網際網路發展增進人類生活上的便利，也改變人類諸多生活模式。其中，電子商務應用使得個人購買行為和企業經營模式產生變化。電子商務市場的龐大消費族群和高活絡度形成之市場規模，表示此場域具有高度經濟價值，值得學術和產業界投入研究。
電子商務的交易環境存在資訊過載現象，由於人的有限理性使得人們在有限的認知資源下僅能就某些範圍的資訊進行檢視而可能產生判斷上的偏誤。因此，本研究以框架效應和詳盡可能性模式(Elaboration Likelihood Model, ELM)為基礎，從注意力(attention)觀點探討框架訊息和消費者對資訊的處理動機和處理能力形成之詳盡思考程度如何引發消費者的注意力，進而影響消費者的購買決策；亦即以眼動行為做為認知處理表徵，透過眼動儀追蹤消費者在網路購物時對產品相關資訊的注意力歷程，了解消費者在網路購物時框架訊息和消費者的詳盡思考程度對產品資訊處理和購買行為的影響。本研究共進行二個實驗探討三個研究問題：(1)網路購物環境是否仍存在框架效應現象？(2)框架訊息如何影響眼動行為並導引消費者的購買決策？(3)消費者在不同詳盡思考程度下對框架效果、眼動行為和購買決策的影響為何？
實驗一主要探討網路購物環境的框架效果和眼動行為，研究結果顯示正面框架訊息比負面框架訊息有較高的購買意願，而負面框架訊息比正面框架訊息會引發較長凝視時間觀看產品資訊，且產品功能資訊和購買資訊的凝視時間對購買意願具有預測力。實驗二主要以詳盡可能性模式(ELM)為基礎，在實驗一的研究模式下探討詳盡思考程度在框架訊息對眼動行為、購買意願以及在購買意願預測力之調節效果，研究顯示(1)高詳盡思考程度下，正面框架訊息比負面框架訊息有較高的購買意願，但低詳盡思考程度下，正、負面框架訊息在購買意願則無差異；(2)低詳盡思考程度下，負面框架訊息比正面框架訊息有較長的凝視時間在整個產品頁面和產品圖片、產品功能、框架訊息等三個資訊區塊，但高詳盡思考程度下，正、負面框架訊息在凝視時間的差異僅發生在少數資訊區塊且無一致的效果。(3)高、低詳盡思考程度之凝視時間均對購買意願有預測力，且在高詳盡思考程度下，負面框架訊息引發之凝視時間對購買意願預測力較高於正面框架訊息，反之低詳盡思考程度下則為正面框架訊息引發之凝視時間對購買意願預測力高於負面框架訊息。以上研究結果意謂著網路購物環境下存在框架效應現象並反應在購買意願和眼動凝視行為，且眼動凝視行為對購買意願之預測結果意謂著框架訊息會特別引發某些資訊區塊的注意力而對購買意願有重要影響；此外，不同消費者的詳盡思考程度會使框架效應現象和購買意願預測產生變化。
在學術貢獻部份，本研究將框架訊息應用在多元資訊的網路購物環境中，並先從眼動行為探討框架效應下的認知處理模式，再探討詳盡思考程度對框架效應和眼動行為的調節效果；亦即，本研究之研究重點在探討機制而非僅有外生變數。此外，本研究以眼動追蹤儀器推論眼動行為與認知反應之關係，除了避免自我陳述問題，同時以眼動行為做為預測指標之方法可提供後續研究的思考方向。最後，本研究結果對框架效應在行為面的探討和對ELM理論的基本假設驗證與解釋具有研究貢獻和參考價值。在實務貢獻部份，本研究以網路購物環境為實驗情境，分析框架訊息和詳盡思考程度所引發之眼動行為在不同資訊區塊的凝視時間對購買意願之預測，可提供以電子商務為經營模式之業者在訊息和頁面設計之實務應用參考，例如：使用負面框架訊息吸引消費者注意和思考、以眼動行為識別消費者的詳盡思考程度並對不同詳盡思考程度之消費者使用不同框架訊息或產品資訊以達到刺激和預測消費者購買決策之目的。

With the fast development and diffusion of the Internet, e-commerce is gradually changing shopping behavior and business model, and has a high economic value where the academics and industries are worth investigating. In online shopping, it is important to understand how consumer processes tremendous amounts of information and then makes purchase from a vast market of e-sellers. More specifically, characteristics of human information processing such as selective perception and limited attention can cause cognitive biases which in turn will lead to irrational decision.
