在日常生活中我們隨處可見許多不同性質的慈善宣導廣告，例如： 順手捐發票、捐款、參與志工服務或是物資捐贈等等。我們不難注意到有越來越多的慈善團體開始利用廣告的渲染力，來喚起社會大眾的愛心，以募得所需的資金與物資。所以過去許多學者會針對人們從事慈善活動的動機以及性別的差異，研究其在不同慈善廣告訴求下對廣告效果的影響。而本研究欲將消費者以自我建構來區分，企圖了解不同的自我對於慈善廣告效果的影響。
本研究以實驗設計法進行，操弄消費者自我建構(獨立自我vs.相依自我)、廣告解釋水平(高vs.低)與廣告訊息陳述(正面陳述vs.負面陳述)三個自變數，為2×2×2三因子設計，透過虛設的情境先激發出不同的自我建構，再配合四個版本的慈善廣告，共建立八種不同的實驗情境，觀察消費者在不同情境下對廣告展現的慈善意圖與慈善態度。
研究結果顯示，相依自我建構的消費者，使用低解釋水平的廣告會比高解釋水平有較好的廣告效果。而在消費者為獨立自我建構時，廣告要使用正面陳述會比使用負面陳述能獲得較好的效果。同時加入廣告解釋水平與訊息陳述時，相依自我建構的消費者，廣告使用負面陳述要搭配低解釋水平的廣告內容。依據此結果，在進行慈善廣告的設計時，無論消費者本身是何種自我建構，皆可先考量以情境促發出消費者的相依自我，再搭配低解釋水平及負面陳述的廣告內容，以獲得好的廣告效果。

In daily life, ads sponsored by of different charity campaigns can be seen everywhere. Charitable promotion includes purchase-receipt donation, monetary donation, volunteering and material donation. More and more charity organizations make good use of advertising to arouse consumer attitudes and behavioral intentions. Previous research focuses on the motivation of helping behavior and gender difference in charity advertising. This research examines the different self-construals and considers two moderators related to advertising presentation: construal level and message framing.
The present study uses experimental design to investigate the advertising effects of people’s self-construal (independent vs. interdependent), construal level (high vs. low), and message framing (gain vs. loss). Thus, 2×2×2 factorial design is conducted. The ad effects are measured by attitudes toward the charity and intentions to donate to observe the response under eight different and fictitious scenarios.
The results indicate that, participants who are primed as interdependent self-construal are more likely to be influenced by a charity ad than those primed as independent self-construal. When participants are primed to be self-independent, a gain-framed message is more effective than a loss-framed one. When considering both construal level and message framing, we find that when consumers are primed as interdependent self-construal, a loss-framed message along with low construal level is more likely to enhance participants’ behavior intention than that along with high construal level. According to these findings, this study suggests that marketer should consider not only the consumer self-construal but also construal level and message framing in order to enhance advertising persuasion.

目錄

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 前言 1
第二節 研究背景 1
第三節 研究動機 2
第四節 研究目的與問題 3
第五節 論文架構與研究流程 3

第二章 文獻回顧 5
第一節 前言 5
第二節 自我建構 5
一、自我建構的定義與意涵 6
二、自我建構對訊息陳述與廣告效果之影響 8
第三節 解釋水平 9
第四節 廣告訊息陳述 13
一、訊息陳述的定義與意涵 13
二、訊息陳述與風險之間關係對廣告效果的影響 14
三、訊息陳述與消費者個人差異之間關係對廣告效果的影響 15
第五節 個人差異對於慈善廣告效果的影響 20
第六節 訊息流暢性對於慈善廣告效果的影響 20

第三章 研究設計與方法 22
第一節 前言 22
第二節 研究假設與架構 22
一、消費者自我建構與廣告的解釋水平對慈善廣告效果的影響 22
二、消費者自我建構與廣告的訊息陳述對慈善廣告效果的影響 23
三、廣告訊息陳述、解釋水平和自我建構的交互作用對慈善支持行為響 25
第三節 前測 27
一、前測問卷設計 27
二、前測分析結果 28
第四節 研究變數的操作型定義與衡量 30
一、自變數 30
二、依變數 33
三、個人差異變數 34
第五節 研究設計 36
一、 問卷題項排列和廣告設計 36
二、 抽樣方法 38
第六節 小結 38

