代言人在廣告中所扮演的角色，一直是學者們熱衷研究的課題，近年來在亦
有學者提出，對高涉入族群，有魅力的代言人可能帶來負面的影響，這種論點和
發展20 年的ELM 模型未能相符；在本研究中，我們在ELM 模式及偏誤修正的
架構中，加入了“論點充足性”為一個新的中介變數，探討並且歸納在何種情境下
代言人會產生負面的影響。
結果顯示，完全未提供任何與產品核心價值有關聯性的代表物時，高涉入者
將把有魅力但與產品無關代言人視為影響產品態度的偏誤，且對產品態度進行修
正，導致代言人對產品帶來負面的影響。

In general, people like to hold correct attitude. In order to achieve the goal of
subjective correctiveness, people will take effort to process information and they will
try to remove the bias as long as the bias is perceived by them. In this study, we
discuss the argument sufficiency as a moderator under elaboration likelihood model
（Petty & Cacioppo, 1986）and judgmental correction situation. In addition, we exam
if people will identify issue-irrelevant source with attractive characteristic as a bias
under ELM model.
We try to verify the result of source effects under ELM. Under high elaboration
conditions, people are more likely to be influenced by argument quality rather than by
source attractiveness. In other words, the prediction of ELM is that high involvement
people deal with either attractive or average source would lead to no different attitude
toward product. But under low elaboration conditions, people may consider source is
III
a simple positive or negative inference, and their judgments toward the product
depending on the cue.
However, a study proposed by Kang and Herr in 2006 conflicts with ELM model.
They find that people with excessively high cognitive resource will remove the
influence generated from issue-irrelevant source. That is, extremely high involvement
people’s attitude will be more favorable toward the product when the endorser is an
average person rather than the attractive endorser. In their study, they don’t
manipulate different levels of high involvement, and then solely make their
conclusion about the negative source effect resulting from fairly high involvement.
Besides, they also neglect to compare argument quality under different conditions. All
participants receive only weak arguments. We are unable to exam how weak these
arguments are. These arguments are likely to be strong enough for participants to
judge the target. Therefore, in our study, we propose argument sufficiency as a
moderator which is likely to lead to negative source effects. Additionally, we base on
Kang and Herr’s study to improve our experiment.
Thus, based on bias correction model, we manipulate the argument sufficiency as
a moderator in existing ELM model to explain the contradiction about source effects.
If we provide not only sufficient but also strong arguments to high involvement
individuals, their judgment won’t be affected by source attractiveness, which consists
IV
with ELM. However, if product-irrelevant endorser solely with attractive
characteristic is presented without any arguments for high involvement individuals,
because they can only make their judgment by source, the correction will trigger. The
implication of the expected result means bias correction would be triggered under
insufficient situation for high involvement individuals.

Burnstein, E., & Vinokur, A. (1975). What a person thinks upon learning he has chosen
differently from others: Nice evidence for the persuasive-arguments explanation of
choice shifts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 412-426.
Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing
within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman, & J. A. Bargh (Ed.),
Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford Press.
Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic
processing: Effects of source credibility, argument accessibility, and task importance
on judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
Herr, P. M., Yong-Soon Kang (2006). Beauty and the beholder: Toward an Integrative
Model of Communication Source Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 1.
Martin, John J. Seta, and Rick A. Crelia (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, Richard E. & John T. Cacioppo (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
Petty, Richard E. & John T. Cacioppo (1983). The role of bodily responses in attitude
measurement and change. In J. T. Cacioppo & R. E. Petty (Eds.), Social
56
psychophysiology: A sourcebook (pp.51- 101). New York: Guilford.
Petty, Richard E. & John T. Cacioppo (1984b). Source factors and the elaboration
likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 668-672.
Petty, Richard E. & John T. Cacioppo (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., & 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., (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, 141-208. San Diego: Academic Press.
Petty, R. E., John T. Cacioppo & David Schumann (1983), Central and Peripheral Routes
to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement, Journal of
Consumer Research, 10 (September), 135-146.
Petty, R. E., Haugtvedt, C., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Elaboration as a determinant of
attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of
behavior. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and
consequences (pp. 93-130). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
57
Petty, R. E., Priester, J. R., & Wegener, D. T. (1994). Cognitive processes in attitude
change. In R.S. Wyer and T. K. Srull (Eds.) Handbook of social cognition (2nd
edition, Vol. 2, pp. 69-142). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & White Paul H. (1997). Flexible correction processes in
social judgment: Implications for persuasion. Social Cognition, 16 (1), 93-114.
Petty, R. E., Wells, G. L., & Brock, T. C. (1976). Distraction can enhance or reduce
yielding to propaganda: Thought disruption versus effort justification. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 874-884. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T.
(1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque,
IA: Wm. C. Brown.
Wilson, T. D., & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction:
Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116