Based on the theory of the framing effect and the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), this study conducted two experiments and used eye tracker to explore three research questions by observing eye movement and purchase intention: (1) Are there framing effects in e-commerce? (2) What influence does the framed message have in customers’ eye movements, which in turn affect purchases behavior? (3) What influence does the customers’ elaboration have in framing effect, eye movement, and purchase behavior?
The first experiment aimed to explore the framing effect on purchase intention and eye movement in online shopping. Besides, the experiment explored the predictive power of eye movement for purchase intention. The results showed that eye movement was more active when participants received a negatively framed message than when they received a positively framed message. Moreover, eye movement can predict purchase intention in the case of negative framing: a prolonged look at information of functional attributes (transaction-related cost or profit) is associated with high (low) purchase intention.
The second experiment aimed to explore the moderating effect of elaboration based on ELM and the first experiment. The results showed that the high elaboration is more susceptible to the framing effect on purchase intention, while the low elaboration is more susceptible to the framing effect on eye movement. The results also showed that eye movements are capable of predicting purchase intention when customers are under the different levels of elaboration: under the high elaboration, eye movement induced by negative framing had higher predictive power, while under the low elaboration, eye movement induced by positive framing showed higher predictive power.
The findings have important academic contributions to exploring the framing effect on behavior, and verifying and interpreting the ELM on basic assumptions. Besides, the findings have important practical implications for e-sellers to adopt negative framing for attracting consumers’ attention and for compelling them deliberation, to identify the characteristics of consumers’ elaboration using eye movements, and to deliver different framing messages and product information corresponding to different elaboration levels. These could be applied to the design of information presentation in e-commerce.

論文審定書 i
誌 謝 ii
摘 要 iii
Abstract v
第一章　緒論 1
第一節　研究背景與動機 1
第二節　研究目的 5
第二章　文獻探討 7
第一節　眼動與認知 7
一、注意力與眼動行為 7
二、眼動與認知一致性的基本假設 9
三、眼動指標與認知意義 10
第二節 框架效應 13
一、理論概要 13
二、框架效應與眼動行為之研究假說推論 16
第三節　詳盡可能性模式(Elaboration Likelihood Model) 19
一、模式概要 19
二、模式基本假設與變數 20
三、詳盡思考程度與認知處理 23
四、詳盡思考程度對框架效應與眼動行為之研究假說推論 23
第三章　研究設計 26
第一節　研究架構 26
第二節　實驗工具 27
第三節　實驗一 28
一、研究模式 28
二、變數定義與操作化 28
三、實驗設計與實驗情境 30
四、受試者與實驗程序 32
第四節　實驗二 34
一、研究模式 34
二、變數定義與操作化 34
三、實驗設計與實驗情境 38
四、受試者與實驗程序 41
第四章　資料分析 43
第一節　實驗一 43
一、框架效應 44
二、眼動行為對購買意願預測力 45
三、實驗一之結果與討論 47
第二節　實驗二 49
一、詳盡思考程度對框架效應之影響 50
二、詳盡思考程度對購買意願預測之影響 57
三、實驗二之結果與討論 59
第五章　結論與討論 62
第一節　結論 62
第二節　學術貢獻 63
第三節　實務貢獻 65
第四節　研究限制與未來研究方向 68
參考文獻 70
附錄A：處理動機之操弄檢核量表 75
附錄B：實驗二之處理動機實驗情境操弄 76
附錄C：處理能力變數量表 78
附錄D：實驗二之凝視次數分析 79

Alba, J., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 411-454.
