非營利組織(Nonprofit Organization, NPO)已經是現在社會中一個不可或缺的角色。雖是不以營利為導向的組織，但身處在劇烈變動的環境中，為了獲得更多的資源或財源，非營利組織必須要善用行銷工具來達成募款目標。本研究主要探討在非營利組織敘事廣告中，使用哀兵敘事相對於受害者敘事方式喚起閱聽者在認知與情緒上對敘事主角認同的程度的差異，進而對於捐款意願的影響，本研究主要探討五個研究問題：一、NPO廣告敘事中的哀兵方式，相較於受害者方式，是否會提升閱聽者對主角的勤勉審慎性的感知? 二、NPO廣告敘事中的受害者方式，相較於哀兵方式，哪種更容易引發閱聽者的同理心? 三、對主角的勤勉審慎性感知及對主角的同理心是否影響閱聽者對主角的認同? 四、對敘事主角的認同是否影響捐款意願?五、閱聽者的性別是否對不同敘事方式所喚起的同理心的差異有調節作用?
本研究主要發現非營利組織廣告敘事方式的不同，會影響閱聽者的捐款意願，哀兵敘事會比受害者敘事有更好的效果，哀兵敘事也會正向影響閱聽人感知故事主角勤勉審慎性的人格特質，而且閱聽人感知到主角勤勉審慎性的人格特質程度及同理心越高，對於故事主角認同感也越高，而認同感越高就更有捐款意願。
眾多非營利組織設計廣告投入閱聽者的日常時，期待服務故事之廣告能夠有亮點，抓住閱聽者的目光。基於本研究結果，我們建議使用哀兵敘事方法，透過哀兵敘事提升主角感知審慎勤勉性與閱聽者的同理心，讓閱聽者對主角認同度提高，進而提升捐款意願，達到非營利組織的以募款為目的的廣告效果。

Non-profit organizations now play an indispensable role in society. Although it is not a profit-oriented organization, it exists in a drastically evolving environment. In order to obtain more resources or financial resources, non-profit organizations must make good use of marketing tools to achieve fundraising goals. This research examines the influence of varying degrees of passion and determination of underdog on readers’ willingness to donate when the concept of underdog effect is employed in narrative advertisements of non-profit organizations. This research focuses on discussing five research questions: 1. In comparison with the victim approach, does the underdog approach in the NPO advertising narrative enhance readers' perception of the protagonist’s conscientiousness? 2. Comparing the underdog narrative and the victim narrative in the narrative of NPO advertising, which method is more likely to trigger empathy among readers? 3. Do the ability to sense the conscientiousness of the protagonist and the empathy for the protagonist affect whether they can identify with the protagonist? 4. Does the ability to identify or resonate with the protagonist of the narrative affect the willingness to donate? 5. Does the gender of the reader have a moderating effect on the different degrees of empathy aroused by different narrative methods?
This research finds that the different narrative methods of non-profit organizations' advertisements will affect the readers’ willingness to donate. The underdog narrative has a better effect than the victim's narrative, and the underdog narrative also positively affects the reader’s perception of conscientiousness of the protagonist. The easier the research participant is able to sense or detect the conscientious trait of the protagonist in the narrative, the greater degree of empathy is displayed, thereby increasing the level of resonating with the protagonist and with this, the research participant is more willing to donate.
When designing the story of advertisement for the non-profit organization to capture the attention of the target audience in their daily life, it is expected that the advertisement has a highlight that stands out from the numerous advertisement on the market. Thus, based on the results of this research, we suggest to use underdog narrative in the story telling, as it can elevate perceived conscientiousness and empathy towards the protagonist which will increase the degree of willingness to donate, hence meeting the fund-raising goal of non-profit organizations' advertisement.

學位論文審定書………………………………………………….….. i
誌 謝………………………………………………………….….. ii
中文摘要………………………………………………………….….. iii
英文摘要………………………………………………………….….. iv
第 一 章 緒論……………………………………………………… 1
第一節 研究背景..………………………………………………. 1
第二節 研究動機..………………………………………………. 3
第三節 研究問題..………………………………………………. 6
第四節 研究目的..………………………………………………. 6
第 二 章 文獻探討………………………….……………………… 8
第一節 故事…….………………………………………..…….... 8
第二節 敘事說服.………………………………………..…….... 9
第三節 哀兵效應.…………………………………………….... 11第四節 勤勉審慎性………………………………………….... 14第五節 同理心….…………………………………………….... 16第六節 主角認同.…………………………………………….... 18第七節 捐款意願.…………………………………………….... 19
第 三 章 假說推論………………………………………………… 21
第一節 研究架構.…………………………………………….... 21第二節 研究假說.…………………………………………….... 22
 
