本研究主要藉由網路拍賣的環境探討資訊完整性以及資訊可信度的呈現。本研究藉由焦點團體訪談，共舉辦三次訪談：第一次訪談中招集六位具有電子商務經驗的碩士在職專班學生，主要目的瞭解目前在電子商務中的資訊完整性的概況，並進一步了解有哪些訊息是具有可信度，第二次訪談則招集兩位專業賣家，主要目的為了解目前網拍實務運作上，是如何呈現資訊以及呈現哪些資訊，在第三次訪談，則招集八位買家，一則了解買家各自的網路購物經驗，二來詢問買家對於一些拍賣網站的觀感。最後再透過口語資料分析，建構出本研究的架構。本研究認為，在網拍中的資訊完整性包含著在產品訊息提供的完整以及賣場相關訊息的完整和交易互動訊息、資訊呈現及第三方訊息的完整。此外買賣雙方都注重的訊息包含品質確認的資訊以及購物流程的交代，此外賣家則較重視賣家形象的建立以及賣場聲譽的維護等，而買家則想要確認產品的品質以及賣家的可信度等。

In this thesis, information completeness and credibility in web auction environment is the mainly question to find out.
By using focus group research method, three discussions were held. In the first discussion, there were six interviewers joined, and the discussing purpose was to understand the concept of information completeness and credibility in e-commerce. In the second discussion, two sellers were invited to demonstrate and to explain how to sell in online auction. In the third discussion, eight buyers were asked to introducing themselves, and discussing themselves cases about online shopping. Finally using oral analysis skills, the research framework was constructed.
The research suggests that information completeness and credibility includes all about product information, retailers’ information, transaction information, information representation and third parties information. Each has its different degree of credibility, and buyers usually retrieve information they need to reduce their perceived risk.

謝誌 ……………………………………………………… Ⅰ
摘要 ……………………………………………………… Ⅱ
目次 ……………………………………………………… IV

表次 ……………………………………………………… Ⅵ
圖次 ……………………………………………………… VII

目次

第一章 緒論........................................................................................1
第一節 研究背景與動機................................................................1
第二節 研究目的............................................................................3
第三節 研究流程............................................................................4
第四節 研究範圍與限制................................................................5
第二章 文獻探討...............................................................................6
第一節 資訊完整性的相關議題....................................................6
第二節 資訊可信度的相關議題...................................................11
第三節 網路購物的知覺風險與完整性及可信度的連結...........20
第三章 研究方法..............................................................................24
第一節 焦點團體法簡介...............................................................24
第二節 焦點團體法執行步驟.......................................................28
第三節 焦點團體訪談實施技巧...................................................34
第四節 焦點團體訪談實施概述...................................................39
第五節 資料分析方法與流程.......................................................49
第四章 資料分析.............................................................................54
第一節 研究架構及說明...............................................................54
第二節 語幹分析...........................................................................60
第三節 研究架構對於資訊完整性及可信度的意涵...................81
第四節 研究架構的解釋.............................................................87
第五章 結論與建議........................................................................102
第一節 研究結論..........................................................................102
第二節 研究建議..........................................................................104
參考文獻.............................................................................................106
中文部分.........................................................................................106
英文部分.........................................................................................107
附錄一 第一次焦點團體訪談大綱......................................................113
附錄二 第二次焦點團體訪談大綱......................................................114
附錄三 第三次焦點團體訪談大綱......................................................115


圖次

圖1-1 研究流程圖…………………………………………………… 4
圖3-1 焦點團體法進行步驟流程圖………………………………… 28
圖3-2 第一次訪談場所示意圖……………………………………… 39
圖3-3 第二次訪談場所示意圖……………………………………… 42
圖3-4 第三次訪談場所示意圖……………………………………… 45
圖4-1 彙總圓餅圖…………………………………………………… 59
圖4-2 彙整逐次分析圖……………………………………………… 60
圖4-3 產品資訊彙整圖……………………………………………… 63
圖4-4 產品資訊交叉分析圖………………………………………… 64
圖4-5 產品資訊逐次分析圖………………………………………… 65
圖4-6 賣場經營資訊圖……………………………………………… 66
圖4-7 賣場資訊交叉分析圖………………………………………… 67
圖4-8 賣場資訊逐次分析圖………………………………………… 68
圖4-9 互動資訊彙整表圖…………………………………………… 70
圖4-10 互動資訊交叉分析圖………………………………………… 70
圖4-11 互動資訊逐次分析圖………………………………………… 71
圖4-12 資訊呈現柏拉圖……………………………………………… 72
圖4-13 資訊呈現交叉分析圖………………………………………… 73
圖4-14 資訊呈現逐次分析圖………………………………………… 74
圖4-15 第三方資訊柏拉圖…………………………………………… 75
圖4-16 第三方資訊交叉分析圖……………………………………… 76
圖4-17 資訊完整性及可信度架構…………………………………… 82
圖4-18 完整性為滿足對所有買家的資訊需求……………………… 85

