性模式、脈絡效果、情境效果、偏誤修正、態度改變、信心、彈性修正膜式、自信
相關次數：	點閱：1 下載：0
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

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

In the current research, we show that the knowledge and information people have will influence the confidence people have, as a result, confidence mediates the effects of knowledge and information on attitude, influencing the magnitude of bias correction. In our four studies, we show that attitude confidence is a mediator in the causality relationship between knowledge and the magnitude of bias correction, and attitude confidence is a mediator in the causality relationship between information and the magnitude of bias correction. That is, experts or people with more information in relation to novices or people with less information tend to be more confident on the product assessment. As a result, experts or people with more information that have greater confidence tend to correct less than do novices or people with less information that have lower confidence. In addition, using self-reported and manipulated confidence in separate studies, the current research provides evidence that magnitude of bias correction depends on confidence people have in their attitude. We also show that, as flexible correction model predicted, when the persuasive message consists of the contextual bias, people with high accuracy motivation and high ability of bias awareness are more likely to correct than are people with low accuracy motivation and low ability of bias awareness. When people have motivation and ability to identify the bias as well as have motivation and ability to correct the bias, the confidence of people is regarded as the mediator the magnitude of the bias correction in our findings. The findings help us to understand more specifically about the bias correction process, especially in what factors will influence the magnitude of perceived bias people decide to correct.

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................II
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................1
1 Motivation and Study Purpose..........................................................................1
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.....................................................................3
1 Elaboration Likelihood Model..........................................................................3
2 The Influence of Confidence………………….……………………..………..5
2.1 Self-Validation Hypothesis......................................................................5
2.2 Belief Confidence………………………………………………………7
2.3 Expectancy Confidence Hypothesis……………………………………8
3 Context Effects: Assimilation Effect and Contrast Effect.................................8
4 Correction Models.............................................................................................9
4.1 Set-Reset Model......................................................................................9
4.2 Inclusion-Exclusion Model...................................................................10
4.3 Flexible Correction Model....................................................................12
CHAPTER 3 PROPOSED THEORY AND HYPOTHESES.................................14
1 Theory Foundation..........................................................................................14
2 Hypotheses......................................................................................................15
3 Uniqueness of Current Research…………………………………………….20
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH METHOD.....................................................................21
1 Overview…………………………………………………………………….21
2 Pretest..............................................................................................................22
3 Study 1……………………………………………………………………….26
3.1 Study 1 Overview……………………………………………………..26
3.2 Study 1 Method……………………………………………………….28
3.2.1 Participants and Design...............................................................28
3.2.2 Procedure....................................................................................30
3.2.3 Independent Variables.................................................................32
3.2.4 Dependent Variables....................................................................33
3.3 Study 1 Results......................................................................................35
3.3.1 Manipulation Checks..................................................................35
3.3.2 Target Attitude.............................................................................36
3.3.3 Attitude Confidence……………………………………………39
3.3.4 Mediation of Knowledge Effect………………………..………40
3.4 Study 1 Discussion................................................................................41
4 Study 2……………………………………………………………………….42
4.1 Study 2 Overview……………………………………………………..42
4.2 Study 2 Method.....................................................................................44
4.2.1 Participants and Design...............................................................44
4.2.2 Procedure....................................................................................46
4.2.3 Independent Variables.................................................................48
4.2.4 Dependent Variables....................................................................49
4.3 Study 2 Results......................................................................................51
4.3.1 Manipulation Checks..................................................................51
4.3.2 Target Attitude……....................................................................52
4.3.3 Attitude Confidence……………………………………………56
4.3.4 Mediation of Number of Argument Effect……………………..60
4.4 Study 2 Discussion……………………………………………………62
5 Study 3……………………………………………………………………….63
5.1 Study 3 Overview……………………………………………………..63
5.2 Study 3 Method.....................................................................................65
5.2.1 Participants and Design...............................................................65
5.2.2 Procedure....................................................................................67
5.2.3 Independent Variables.................................................................69
5.2.4 Dependent Variables....................................................................70
5.3 Study 3 Results......................................................................................71
5.3.1 Manipulation Checks..................................................................72
5.3.2 Target Attitude…….....................................................................72
5.3.3 Attitude Confidence……………………………………………76
5.3.4 Mediation of Argument Relevance Effect..…………………….81
5.4 Study 3 Discussion……………………………………...……….……83
6 Study 4……………………………………………………………………….84
6.1 Study 4 Overview……………………..………………………………84
6.2 Study 4 Method.....................................................................................85
6.2.1 Participants and Design...............................................................85
6.2.2 Procedure....................................................................................87
6.2.3 Independent Variables.................................................................89
6.2.4 Dependent Variables....................................................................90
6.3 Study 4 Results......................................................................................92
6.3.1 Manipulation Checks..................................................................92
6.3.2 Target Attitude…….....................................................................93
6.4 Study 4 Discussion………...……………………...……….………….96
CHAPTER 5 GENERAL DISCUSSION ................................................................98
1 Conclusion.......................................................................................................98
2 Academic Contribution and Managerial Implication......................................98
3 Limitations and Future Research.....................................................................99
REFERANCES.........................................................................................................101

                                

Babad, E. Y., Ariav, A., Rosen, I., & Salomon, G. (1987).Perseverance of bias as a function of debriefing conditions and subjects’ confidence. Social Behaviour, 2, 185-193.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Bennett, P. D., & Harrell, G. D. (1975). The role of confidence in understanding and predicting buyers’ attitudes and purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 110-117.
Eagly, A. H. (1981). Recipient characteristics as determinants of responses to persuasion. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 173-196). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
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.
Herr, P. M. (1989). Priming price: Prior knowledge and context effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 67-75.
Higgins, E. T., & Brendl, M. C. (1995). Accessibility and applicability: Some “activation rules” influencing judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 218-243.
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.
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effets of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109.
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.
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.
Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1992). Constructing reality and its alternatives: An inclusion/exclusion model of assimilation and contrast effects in social judgment. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 217-245). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological Methodology (pp. 290-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stapel, D. A., Koomen, W., & Zeelenberg, M. (1998). The impact of accuracy motivation on interpretation, comparison, and correction processes: Accuracy motivation x knowledge accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 878-893.
Swann, W. B., Pelham, B. W., & Chidester, T. R. (1988). Change through paradox: Using self-verification to alter beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 268-273.
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.
Wollert, R. W. (1979). Expectancy shifts and the expectancy confidence hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1888-1901.
Wright, P. (1975). Factors affecting cognitive resistance to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 1-9.
Wyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (1981). Category Accessibility: Some Theoretical and Empirical Issues Concerning the Processing of Social Stimulus Information. Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium, 1, 161-197. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校內網路)
全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校外網路)
全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (國家圖書館：臺灣博碩士論文系統)

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文