Responsive image
博碩士論文 etd-0414115-111554 詳細資訊
Title page for etd-0414115-111554
論文名稱
Title
知己知「比」—比較對象與訊息框架對比較式廣告效果之影響
Know the enemy and know yourself: The Influence of comparison target and message framing in comparative advertising
系所名稱
Department
畢業學年期
Year, semester
語文別
Language
學位類別
Degree
頁數
Number of pages
217
研究生
Author
指導教授
Advisor
召集委員
Convenor
口試委員
Advisory Committee
口試日期
Date of Exam
2015-04-30
繳交日期
Date of Submission
2015-05-14
關鍵字
Keywords
廣告效果、訊息框架、定錨理論、調節焦點理論、比較式廣告
Message Framing, Anchoring Theory, Regulatory Focus, Comparative Advertising, Advertising Effectiveness
統計
Statistics
本論文已被瀏覽 5663 次,被下載 50
The thesis/dissertation has been browsed 5663 times, has been downloaded 50 times.
中文摘要
新進品牌廠商常希望透過比較式廣告,快速達到品牌曝光以及提供消費者詳盡的產品資訊。而礙於台灣公平交易法規範,當廣告主進行比較式廣告,有時會避免以直接對立方式呈現廣告產品與對手的相對優劣勢,而會藉由提供一個公正客觀的市場平均屬性值作為比較對象,因此,本研究第一部份將討論加入市場平均屬性值,或以對手產品及市場平均屬性值同時做為比較對象,是否能有效提升訊息客觀及可信度、參考價值及廣告效果,並加入個體調節焦點來討論個體內在差異對於廣告內容解讀的干擾影響。另外,一旦比較對象增加,根據定錨理論相關研究推論,比較數量與比較對象彼此間差距的不同,應會影響整體廣告參考價值,因此研究中也探討了比較對象的數量以及彼此間表現差異大小對於廣告效果的影響。另一方面,實務上除了以數值方式進行比較外,也常以文字呈現方式來比較不同產品間的優劣,而文字間語意的抽換往往會造成框架效果,因此本研究第二部份將主產品與對手產品分別以利得與損失訊息框架呈現,並與個體調節焦點進行適配討論,以歸納對於廣告效果的影響,同時研究中也將討論比較雙方使用之框架比較性高低對於廣告效果的影響。
本研究分為兩個階段,實驗一證實,額外加入市場平均屬性值作為比較對象對於廣告效果具有提升作用,而多個比較對象也比單一比較對象,廣告效果表現更佳,其中在多個比較對象時,比較對象彼此產品表現較相近會產生較佳的廣告效果,而當加入個體調節焦點討論,發現促進焦點的消費者,關注廣告中營造勝過強勢對手表現,而預防焦點的消費者,則關注廣告中勝過市場平均表現,進而有較高的廣告效果;實驗二也發現,兩比較產品所使用的訊息框架之可比較性高 (相較於低) 會產生較佳廣告效果,又當比較式廣告中主產品利得框架及對手產品損失框架與個體調節焦點產生適配,也會引發較佳的廣告效果。
研究結果對於比較式廣告、調節焦點理論、定錨理論、訊息框架、可比較性等領域具有理論意義,並可供廠商在設計比較式廣告時比較對象的選擇、訊息內容設計之參考,以及如何因應不同消費者進行調整,以創造較佳廣告效果。
Abstract
New brands often wish to achieve quick brand exposure and provide consumers detailed product information through comparative advertising. Due to the strict regulations of the fair trade laws in Taiwan, when advertisers adopt comparative advertising, they sometimes avoid comparing relative strengths and weaknesses with the rival products in a direct way of confrontation; instead, a fair and objective market average value will be used as a comparison object. In the first part of this study, it explores when the objective market average value has been adopted as a comparison object, or showed in the advertisements with rival products simultaneously, whether it can effectively enhance the objectivity and credibility of the information, value of reference, and advertising effectiveness. This study also discusses the moderating effects of individual regulatory focus. In addition, when considering the increase of comparison objects, the number of comparison objects and the gap between different objects may affect the reference value of comparison objects based on anchoring theory. Therefore, the study also discusses the impact of the number of comparison objects and the gap between objects’ performances on advertising effectiveness.
In addition to the comparisons with numbers, texts are also a common way used to compare the pros and cons between different products in practices. Rephrasing the texts often result in the effectiveness of message framing. In the second part of this study, the focal products and rival products will be represented with the message frames of gains and losses respectively. This study explores the fit effects between message frames and individual regulatory focus. Additionally, the advertising effectiveness of the comparability between two message frames is examined.
Two experiments are conducted to test the hypotheses. Experiment 1 reveals that that the addition of a market average value as a comparison object can enhance advertising effectiveness. Multiple comparison objects (multiple anchors) can lead to better advertising effectiveness than single comparison object (single anchor). Similar performances of comparison objects (high anchor-consistency) can also lead to better advertising effectiveness than dissimilar ones (low anchor-consistency). Consumers with promotion focus are concerned more about if the advertised focal product defeats the rival product. However, consumers with prevention focus are concerned more about if the performances of the advertised product are better than the average market values. Therefore, consumers with promotion focus (prevention focus) respond better to the comparative ads that use the rival product (average market values) as the comparison object. Experiment 2 finds that when the message frames adopted by the two comparative products have high (vs. low) degree of comparability, it will lead to better advertising effectiveness. When the gain frames of the advertised product and the loss frames of the rival product achieve a fit with consumer individual regulatory focus, it will lead to better advertising effectiveness.
This research makes theoretical contributions to comparative advertising, regulatory focus theory, anchoring theory, message framing, and comparability. It also offers practical suggestions on the choice of comparison objects and the design of message contents for comparative advertisements. Furthermore, this study suggests practitioners how to adjust the comparative ads to respond to different consumers for creating better advertising effectiveness.
目次 Table of Contents
壹、緒論…………………………………………..…………...……….…….………1
第一節、研究背景………………………………………….……….…………..…1
第二節、研究動機…………………………………………….…….…………..…4
第三節、研究問題……………………………………………..…………………12
第四節、研究目的…………………………………………………………..……13
貳、文獻探討…………………………………………………………………15
第一節、比較式廣告…………………………………………………….………..15
第二節、調節焦點理論………………………………………………..…..…..…22
第三節、訊息框架…………………………………………………….…….……28
第四節、訊息框架與個體調節焦點適配…………………………..…..……...…30
參、研究架構與假說推論……………………………………………………39
第一節、實驗一研究架構與假說………………………………………..………..39
第二節、實驗二研究架構與假說…………………………………………………47
肆、實驗一……………………………………………………………………53
第一節、樣本和實驗設計……………………………………………….………..53
第二節、實驗刺激和前測……………………………………………..…..…..…55
第三節、實驗程序…………………………………………………….…….……59
第四節、變數衡量…………………………………………………..…..……...…60
第五節、分析方法…………………………………………………….…….……64
第六節、分析結果…………………………………………………..…..……...…65
第七節、假說驗證…………………………………………………….…….……75
第八節、討論………………………………………………………..…..……...…93
伍、實驗二……………………………………………………………………97
第一節、樣本和實驗設計……………………………………………….………..97
第二節、實驗刺激和前測……………………………………………..…..…..…98
第三節、實驗程序…………………………………………………….…….……99
第四節、變數衡量…………………………………………………..…..……...…99
第五節、分析方法…………………………………………………….…….……103
第六節、分析結果…………………………………………………..…..……... 104
第七節、假說驗證…………………………………………………….…….……116
第八節、討論………………………………………………………..…..……... 132