Brucks, M. (1995). The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 1-16.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1985). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: The role of message repetition. In L. Alwitt & A. Mitchell (Eds.), Psychological processes and advertising effects (pp. 91-112). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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(5), 752-766.
Chang, T.-Z., & Wildt, A. (1994). Price, product information, and purchase intention: An empirical study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(1), 16-27.
Cheng, F.-F., & Wu, C.-S. (2010). Debiasing the framing effect: The effect of warning and involvement. Decision Support Systems, 49(3), 328-334.
Cowen, L., Ball, L. J., & Delin, J. (2002). An eye movement analysis of webpage usability. Proceedings of the HCI 2002: People and Computers XVI - Memorable yet Invisible, London.
De Martino, B., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science, 313(5787), 684-687.
Dunegan, K. J. (1993). Framing, cognitive modes, and image theory: Toward an understanding of a glass half full. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(3), 491-503.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Ehmke, C., & Wilson, S. (2007). Identifying web usability problems from eye-tracking data. Proceedings of the 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference on HCI 2007: People and Computers XXI - HCI...but not as we know it, University of Lancaster, United Kingdom.
Garcia, C., Ponsoda, V., & Estebaranz, H. (2000). Scanning ads: Effects of involvement and of position of the illustration in printed advertisements. Advances in Consumer Research, 27(1), 104-109.
Goldberg, J. H., & Kotval, X. P. (1999). Computer interface evaluation using eye movements: Methods and constructs. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 24, 631-645.
Goldberg, J. H., Stimson, M. J., Lewenstein, M., Scott, N., & Wichansky, A. M. (2002). Eye tracking in web search tasks: Design implications. Proceedings of the Eye tracking research and applications symposium (ETRA 2002).
Gonzalez, C., Dana, J., Koshino, H., & Just, M. (2005). The framing effect and risky decisions: Examining cognitive functions with fMRI. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26(1), 1-20.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data ananlysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hartmann, J., De Angeli, A., & Sutcliffe, A. (2008). Framing the user experience: Information biases on website quality judgement. Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, Florence, Italy.
Hogarth, R. (1987). Judgement and choice: The psychology of decision. New York: Wiley.
Howard, K., & Salkeld, G. (2009). Does attribute framing in discrete choice experiments influence willingness to pay? Results from a discrete choice experiment in screening for colorectal cancer. Value in Health, 12(2), 354-363.
Jacob, R. J. K., & Karn, K. S. (2003). Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: Ready to deliver the promises. In J. Hyona, R. Radach & H. Deubel (Eds.), The Mind's Eye: Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement Research (pp. 573-605): Elsevier Science. Amsterdam.
Josephson, S. (2004). Eye tracking methodology and the Internet. In L. S. Kenneth, et. al. (Ed.), Handbook of Visual Communication: Theory, Methods, and Media (pp. 63-80).
Josephson, S., & Holmes, M. E. (2002). Attention to repeated images on the world-wide web: Another look at scanpath theory. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 34(4), 539-548.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8(4), 441-480.
Just , M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329-354.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341-350.
Krause, W. (1982). Eye fixations and three-term series problems, or: Is there evidence for task independent information units. In R. Groner & P. Fraisse (Eds.), Cognition and Eye Movements (pp. 122-138). Amsterdam/Berlin: North Holland/Deutscher Verlag der Wissesnschaften.
Kuvaas, B., & Selart, M. (2004). Effects of attribute framing on cognitive processing and evaluation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95(2), 198-207.
Langer, E. J. (1992). Matters of mind: Mindfulness/mindlessness in perspective. Consciousness and Cognition, 1(3), 289-305.
Levin, I. P. (1987). Associative effects of information framing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 25(2), 85-86.
Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (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.
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149-188.
Lohse, G. L., & Wu, D. J. (2001). Eye movement patterns on chinese yellow pages advertising. Electronic Markets, 11(2), 87-96.