第四章 研究結果分析 39
第一節 前言 39
第二節 樣本背景資料分析 39
第三節 依變數題組因素分析 40
第四節 信度分析 41
第五節 研究設計之檢驗 41
一、自我建構操弄確認 41
二、廣告解釋水平操弄確認 42
三、廣告訊息陳述操弄確認 43
四、潛在共變數檢定 44
第六節 研究假設之檢驗 45
一、以對慈善態度為依變數進行研究假設之檢驗 48
二、以對慈善意圖為依變數進行研究假設之檢驗 51
第七節 個人差異變項對廣告效果之影響 53
一、消費者知覺訊息的流暢性 53
二、消費者的同情心 54
第八節 受訪者對實驗廣告的回應 55
第九節 小結 58

第五章 結論與建議 59
第一節 前言 59
第二節 研究結果討論 59
第三節 研究貢獻 62
一、理論貢獻 62
二、實務貢獻 63
第四節 研究限制 63
一、以一般樣本為抽樣方式 63
二、慈善議題的選擇 63
三、實驗設計法 64
第五節 未來研究建議 64
一、慈善議題選擇 64
二、廣告操弄的設計 64
三、不同的訊息陳述 65
第六節 小結 65

參考文獻 66
附錄一 正式問卷 I

圖目錄

圖1.1研究流程圖 4
圖3.1研究架構圖 26
圖3.2自我建構激發情境 27
圖4.1獨立自我概念建構消費者，解釋水平與訊息陳述對慈善態度之影響 50
圖4.2相依自我建構消費者，解釋水平與訊息陳述對慈善態度之影響 50
圖4.3自我建構與解釋水平對慈善意圖之影響 52
圖4.4訊息流暢性之中介效果分析模型 53
圖4.5消費者同情心之中介效果分析模型 54

表目錄

表2.1 獨立我與相依我之特性 7
表2.2 解釋水平與訊息之間的相關研究整裡 12
表2.3 訊息陳述對慈善廣告效果影響之相關文獻整理 19
表3.1 自我建構操弄檢定測量題項 28
表3.2 前測樣本人口統計資料表 28
表3.3 獨立激發情境版本之操弄檢定 29
表3.4 相依激發情境版本之操弄檢定 30
表3.5 正面陳述與負面陳述之廣告宣傳口號及使用字句比較表 32
表3.6 各情境廣告之操弄搭配 33
表4.1 樣本人口統計資料表 40
表4.2 依變數題組分析結果—Varimax轉軸法主成分分析 41
表4.3 自我建構評估結果 42
表4.4 廣告解釋水平評估結果 43
表4.5 廣告訊息陳述評估結果 44
表4.6 消費者自我建構、解釋水平與廣告訊息陳述對廣告效果之影響 ─MANCOVA檢定 45
表4.7 消費者自我建構、解釋水平與訊息陳述對廣告效果之影響 ─受試者間效應項檢定 47
表4.8 消費者自我建構、解釋水平與廣告訊息陳述對廣告效果之敘述統計 48
表4.9 消費者自我建構、解釋水平與廣告訊息陳述對慈善態度之影響 ─ANCOVA檢定 49
表4.10消費者自我建構、解釋水平與廣告訊息陳述對慈善意圖之影響 ─ANCOVA檢定 52
表4.11 訊息流暢性與同情心中介效果之回歸分析 55
表4.12 受訪者對實驗廣告的代表性看法 56
表4.13 開放性問題之關聯性想法數分析 57
表4.14 研究發現整理 58