表次

表1-1 2005-2006 年台灣網友不放心網拍的主要原因排名表…… 1
表2-1 論述結構（argument structure）的各項定義…………… 6
表2-2 資料品質的概念架構表……………………………………… 8
表2-3 可信度的定義………………………………………………… 12
表2-4 介面設計與信任感建立之架構……………………………… 19
表3-1 第一次訪談參與者簡介……………………………………… 39
表3-2 第二次訪談參與者簡介……………………………………… 42
表3-3 第三次訪談參與者簡介……………………………………… 45
表3-4 概念化資料分析結果摘要表………………………………… 48
表3-5 完整性概念及可信度概念組成之五大構念名稱及其定義… 51
表4-1 研究構念及其定義…………………………………………… 54
表4-2 研究各項子構念彙整表……………………………………… 54
表4-3 產品資訊彙整表暨語幹次數………………………………… 61
表4-4 賣場經營資訊暨語幹次數…………………………………… 65
表4-5 互動資訊暨語幹次數………………………………………… 69
表4-6 資訊呈現暨語幹次數………………………………………… 71
表4-7 第三方資訊暨語幹次數……………………………………… 75
表4-8 各研究構面對於買賣家的重視程度比較表………………… 76
表4-9 買家對網拍的觀感…………………………………………… 83

中文部分
胡幼慧(1996)。焦點團體法，質性研究－理論、方法及本土女性研究實例，台北：巨流圖書公司。
張淑安（2004）。電視購物消費者決策過程研究。國立交通大學傳播研究所碩士論文，新竹市。
游政達(2003)。應用焦點團體探討使用者需求脈絡之研究。國立台北科技大學創新設計研究所碩士論文，台北。
焦點團體：理論與實務（初版）（歐素汝譯）。台北：智弘文化。
黃賢章（2004）。《網路購物付費方式與消費者知覺風險之研究》。立德管理學院科技管理研究所碩士論文，台南市。
蔡明達（2004）。網路拍賣之價格與買賣雙方對消費者購買意願與信任之影響研究。佛光人文社會學院資訊學研究所碩士論文，宜蘭縣。
質性研究概論(初版)（徐宗國譯）（2004）。台北：巨流。
鄭菲菲（2005）。框架效應之去偏誤化研究－以網路採購為例。中山大學資訊管理學系研究所博士論文，高雄市。
賴榮年(2001)。以質性研究方法探討更年期婦女生活品質之定義。國立台灣大學職業醫學與工業衛生研究所，碩士論文，台北市。
網路消費行為與商業模式研究（2006/12/01）。2007/10/27，取自：資訊市場情報中心http://mic.iii.org.tw/intelligence/reports/dblist1.asp?f=
4&menu=422&func=db&cate=db2&msno=1077