陸、結論與建議………………………………………………………………137
第一節、主要研究發現………………………………………………….……….137
第二節、理論貢獻……………………………………………………..…..…..…142
第三節、實務意涵…………………………………………………….…….……150
第四節、研究限制與未來研究方向……………………………..…..……...… 154
參考文獻 References
朱國明(2008)。以網路的資訊豐富環境與訊息框架探討網路購物行為之前因與後果模型研究。中華管理評論國際學報,11(4),1-25。
周宇貞(2005)。目標導向與廣告比較方式對說服效果之影響(博士論文)。取自臺灣碩博士論文系統。
林建煌(2006)。行銷學。台北:華泰文化公司。
林頌堅(2006)。資訊需求與資訊科技的擁有與使用之關聯分析。圖書館學與資訊科學,32(2),42-54。
許淑菁(2013)。不同調節焦點框架訊息之廣告說服效果-以年齡及時間距離為干擾變數(碩士論文)。取自臺灣碩博士論文系統。
施錦村(2009)。比較廣告競爭效果影響因子分析。臺灣管理學刊,9(1),47-64。
施錦村(2013)。比較廣告案件內容結構分析。管理評論,33(1),69-87。
陳漢杰 (2005)。涉入、產品屬性的評估與購買意願之相關-以銀行消費者購買理財服務為實證(碩士論文)。取自http://ir.lib.ncku.edu.tw/handle/987654321/26847
葉明義、陳志賢(1999)。以廣告態度中介模式驗證比較性廣告效果。管理學報,16(1),1-19。
蕭湘如、李玉惠(2000)。錨點個數與錨點一致性對定錨效果的影
響。中華心理學刊,42,488-170。
Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2001). “I” Seek Pleasures and “We” Avoid Pains : The Role of Self-Regulatory Goals in Information and Persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 33-49.
Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). Understanding regulatory fit. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 15–19.
Ahluwalia, R. (2002), How prevalent is the negativity effect in consumer environments, Journal of Consumer Research, 29(September), 270-279.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1975). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. New Jersey; Prentice-Hall.

Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2003). Locomotion, assessment, and regulatory fit: Value transfer from ‘‘how’’ to ‘‘what’’. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(September), 525–530.
Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). How regulatory fit affects value in consumer choices and opinions. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 1–10.
Barrio-Garcia, S. D., & Luque-Martinez, T. (2003). Modelling consumer response to differing levels of comparative advertising. European Journal of Marketing, 37(1/2), 256-274.
Barry, T. E. (1993). Twenty Years of Comparative Advertising in the United States, International Journal of Advertising, 12(November), 325-350.
Breugelmans, E., Köhler, C., Dellaert B., & Ruyter K. (2012). Promoting Interactive Decision Aids on Retail Websites: A Message Framing Perspective with New vs. Traditional Consumer Actions. Journal of Retailing, 88(2), 226-235.
Cesario J., Corker K. S., & Jelinek S. (2013). A self-regulatory framework for message framing, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(2), 238-249.
Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from ‘‘feeling right’’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 388–404.
Cesario, J., Higgins, E.T., & Scholer, A.A. (2008). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Basic principles and remaining questions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 444–463.
Chang, C. C. (2000). Processing Ads in a competitive context. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington DC.
Chang, C. C. and Chou, Y. J. (2008). Goal Orientation and Comparative Valence in Persuasion, Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 73-87.
Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (2002). Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgments of belief and value. In T. Gilovich, D. W. GriYn, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), The psychology of judgment: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chernev, A. (2004a), Extremeness Aversion and Attribute-Balance Effects in Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (September), 249–263.
Chernev, A. (2004b). Goal-attribute Compatibility in Consumer Choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(2), 141-150.
Chong, D., & Druckman J. N.. 2007. “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637-655.
Chow, C. W. C., & Luk, C. L. (2006). Effects of comparative advertising in high and low cognitive elaboration conditions. Journal of Advertising Research, 35(2), 55–67.
Dahl, Darren W., Argo Jennifer J., and Morales Andrea C. (2011), “Social Information in the Retail Environment: The Importance of Consumption Alignment, Referent Identity, and Self-Esteem”, Journal of Consumer Research, 38(5), 860-871.
Del Vecchio, D., Lakshmanan, A., & Krishnan, H. S. (2009). The effects of discount location and frame on consumers’ price estimates. Journal of Retailing, 85(3), 336–346.
Dröge, C. (1989). Shaping the route to attitude change: Central processing through comparative versus non-comparative advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(2), 193–204.
Dröge, C., & Darmon, R. (1987). Associative positioning strategies through comparative advertising: Attribute versus overall similarity approaches. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(4), 377–388.
Epstein S. (1994), “Integration of the Cognitive and Psychodynamic Unconsciousness,” American Psychologist, 49(8), 709–724.
Fiedler, F. E., & Garcia, J. E. (1987). New approaches to effective leadership: Cognitive resources and organizational performance. New York, NY: Wiley.
Freeman, M. (1987). Comparative cautions. Marketing & Media Decisions, 22(September), 78-81.
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1001–1013.