Aaker, D. A., and Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54( 1), 27–41.
Aaker, J. L., and Lee, A. Y. (2001). “I” Seek Pleasures and “We” Avoid Pains: The Role of Self-Regulatory Goals in Information Processing and Persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 33–49.
Abood, D. A., Coster, D. C., Mullis, A. K., and Black, D. R. (2002). Evaluation of A ‘‘Loss-Framed’’ Minimal Intervention to Increase Mammography Utilization among Medically Un- and Under-Insured Women. Cancer Detection and Prevention, 26(5), 394–400.
Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R. E., and Unnava, R. H. (2000). Consumer Responses to Negative Publicity: The Moderating Role of Commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 203–214.
Banks, S. M., Salovey, P., Greener, S., Rothman, A. J., Moyer, A., and Beauvais, J. (1995). The Effects of Message Framing on Mammography Utilization. Health Psychology, 14(2), 178–184.
Baron, R., and Kenny, D. (1986). The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Barone, M. J., Roy, T. (2011). The Effect of Deal Exclusivity on Consumer Response to Targeted Pricepromotions: A Social Identification Perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 78–89.
Batson, C. D., Duncan, B., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., and Birch, K. (1981). Is Empathic Emotion a Source of Altruistic Motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), 290–302.
Batson C. D., and Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for Altruism: Toward a Pluralism of Prosocial Motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 107–122.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., and Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad Is Stronger than Good. Review of General psychology, 5(4), 323–70.
Beutel, A. M., and Marini, M. M. (1995). Gender and Values. American Sociological Review, 60(3), 436–448.
Block, L. G., and Keller, P. (1995). When to Accentuate the Negative: The Effects of Perceived Efficacy and Message Framing on Intentions to Perform a Health-Related Behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(5), 192–203.
Brunel, F. F., and Nelson, M. R. (2000). Gender Responses to “Help-Self” and “Help-Others” Charity Ad Appeals: An Analysis of Mediating Role of World-Views and Values. Journal of Advertising, 24(3), 15–28.
Chang, C. C., and Chou, Y. J. (2008). Goal Orientation and Comparative Valence in Persuasion. Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 73–87.
Chang, C. T., and Lee, Y. K. (2010). Effects of Message Framing, Vividness Congruency, and Statistical Framing on Responses to Charity Advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 29(2), 195–220.
Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., and Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting The Empathy-Altruism Relationship: When One into One Equals Oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 481–494.
Das, E., Kerkhof, P., Kuiper, J. (2008). Improving The Effectiveness of Fundraising Messages：The Impact of Charity Goal Attainment, Message Framing, and Evidence on Persuasion. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(2), 161-175.
Davis, J. J. (1995). The Effects of Message Framing on Response to Environmental Communication. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(2), 185–299.
Detweiler, J. B., Bedell, B. T., Salovey, P., Pronin, E., and Rothman, A. J. (1999). Message Framing and Sunscreen Use: Gain-Framed Messages Motivate Beach-Goers. Health Psychology, 18(2), 189–196.
Eagly, A., and Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Farrell, K., Ferguson, E., James, V., and Lowe, K. C. (2001). Confidence in the Safety of Blood for Transfusion: The Effect of Message Framing. Transfusion, 41(11), 1335–1340.
Florack, A., Ineichen, S., and Bieri, R. (2009). The Impact of Regulatory Focus on the Effects of Two-Sided Advertising. Social Cognition, 27(1), 37–56.
Fujita, K., Henderson, M. D., Eng, J., Trope, Y., and Liberman, N. (2006). Spatial Distance and Mental Construal of Social Events. Psychological Science, 17(4), 278–282.
Gaeth, G. J., Levin, I. P., Chakraborty, G., and Levin, A. M. (1990). Consumer Evaluation of Multi-Product Bundles: An Information Integration Analysis. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 47–58.
Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., and Lee, A. Y. (1999). “I” Value Freedom, but “We” Value Relationships: Self-Construal Priming Mirrors Cultural Differences in Judgment. Psychological Science, 10(4), 321–326.
Guy, B.S., and Patton, W. E. (1989). The Marketing of Altruistic Causes: Understanding Why People Help. Journal of Services Marketing, 2(1), 5–6.
Hamilton, R. W., and Biehal, G. J. (2005). Achieving Your Goals or Protecting Their Future? The Effects of Self-View on Goals and Choices. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 277–283.
Han, S., and Shavitt, S. (1994). Persuasion and Culture: Advertising Appeals inIndividualistic and Collectivistic Societies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30(4), 326–350.
Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., and Kim, J. (1991). Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product Attribute Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(3), 454–462.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self Discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319–340.
