How central merit may influence the product attitude in low involvement condition:the moderating role of processing fluency on central arguments

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	王庭□
論文名稱：	How central merit may influence the product attitude in low involvement condition:the moderating role of processing fluency on central arguments
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：	2007
畢業學年度：	95
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	42
中文關鍵詞：	ELM 、multiple roles theory 、processing fluency
相關次數：	點閱：71 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

Many researches have been discussed about the ELM, but little was about the effectiveness of central argument on low involvement people. This paper is to extent the multiple roles theory by introducing processing fluency as a moderator to get more information about the advertising effectiveness of central argument to low involvement people.
We conducted an experiment to gain consumers’ attitudes about a product being exposed to a questionnaire under conditions of either high or low product involvement. The advertisements in the questionnaire contained either strong or weak arguments for the product and featured either positive or average endorser under high or low processing fluency conditions.
The result of this study confirmed multiple roles of ELM, and showed that low involvement people can process central argument as long as the information is easy enough to process. The outcome not only further explains the ELM model but also gives marketers a direction when forming their marketing strategy.

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT    I
CONTENTS    II
LIST OF TABLES    III
LIST OF FIGURES    IV
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION    1
1.1Study Purpose    1
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW    2
2.1 Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)    2
2.2 Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM)    4
2.3 Multiple Roles    5
2.4 Processing Fluency    7
Ch3. PROPOSED THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS    8
3.1 Proposed Theory    8
3.2 Hypothesis    10
3.3 Uniqueness of the current study    12
CHARTER 4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY    13
4.1 Overview    13
4.2 Participants and Design    13
4.3. Experimental Procedure    14
4.4 Independent variables    15
4.5 Dependant variables    17
CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH RESULTS    19
5.1 Manipulation Check    19
5.3 Dependent Measures    21
5.4 Hypotheses Testy    24
CHARTER 6 GENERAL DISCUSSIONS    33
6.1Conclusion    33
6.2 Limitation and Future Research    36
6.3 Contribution    37
REFERENCE    39


LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN    13
TABLE 2 MANIPULATION CHECK: INVOLVEMENT    19
TABLE 3 MANIPULATION CHECK: ARGUMENT QUALITY    20
TABLE 4 MANIPULATION CHECK: ENDORSER    21
TABLE 5 CELL MEANS OF PRODUCT ATTITUDES    22
TABLE 6 FOUR-WAY ANOVA    23
TABLE 7 TWO-WAY ANOVA OF HYPOTHESIS 1a    24
TABLE 8 LINEAR REGRESSION OF HYPOTHESIS 1a    25
TABLE 9 TWO-WAY ANOVA OF HYPOTHESIS 1b    27
TABLE 10 TWO-WAY ANOVA OF HYPOTHESIS 2a    29
TABLE 11 TWO-WAY ANOVA OF HYPOTHESIS 2b    31
TABLE 12 LINEAR REGRESSION OF HYPOTHESIS 2b    31
TABLE 13 MEAN OF EFFECTS OF INVOLVEMENT AND PROCESSING FLUENCY ON MANEPULATION OF INVOLVEMENT    34
TABLE 14 ANOVA OF EFFECTS OF INVOLVEMENT AND PROCESSING FLUENCY ON MANEPULATION OF INVOLVEMENT    35










LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 MULITPLE ROLES OF VARIABLES    6
FIGURE 2 THE MODIFICATION OF ELM ON THE DETERMINANT OF PRODUCT ATTITUDE: THE MODERATING ROLE OF PROCESSING FLUENCY ON CENTRAL ARGUMENTS    8
FIGURE 3 ATTITUEDES TOWARD PRODUCTS FOR HIGH INVOLVEMENT PEOPLE UNDER LOW PROCESSING FLUENCY    26
FIGURE 4 ATTITUEDES TOWARD PRODUCTS FOR LOW INVOLVEMENT PEOPLE UNDER LOW   PROCESSING FLUENCY    28
FIGURE 5 ATTITUEDES TOWARD PRODUCTS FOR HIGH INVOLVEMENT PEOPLE UNDER HIGH   PROCESSING FLUENCY    30
FIGURE 6 ATTITUEDES TOWARD PRODUCTS FOR LOW INVOLVEMENT PEOPLE UNDER HIGH   PROCESSING FLUENCY    32