Friestad, M. & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with Persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 1-31.
Fritch, J. W., & Cromwell, R. L. (2001). Evaluating Internet resources: Identity, affiliation, and cognitive authority in a networked world. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(6), 499-507.
Gallagher, Katherine, K. Dale Foster, and Jeffrey Parsons (2001), „The medium is not the message: Advertising effectiveness and content evaluation in print and on the web“, Journal of Advertising Research, 41(4), 57-70.

Gorn, Gerald J., & Weinberg, Charles B. (1984). The impact of comparative advertising on perception and attitude: Some positive findings. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(September), 719–727.

Grewal D., Kavonoor S., Fern E.F., Costley C., & Barnes J. (1997). Comparative versus noncomparative advertising: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 61(October), 1-15.
Haws, L. K., Dholakia, M. U., & Bearden, O. W. (2010). An Assessment of Chronic Regulatory Focus Measures. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(10), 967-982.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond Pleasure and Pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300.
Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a Good Decision: Value From Fit. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1217-1233.
Higgins, E. T. (2002). How Self-Regulation Creates Distinct Values: The Case of Promotion and Prevention Decision Making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(3), 177-191.
Higgins, E. T. (2005). Value from regulatory fit. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(4), 209–213.
Hye, J. Y. & Spencer, F. T. (2013). Humorous Threat Persuasion in Advertising: The Effects of Humor, Threat Intensity, and Issue Involvement. Journal of Advertising, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp. 30‐41.

Jain, S. P., & Posavac, S. S. (2004). Valenced comparisons. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(1), 46–58.
Jain, S. P., Agrawal, N.,& Maheswaran, D. (2006), “When More is Less: The Effects of Regulatory Focus on Comparative Advertising”, Journal of Consumer Research, 31(June), 91-98
Jain, S. P., Buchanan, B. & Maneswaran, D. (2000). Comparative versus noncomparative advertising: The moderating impact of prepurchase attribute verifiability. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(4), 201-211.
Jain, S. P., Lindsey, C., Agrawal, N., & Maheswaran, D. (2007). For better, for worse: Valenced comparative frames and regulatory focus. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(1), 57–65.
Jin, C., & Villegas, J. (2007). “The effect of the placement of the product in film: Consumers’ emotional responses to humorous stimuli and prior brand evaluation”. Journal of Targeting, 15(4), 244-255.

Keller, K. L. (1993) .Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.

Kirmani, A., & Zhu, R. (2007). Vigilant Against Manipulation:The Effect of Regulatory Focus on the Use of Persuasion Knowledge. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(November), 688-701.
Ku, H.-H., Kuo, C.-C., & Kuo, T.-W. (2012). The effects of scarcity on the purchase intentions of prevention and promotion motivated consumers. Psychology & Marketing, 29(8), 541-548.
Laczniak, R. N., Kempf, D. S., & Muehling, D. D. (1999). Advertising message involvement: the role of enduring and situational factors. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 21(1), 51-61.

Laczniak, R. N., Kempf, S. D., & Muehling, D. D. (1999). Advertising message involvement: The role of enduring and situational factors. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 21(1), 51-61.

Lafferty, B. A. & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). Corporate credibility’s role in consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions when a high versus a low credibility endorser is used in the Ad. Journal of Business Research, 44(2), 109-116.

Latimer, A. E., Williams-Piehota, P., Katulak, N. A., Cox, A., Mowad, L., Higgins, E. T., & Salovey, P. (2008). Promoting fruit and vegetable intake through messages tailored to individual differences in regulatory focus. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 35(3), 363-369.
Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & 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.
Lee, Y. A., & Aaker, L. J. (2004). Bring 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, Y. H. (2000). Manipulating ad message involvement through information expectancy: Effects on attitude evaluation and confidence. Journal of Advertiisng, 29(2), 29-43.
Levin, B. (2000). Aspect, Lexical Semantic Representation, and Argument Expression. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 413- 429.
Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How Consumer Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before & After Consuming the Product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(December), 374–378.
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology & Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149-188.
Lin, H.-F. and Shen, F. (2012). Regulatory focus and attribute framing: Evidence of compatibility effects in advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 31(1), 169-188.
Lutz, R. J. (1985). Affective and cognitive antecedents of attitude toward the ad: A conceptual framework. In Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects: Theory, Research, and Applications, Linda F. Alwitt and Andrew A. Mitchell, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 45-63.