Higgins, E. T., Roney, E. Crowe, E., and Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal Versus Ought Predilections for Approach and Avoidance: Distinct Self-Regulatory Systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (2), 276–286.
Hoffman, L. (1981). Foundations of Family Therapy: A Conceptual Framework for Systems Change. New York: Basic Books.
Hong, Y., Morris, M., Chiu, C. Y., and Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multicultural Minds: A Dynamic Constructivist Approach to Culture and Cognition. American Psychologist, 55(7), 709–720.
Hsu, F. L. K. (1985). The Self in Cross-Cultural Perspective. In A. J. Marsella, G. DeVos, and F. L. K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and Self: Asian and Western Perspectives (pp. 24–55). New York: Tavistock.
Jain, S. P., Lindsey, C., Agrawal, N., and Maheswaran, D. (2007). For Better or For Worse? Valenced Comparative Frames and Regulatory Focus. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(1), 57–65.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1981). The Framing of Decision and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211(30), 453–458.
Kalichman, S. C., and Coley, B. (1995). Context Framing to Enhance HIV-Antibody-Testing Messages Targeted to African American Women. Health Psychology, 14(3), 247– 254.
Kees, J., Burton, S., and Tangari, A. H. (2010). The Impact of Regulatory Focus, Temporal Orientation, and Fit on Consumer Responses to Heath-Related Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 39(1), 19–34.
Keller, P. A., (2006). Regulatory Focus and Efficacy of Health Messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 109–114.
Kim, H., Rao, A. R., and Lee, A. Y. (2009). It's Time to Vote: The Effect of Matching Message Orientation and Temporal Frame on Political Persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 877–889.
Lee, A. Y., and Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the Frame into Focus: The Influence of Regulatory Fit on Processing Fluency and Persuasion. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 205–218.
Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., and Gardner, W. L. (2000). The Pleasures and Pains of Distinct Self-Construals: The Role of Interdependence in Regulatory Focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1122–1134.
Levin, I., and Gaeth, G. E. (1988). How Consumers are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 374–378.
Liberman, N., Sagristano, M., and Trope, Y. (2002). The Effect of Temporal Distance on Level of Mental Construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(6), 523–534.
Liberman, N., and Trope, Y. (1998). The Role of Feasibility and Desirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Decisions: A Test of Temporal Construal Theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5–18.
Liberman, N., Trope, Y., and Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal Level Theory and Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 113–117.
Lindenmeier, J. (2008). Promoting Volunteerism: Effects of Self-Efficacy, Advertisement–Induced Emotional Arousal, Perceived Costs of Volunteering, and Message Framing. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19(1), 43–56.
Linville, P., Fischer, G., and Fischhoff, B. (2003). AIDS Risk Perceptions and Decision Biases. In G. Loewenstein, D. Read, and R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Time and Decision: Economic and Psychological Perspectives on Intertemporal Choice (pp. 5–38). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Loewenstein, G., Small, D. A., and Strnad, J. (2006). Statistical, Identifiable, and Iconic Victims. In E. J. McCaffery, and J. Slemrod (Eds.), Behavioral Public Finance (pp. 32–46). New York: RussellSage Foundation Press.
Maheswaran, D., and Meyer-Levy, J. (1990). The Influence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(8), 361–367.
Markus, H. R., and Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the Self: Implication for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.
Marsella, A., De Vos, G., and Hsu, E. L. K., (1985). Culture and Self. London: Tavistock.
McElroy, T., and Mascari, D. (2007). When Is It Going to Happen? How Temporal Distance Influences Processing for Risky-Choice Framing Tasks. Social
Cognition, 25(4), 495–517.
Meyerowitz, B. E., and Chaiken, S. (1987). The Effect of Message Framing on Breast Self- Examination Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 500–510.
Miller, J.G. (1988). Bridging the Content-Structure Dichotomy: Culture and the Self. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The Cross-Culture Challenge to Social Psychology (pp. 266–281). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Millar, M., and Millar, K. (2000). Promoting Safe Driving Behaviours: The Influence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(4), 853–866.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., and Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking Individualism and Collectivism: Evaluation of Theoretical Assumptions and Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72.
Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlagverlag.
Petty, R. E., and Wegener, D. T. (1998). Matching versus Mismatching Attitude Functions: Implications of Scrutiny of Persuasive Messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(3), 227–240.