                                

REFERENCE
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. (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. (1987), “The heuristic model of persuasion”, in M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario Symposium (Vol.5, pp.3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989), “Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion content”, J. S. Uleman & J. A Bargh (Eds.), 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, and task importance on attitude judgment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
Durso, F.T., & Johnson M. K., (1980), “The effects of orienting tasks on recognition, recall, and modality confusion of pictures and words,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19. 416-429.
Jacoby, Larry L., & Mark Dallas (1981), “On the Relationship Between Autobiographical Memory and Perceptual Learning,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110 (September), 306-340.
Joan Meyers-Levy & Prashant Malaviya (1999), “Consumers’ Processing of Persuasive Advertisements: An Integrative Framework of Persuasion Theories,” Journal of Marketing Research, 63 (Special Issue), 45-60.
Kelman, H. C., & Hovland, C. I. (1953), “Reinstatement of the communicator in delayed measurement of opinion change,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 327-335.
Madigan, S., (1983), “Imagery, Memory, and Cognition,” Yuille, J.C. (Eds.), Honour of Allan Paivio. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 65-89.
Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991), “Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13-33.
Miniard, P. W., Bhatla, S., Lord, K. R., Dickson, P. R., & Unnava, H. R. (1991), “Picture-based persuasion process and the moderating role of involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 92-107
Mitchell, Andrew A., & Jerry C. Olson (1981), “Are product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (August), 318-32.
Nordhielm, Christie (2002), “The Influence of Level of Processing on Advertising Repetition Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (December), 371-82.
Ottati, V., Terkildsen, N., & Hubbard, C. (1997), “Happy faces elicit heuristic processing in a televised impression formation task: A cognitive tuning account,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1144-1156.
Petty, Richard E. & Duane T. Wegener (1998), “Attitude Change: Multiple Roles for Persuasion Variables,” Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 1, 4th ed., Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey, New York: McGraw Hill, 323-90.
Petty, Richard E. & Duane T. Wegener (1999), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Current Status and Controversies,” Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology, ed. Shelly Chaiken & Yaacov Tropes, New York: Guilford, 41-72.
Petty, Richard E. & John T. Cacioppo (1980), “Effects of Issue Involvement on Attitudes in an Advertising Context,” Proceedings of the Division 23 Program, eds. Gerald G. Gorn & Marvin E. Goldberg, Montreal, Canada: American Psychological Association, 75-79 .
Petty, Richard E. & John T. Cacioppo (1986a), “Communication and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches,” Dubuque, IA: Brown.
Petty, Richard E. & John T. Cacioppo (1986b), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 19, ed., Leonard Berkowitz, New York: Academic Press, 123-205.
Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo (1981), “Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches,” Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown
Petty, Richard 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.
Snyder, M., & Rothbart, M. (1971), “Communicator attractiveness and opinion change,” Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 3, 377-387.
Rhine, R., & Severance, L.(1970), “Ego-involvement, discrepancy, source credibility, and attitude change,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 175-190.
Rober, R., Fazendeiro, T. A., & Winkielman, P. (2002), “Processing fluency as the source of experiences at the fringe of consciousness: Commentary on Mangan,” Psyche: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Consciousness, 8(10), Available from: http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v8/psyche-8-10-reber.html
Rober, R., Wurtz P., & Zimmermann T. D., (2004), “Exploring fringe consciousness: The subjective experience of perceptual fluency and its objective bases,” Consciousness and Cognition, 13, 47-60
Rothman, A. J., & Schwarz, N. (1998), “Constructing perceptions of vulnerability: Personal relevance and the use of experiential information in health judgment,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1053-1064
Spigel, S., Thompson, E. P., & Kruglanski, A. (1996, July), “Toward a unimodal theory of persuasion: On the effortful processing of heuristic information,” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington, D.C.
Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T. A., & Rober, R. (2003), “The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment,” In J. Musch, & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp.189-217). Mahwah, 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