MacInnis, D., & Park, W. (1991). “The differential role of characteristics ofmusic on high and low involvement consumers’ processing of ads”. Journalof Consumer Research, 18 (2), 161-173.
Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message fram- ing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(August), 361–367.
Martin, W. C., Ponder, N., & Lueg, J. E. (2009). Price fairness perceptions and customer loyalty in a retail context. Journal of Business Research, 62(6), 588–593.
Mayer, N. D., & Tormala, Z. L. (2010). ‘‘Think’’ versus ‘‘feel’’ framing effects in persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(4), 443–454.
Mehta, A. (2000). Advertising Attitudes and Advertising Effectiveness. Journal of advertising Research, 40(3), 67-72.

Metcalfe, J. and W. Mischel (1999), “Hot/Cool-System Analysis of Delay of Gratification: Dynamics of Willpower,” Psychological Review, 106 (1), 3–19.
Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2078-2091.
Meyer, P. (1988). Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers: developing an index. Journalism Quarterly, 65(2), pp.567-572.
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., & Malaviya, P. (1999). Consumers’ processing of perseuasive advertisments: An integrative framework of persuasion theories. Journal of marketing, 63(4), 45-60.
Micu, C. C., & Chowdhury, G. T. (2010), The effect of message’s regulatory focus and product type on persuasion, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 18(2), 181-190.
Miniard, P. W., Barone, M. J., Rose, R. L., & Manning K. C.(2006). A Future assessment of indirect comparative advertising claims of superiority over all competitors, Journal of Advertising, 35(4), 53-64.
Mogilner, C., Aaker, J. L., and Pennington, G. L. (2008). Time will tell: The distant appeal of promotion and imminent appeal of prevention. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(5), 670-681.
Moser, S. C., & Dilling, L. (Eds.). (2007). Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Muehling, D. D. and David E. S.(2004), “The Power of Reflection–An Empirical Examination of Nostalgia Advertising Effects,” Journal of Advertising, 33(3), 25-35.
Mussweiler,T., Strack,F. (2000).The use of category and exemplar knowledge in the solution of anchoring tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1038-1052.
Seo, M.-G., Goldfarb, B., & Barrett, L, F. (2010). Affect and the framing effect within individuals over time: Risk taking in a dynamic investment simulation. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 411-431.
Ohanian, R. (1990) Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorser’s perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39-52.

Palda, K.S. (1966) ‘The Hypothesis of a Hierarchy of Effects: A Partial Evaluation’. Journal of Advertising, 3 (February), pp.13–24.

Pascal, V. J., Sprott, D. E., & Muehling, D. D. (2002). The influence of evoked nostalgia on consumers' responses to advertising: An exploratory study. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 24(1), 39-49.
Pechmann, C., & Esteban, G. (1994). Persuasion processes associated with direct comparative and noncompartitive advertising and implications for advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2(4), 403-432.
Pechmann, C., & Stewart, D. W. (1991). How direct comparative ads and market share affect brand choice. Journal of Advertising Research, 31(6), 47–55.
Pentina, I., & Taylor, D. G. (2013). Regulatory focus and daily-deal message framing: Are we saving or gaining with groupon? Journal of Interactive Advertising, 13(2), 67-75.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19(11), 123– 205.
Pham, M. T. and Chang, H. H. (2010). Regulatory focus, regulatory fit, and the search and consideration of choice alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 626-640.
Pham, M. T., & Avnet, T. (2004). Ideals and Oughts and the Reliance on Affect Versus Substance in Persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(4), 503-518.
Pierro A., Giacomantonio M., Mannetti L., Higgins E. T., & Kruglanski A. W. (2012) Leaders as planners and movers: Supervisors' regulatory modes and subordinates' performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(10), 2564-2582.
Poels, K., Janssens, W., and Herrewijn, L. (2013). Play buddies or space invaders? Players’ attitudes toward in-game advertising. Journal of Advertising, 42(2-3), 204-218.
Polyorat, K., & 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 States. Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 37–48.
Prensky, M., (2001). Why games engage us. From Digital Game-Based Learning (McGraw-Hill, 2001). Retrieved January 12, 2014 from http://www.marcprensky.com/
Priester, J. R., Nayakankuppam D., Fleming M. A., & Godek J. (2004), The A2SC2 Model: The Influence of Attitudes and Attitude Strength on Consideration and Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 373–386.
Punj, G., & Moon, J. (2002). Positioning options for achieving brand association: A psychological categorization framework. Journal of Business Research, 55(4), 275– 283.
Putrevu, S., & Lord, K. R. (1994). Comparative and Non-comparative Advertising: Attitudinal Effects Under Cognitive and Affective Involvement Conditions,” Journal of Advertising, 23(2) , 77-91.
Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1988, September). The moderating effect of prior knowledge on cue utilization in product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 253-264.