英文部分
Akerlof, G.A. (1970). The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.
Biswas, D., & Biswas, A. (2004). The diagnostic role of signals in the context of perceived risks in online shopping: So signals matter more on the Web? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18, 30–45.
Boller, G. W., Swasy, J. L., & Munch, J. M. (1990). Conceptualizing argument quality via argumentstructure. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 321–328.
Churchill, G. A.(1991). Marketing Research-Methodological Foundations (5th ed), pp.136-142.
Cox, D.F.(1967). Risk Handling in Consumer Behavior: An Intensive Study of Two Cases, in Donald F. Cox (ED.), Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior, Boston: Harvard University Press, pp.34-81.
Dawar, N., & Parker, P. (1994). Marketing Universals: Consumers’ Use of Brand Name, Price, Physical Appearance, and Retailer Reputation as Signals of Product Quality. Journal of Marketing, 58(April), 81–95.
Dutta-Bergman, M. (2003). Health communication on the web: The role of web use motivation and information completeness. Communication Monographs, 70, 264-274.
Edmunds, H.(1999). Focus Group Research Handbook, NTC.
Forsythe, S.M., & Shi, B.(2003). Consumer patronage and risk perceptions in Internet
Shopping. Journal of Business Research, 56, 867-875.
Gaskell, G. (2000). Qualitative researching with text, image and sound: a practical handbook, pp.38-56.London: Sage.
Gupta, A., Su, B.C., & Walter, Z. (2004). Risk profile and consumer shopping
behavior in electronic and traditional channels. Decision Support Systems, 38(3),
347-367.
Kahn, B. K.; Strong, D. M., & Wang, R. Y. (2002). Information quality benchmarks: Product and service performance. Communications of the ACM, 45 (4), 84–192.
Kantowitz, B., Hanowski, R., & Kantowitz, S. (1997). Driver acceptance of unreliable traffic information in familiar and unfamiliar settings. Hum. Factors, 39 (2), 164–176.
Kaplan, L.B., & Jacoby J.(1972). ”The components of perceived risk” in Proceedings, Third Annual Conference, ed. M. Venkatesan, Urbans, IL: Association for Consumer Research, pp.382-393.
Kim, J., & Moon, J. Y.(1998). Designing Towards Emotional Usability in Customer Interfaces – Trustworthiness of Cyber-banking System Interfaces. Interacting with Computers, 10, 1–29.
Klein B. D. (2002). When do users detect information quality problems on the World Wide Web? American Conference in Information Systems, 2002, p1101.
Kihlstrom, R.E., & Riordan, M.H. (1984). Advertising as a Signal. Journal of Political Economy, 92(3), 427–450.
Kirmani, A., & Rao, A. (2000). No Pain, No Gain: A Critical Review of the Literature on Signaling Unobservable Product Quality. Journal of Marketing, 64(April), 66–79.
Kirmani, A. (1990). The Effects of Perceived Advertising Costs on Brand Perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(September), 160–171.
Klein, B. D. (2001). User perceptions of data quality: Internet and traditional text sources. The Journal of Computer Information Systems; 41 (4), 9–18.
Knight, S., & Burn, J.(2005). Developing a Framework for Assessing Information Quality on the World Wide Web. Informing Science Journal, 8:160–172.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A.(2000). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide For Applied Research (3rd ed). Sage.
Lee, J. The dynamics of trust in a supervisory control simulation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting (Santa Monica, Calif., Sept. 2–6). Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, Calif., 1991, pp. 1228–1232.
Lee, Y. W., Strong, D. M., Kahn, B. K., & Wang, R. Y.(2002). AIMQ: a methodology for information quality assessment. Informationand Management, 40(2), p.133-146.
Levin, I. P., Johnson, R.D., Deldin, P.J., Carstens, L.M., Cressey, L.J., and Davis, C.R. (1986). Framing effects in decisions with completely and incompletely described alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 28, 48-64.
Levin, I. P., Johnson, R. D., Russo, C.P., & Deldin, P.J. (1985). Framing effects in judgment tasks with varying amounts of information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 362-377.
Liu, Z. (2004). Perceptions of credibility of scholarly information on the Web. Information Processing & Management, 40, 1027–1038.
Lim, N.(2003).Consumers’ perceived risk: sources versus consequences. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 2, 216-228.
Lutz, N.A. (1989). Warranties as Signals under Consumer Moral Hazard. Rand Journal of Economics, 20(2), 239–255.
Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1986). Price and Advertising Signals of Product Quality. Journal of Political Economy, 94(4), 796–821.
Muir, B., & Moray, N.(1996). Trust in automation: Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonom. 39(3), 429–460.
Nelson, P. (1974). Advertising as Information. Journal of Political Economy, 82(4), 729–754.
Nelson, P. (1970). Information and Consumer Behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 78(March/April), 311–329.
Poel, D.V., & Leunis, J. (1999). Consumer Acceptance of the Internet as a Channel
Distribution. Journal of Business Research, 45, 249-256.
Riegelsberger, J., & Sasse, M. A.(2002). “Trustbuilders and trustbusters: The role of trust cues in interfaces to e-commerce applications [WWW page],” Paper presented at the 1st IFIP Conference on E-commerce, E-business, E-government.
Rieh, S.Y., & Belkin, N.J. (2000). Interaction on the Web: Scholars’judgment of information quality and cognitive authority. Proceedings of the 63rd ASIS Annual Meeting, 37, 25–38.
Rieh, S. Y., & Belkin, N. J. (1998). Understanding judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the WWW. In C. M. Preston (Ed.), Proceedings of the 61st ASIS annual meeting (pp. 279–289). Silver Spring, MD: American Society for Information Science.
Roselius, T.(1971). Consumer Rankings of Risk Redection Methods. Journal of Marking, 35(Jan.), 56-61.
Schmalensee, R. (1978). A Model of Advertising and Product Quality. Journal of Political Economy, 86(3), 485–503.
Shanks, G., & Corbitt, B. (1999). Understanding data quality: Social and cultural aspects. Proceedings of the 10th Australasian Conference on Information Systems; p785
Sommer, R., & Sommer, B.(2002).A Practical Guide to Behavioral Research: Tools
and Techniques (5th ed). New York: Oxford University Press.
Spence, A.M. (1974). Market Signaling: Informational Transfer in Hiring and Related Screening Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Spence, A.M. (1973). Job Market Signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374.
Strong, D. M.; Lee, Y. W. & Wang, R. Y. (1997). Data quality in context. Communications of the ACM, 40(5), 103–110.
Tan.(1999). Strategies for Reducing Consumers’ Risk Aversion in Internet Shopping.
Journal of Marketing, 16(2), 168-180.
Tayi, G. K., & Ballou, D. P.(1998). Examining data quality. Communications of the ACM, 41 (2), 54–57.
Tseng, S., & Fogg, B. J. (1999). Credibility and computing technology. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 39–44.
Tversky A., and Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and The Psychology of Choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
Wang, Y. D., & Emurian, H. H.(2005). An Overview of Online Trust: Concepts, elements, and implications. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, pp.105-125.
Wang, R.Y., & Strong, D.M. (1996). Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, Spring, 5–33.
Wand, Y., & Wang R. Y. (1996).Anchoring data quality dimensions in ontological foundations. Communications of the ACM, 39(11), 86-95
Wilson, P. (1983). Second-hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Yates, J.F., Jagacinski, C.M., & Faber, M.D. (1978). Evaluation of Partially Described Multiattribute Options. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 240-251.