Polyorat, K., and Alden, D. L. (2005). Self-Construal and Need-for-Cognition Effects on Brand Attitudes and Purchase Intentions in Response to Comparative Advertising in Thailand and the United State. Journal of Advertising, 34 (1), 37–48.
Pryor, J. B., and Reeder, G. D. (Eds.). (1993), The Social Psychology of HIV Infection, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., and Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in The Perceiver's Processing Experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382.
Rimer, B. K., and Kreuter, M. W. (2006). Advancing Tailored Health Communication: A Persuasion and Message Effects Perspective. Journal of Communication, 56(1), 184–201.
Rothman, A. J., Bartels, R. D., Wlaschin, J., and Salovey, P. (2006). The Strategic Use of Gain- and Loss-Framed Messages to Promote Healthy Behavior: How Theory Can Inform Practice. Journal of Communication, 56(1), 202–220.
Rothman, A. J., Salovey, P., Antone, C., Keough, K., and Martin, C. D. (1993). The Influence of Message Framing on Intentions to Perform Health Behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29(5), 408–443.
Schneider, T., Salovey, P., Pallonen, U., Mundorf, N., Smith, N., and Steward, W. (2001). Visual and Auditory Message Framing Effects on Tobacco Smoking. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(4), 667–682.
Schwarz, N., and Bless, H. (1991). Happy and Mindless, but Sad and Smart? The Impact of Affective States on Analytic Reasoning. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Emotion and Social Judgments (pp. 55–71). Oxford: Taylor and Francis.
Sharabany, R. (2000). Intimacy in Preadolescence: Issues in Linking Parent and Peers, Theory, Culture, and Findings. In K. A. Kerns, J. M. Contreras, and A. M. Neal-Barnett (Eds.), Family and Peers: Linking Two Social Worlds (pp. 47–84). Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.
Shavitt, S. (1990). The Role of Attitude Objects in Attitude Functions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26(2), 124–148.
Singelis, T. M. (1994).The Measurement of Independent and Interdependent Self-Construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591.
Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(12), 287–300.
Small, D. A., and Verrochi, N. M. (2009). The Face of Need: Facial Emotion Expression on Charity Advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(12), 777–787.
Smith, G. E. (1996). Framing in Advertising and the Moderating Impact of Consumer Education. Journal of Advertising Research,36(5), 49–64.
Smith, G. E., and Berger, P. D. (1995). The Impact of Framing, Anchorpoints, and Frames of Reference on Direct Mail Charitable Contributions. Advances in Consumer Research, 22, 705–712.
Staub, E. (1971). Helping a Person in Distress: The Influence of Implicit and Explicit “Rules” of Conduct on Children and Adults. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17(2), 137–145.
Swaminathan, V., Page, K. L., and Gurhan-Canli, Z. (2007). “My” Brand or “Our”Brand: The Effects of Brand Relationship Dimensions and Self-Construal on Brand Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(8), 248–59.
Tangari, A. H., Folse, J. A. G., Burton S., and Kees, J. (2010). The Moderating Influence of Consumers’ Temporal Orientation on the Framing of Societal Threats and Corporate Responses in Cause-Related Marketing Campaigns. Journal of Advertising, 39(2), 35–50.
Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical Effects of Positive and Negative Events: The Mobilization–Minimization Hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 67–85.
Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., and Goto, S. G. (1991). Some Tests of the Distinction between the Private Self and the Collective Self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 649–655.
Trope, Y. (1986). Identification and Inferential Processes in Dispositional Attribution.
Psychological Review, 93(3), 239–257.
Trope, Y., and Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal Construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403–421.
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211(30), 453–458.
White, K., MacDonnell, R., and Dahl, D. W. (2011). It’s the Mind-Set that Matters: The Role of Construal Level and Message Framing in Influencing Consumer Efficacy and Conservation Behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 472–485.
White, K., and Peloza, J. (2009). Self-Benefit Versus Other-Benefit Marketing Appeals: Their Effectiveness in Generating Charitable Support. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 109–124.
Williams, T., Clarke, V., and Borland, R. (2001). Effects of Message Framing on Breast Cancer Related Beliefs and Behaviours: The Role of Mediating Factors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(5), 925–950.
Winterich, K. P., and Barone, M. J. (2011). Warm Glow or Cold, Hard Cash? Social Identify Effects on Consumer Choice for Donation Versus Discount Promotions. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 855–868.
Zhang, Y., and Shrum, L. J. (2009). The Influence of Self-Construal on Impulsive Consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 38–50.
Zhao, G. Z., and Pechmann, C. (2007). The Impact of Regulatory Focus on Adolescents' Response to Antismoking Advertising Campaigns. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 671–687.