Ravi D. and Klaus W. (2000), “Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (February), 60–71.
Rothman, A.J., Wlaschin, J., Bartels, R.D., Latimer. A., & Salovey, P. (2008). How persons and situations regulate message framing effects: The study of health behavior. In A. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 475-486)
Roy, R. and Ng, S. (2012). Regulatory focus and preference reversal between hedonic and utilitarian consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11, 81-88.
Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions of affective states. In E.T. Higgins & R. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 527-561). New York: Guilford Press.
Shiv, B., Edell Britton, J., & Payne, J. (2004). Does elaboration increase or decrease the effectivieness of negatively versus positively framed messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 199-208.
Spiegel, S., Grant-Pillow, H., & Higgins, E. (2004). How regulatory fit enhances motivational strength during goal pursuit. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(1), 39–54.
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Creative leadership: It’s a decision. Leadership,36(4) , 22–24.
Strack, F. (1992). The different routes to social judgments: Experiential versus informational strategies. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 249-276). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thompson, D. V., & Hamilton, R. W.(2006). The Effects of Information Processing Mode on Consumers’ Response to Comparative Advertising, Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), 530-540.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(September), 1124–1130.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions & the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211(January) , 453-458.
Van Auken, S., & Adams, A. J. (1999). Across versus within-class comparative advertising: Insights into prestige class anchoring. Psychology & Marketing, 16(5), 429-450.
Whyte, G., and J. K. Sebenius. (1997). “The Effect of Multiple Anchors on Anchoring in Individual and GroupJudgment,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 69(5), 75–85.

Wilson, T. D., Houston, C. E., Etling, K. M., Brekke, N. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 125(1), 387-402.
Yagci, M. I., Biswas A., & Dutta S. (2009). Effects of Comparative Advertising Format on Consumer Responses: The Moderating Effects of Brand Image and Attribute Relevance, Journal of Business Research, 62(8), 768-774.
Yelkikalan, N., E. Altın, ve H. Çelikkan, (2012). Business Education in World and Turkish Universities: A Comparative Analysis, International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(4), 254-270.
Yi, S. & Baumgartner, H. (2008). Motivational Compatibility and the Role of Anticipated Feelings in Positively Valenced Persuasive Message Framing. Psychology & Marketing, 25 (11), 1007-1026.
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1994), ‘‘The personal involvement inventory: reduction, revision, and application to advertising’’, Journal of advertising, Vol. 23 No. 40, pp. 59-70.

Zhao, M., and Xie, J. (2011), Effects of social and temporal distance on consumers’ responses to peer recommendations, Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 486-496.
Zhou, Z. K., & Nakamoto K. (2007). How Do Enhanced and Unique Features Affect New Product Preference? The Moderating Role of Product Familiarity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (March), 53-62.
電子全文 Fulltext
本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。
論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:自定論文開放時間 user define
開放時間 Available:
校內 Campus: 已公開 available
校外 Off-campus: 已公開 available


紙本論文 Printed copies
紙本論文的公開資訊在102學年度以後相對較為完整。如果需要查詢101學年度以前的紙本論文公開資訊,請聯繫圖資處紙本論文服務櫃台。如有不便之處敬請見諒。
開放時間 available 已公開 available

QR Code