Maughan, L., Gutnikov, S., & Stevens, R. (2007). Like more, look more. Look more, like more: The evidence from eye-tracking. Journal of Brand Management, 14(4), 335-342.
Meyerowitz, B. E., & 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.
Meyers-Levy, J., & Maheswaran, D. (2004). Exploring message framing outcomes when systematic, heuristic, or both types of processing occur. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1&2), 159-167.
Pan, B., Hembrooke, H. A., Gay, G. K., Granka, L. A., Feusner, M. K., & Newman, J. K. (2004). The determinants of web page viewing behavior: An eye-tracking study. Proceedings of the 2004 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications(ETRA '04), San Antonio, Texas.
Park, C.-W., & Moon, B.-J. (2003). The relationship between product involvement and product knowledge: Moderating roles of product type and product knowledge type. Psychology and Marketing, 20(11), 977-997.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915-1926.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on response to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69-81.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer/Verlag.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., Kasmer, J. A., & Haugtvedt, C. P. (1987). A reply to Stiff and Boster. Communication Monographs, 54(3), 257-263.
Petty, R. E., Kasmer, J. A., Haugtvedt, C. P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1987). Source and message factors in persuasion: A reply to stiff's critique of the elaboration likelihood model. Communication Monographs, 54(3), 233-249.
Petty, R. E., Rucker, D., Bizer, G., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In J. S. Seiter & G. H. Gass (Eds.), Perspectives on persuasion, social influence and compliance gaining (pp. 65-89). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 323-390). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pickering, M. J., Frisson, S., McElree, B., & Traxler, M. (2004). Eye movements and semantic composition. In M. Carreiras & J. C. Clifton (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERPs, and beyond. Hove: Psychology Press.
Poole, A., & Ball, L. J. (2005). Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: Current status and future prospects. In C. Ghaoui (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Computer Interaction: Idea Group.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information Processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422.
Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457-1506.
Renshaw, J. A., Finlay, J., Tyfa, D. A., & Ward, R. D. (2003). Designing for visual influence: An eye tracking study of the usability of graphical management information. Proceedings of the IFIP conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT '03), Zurich, Switzerland.
Russo, J. E. (1978). Eye fixations can save the world: A critical evaluation and a comparison between eye fixations and other information processing methodologies. Advances in Consumer Research, 5(1), 561-570.
Shiv, B., Britton, J. A. E., & Payne, J. W. (2004). Does elaboration increase or decrease the effectiveness of negatively versus positively framed messages? Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 199-208.
Sujan, M. (1985). Consumer knowledge: Effects on evaluation strategies mediating consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(1), 31-46.
Treistman, J., & Gregg, J. P. (1979). Visual, verbal, and sales responses to print ads. Journal of Advertising Research, 19(4), 41-47.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.
Vaughn, R. (1980). How advertising works: A planning model. Journal of Advertising Research, 20, 27-33.
Wedel, M., & Pieters, R. (2007). A review of eye-tracking research in marketing. Review of Marketing Research, 4, 123-147.
Wedel, M., & Pieters, R. (2008). Eye tracking for visual marketing. Foundations and Trends® in Marketing, 1(4), 231-320.
Wofford, J. C., & Goodwin, V. L. (1990). Effects of feedback on cognitive processing and choice of decision style. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 603-612.
Wood, W., Kallgren, C. A., & Preisler, R. M. (1985). Access to attitude-relevant information in memory as a determinant of persuasion: The role of message attributes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21(1), 73-85.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341-352.
Zhang, J., Wedel, M., & Pieters, R. (2009). Sales effects of attention to feature advertisements: A bayesian mediation analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(5), 669-681.
Zhang, Y., & Buda, R. (1999). Moderating effects of need for cognition on responses to positively versus negatively framed advertising messages. Journal of Advertising, 28(2), 1-15.
黃玫瑄(2010)，「2010年台灣網友線上購物行為調查分析」，資策會產業研究報告，資策會產業情報研究所(MIC)。