第 四 章 研究方法………………………………………………… 27
第一節 樣本與實驗設計…………………………………….... 27
第二節 實驗情境、實驗刺激與前測……………………….... 28
第三節 實驗程序.…………………………………………….... 34
第四節 變數衡量.…………………………………………….... 34
第 五 章 資料分析方法…………………………………………… 38
第一節 研究樣本………...…………………………………….... 39
第二節 心理變數之量表信度分析、平均值和標準差……….... 40
第三節 研究變數之操弄性檢定……………………….…….... 42
第四節 假說驗證……………….……………………….……….... 43
第 六 章 討論………………………………………………………… 51
第 七 章 結論與建議………………………………………………… 52
第一節 研究發現……………….……………………….………....53
第二節 理論貢獻……………….……………………….……….... 55
第三節 實務意涵……………….……………………….………....58
第四節 研究限制....................….……………………….……….... 60
第五節 未來研究方向………….……………………….……….... 62
參考文獻……………………………………………………….…… 64
一、 中文文獻………….……………………….………. .…… 64
二、 英文文獻………….…………………….……. .……. .…67
附 錄………………………………………………………….…… 72
一、 前測問卷………….……………………….………. .…… 72
二、 實驗問卷………….……………………….………. .…… 79
圖次
圖2-1 哀兵效應矩陣 ……………………………………….…… 11
圖3-1 研究架構圖 ……………………………………….…… 21
圖5-1 勤勉審慎性中介效果圖 ………………………..…….……. 49
圖5-2 同理心中介效果圖 ………………………..……..…….……. 51
 
表次
表2-1 哀兵效應相關主題整理 …………………………….…… 14
表4-1 捐款意願衡量問項 ……………………………….……… 35
表4-2 哀兵效應衡量問項 ……………………………….……… 35
表4-3 感知勤勉審慎性衡量問項 ……………………….……… 37
表4-4 同理心衡量問項 ………………………………….……… 37
表4-5 主角認同衡量問項 ……………………………….……… 38
表5-1 受測者基本資料之敘述性統計 ……………………. …… 39
表5-2 變數之平均數、標準差和量表信度分析數值表 .…….… 41
表5-3 NPO廣告敘事類型之統計數值 …………….………. ..… 42
表5-4 感知勤勉審慎性之統計資料 ……………………. ..…..… 43
表5-5 感知勤勉審慎性之獨立樣本T檢定…………………. ….. 43
表5-6 同理心統計資料 ……………………. ….. ……….……… 44
表5-7 同理心獨立樣本T檢定 ………………….. …..…..….….. 44
表5-8 性別統計資料…………………………………………. ….. 45
表5-9 性別獨立樣本T檢定…………………………………. ….. 45
表5-10 性別群組統計資料 ……………………...……………. ….. 45
表5-11 同理心、主角認同、勤勉審慎性之相關性矩陣……. …… 46
表5-12 主角認同&捐款意願之相關矩陣 …………………. ………. 46
表5-13 勤勉審慎性、主角認同與捐款意願的中介效果（模型四） 的迴歸係數……………………. ……. …….…….…….……. 48
表5-14 同理心、主角認同與捐款意願的中介效果（模型四）
的迴歸係數 …………………. ……………………………… 50
表6-1 實驗假說驗證彙整表 …………………………………….… 46

一、中文文獻：
池進通、李鴻文、陳芬儀(2008)。五大人格特質與工作績效關係之研究。經營管理論叢，4(2)，1-9。
李啟毅、胡竹菁、王鑫强、劉曉雪(2015)。敘事傳輸理論與說服機制:以敘事型公益廣告為例。心理科學進展，23(11)， 2001-2008。
李雪韬 (2010)。央视公益廣告議程設置分析（碩士論文）。取自http://gb.oversea.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=2010208028.nh&dbcode=CMFD&dbname=CMFDREF
李素芳、孫月昊、張静(2009)。淺析現代公益廣告的創作。職業時空，5(6)，166-166。
吳偉(2007)。慈善捐贈、公共物品的自願提供與非營利組織.財經立論與實踐。雙月刊，28(148)，78-82。
吳岱儒、戴萬平、鄭安娜 (2011)。非營利組織捐款行為，品牌認同與購買意願之研究: 以喜憨兒烘焙坊為例。資訊與管理科學刊，4(1)，69-96。
吳能惠(2014)。五大人格特質對服務導向組織公民行為影響之研究。文大商管學報，19(2)，77-106。
林姿彣(2016)。角色特質與文本敘事結局對少年漫畫角色認同與移情之效果研究（碩士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文系統。（系統編號104NCTU5376010）。
林保良、張國雄(2011)五大人格特質與內在動機對消費者創新性使用意圖之影響─ 以臉書之開心農場為例。創造學刊，2(2)，5-24。
金浩明(2010)。同理心。日新司法年刊，9，252-256。
周軒逸、吳秀玲、周繼祥(2016)。哀兵訴求簡訊在競選中之廣告效果。Soochow Journal of Political Science，34(3)，1-63。
周秋光、賀蕃蕃(2019)。中國女性慈善實踐的歷史與現狀思考。湘潭大學學報，43(4)，155-187。
尚榮安、陳禹辰、 林重光(2009)。說一個好故事—同理心與部落格的廣告效果。資訊管理學報，16(4)，1-19。
燕道成(2005)。論大眾媒體對消費文化的建構作用。中州學刊，2005(6)，239-242。
朱瑞波(2005)。論廣告的要點。西安工程大學學報。19(2)，243-247。
曾榮梅(2016)。慈善社福廣告中之人物圖像的效益研究。設計學報，21(2)，65-82。
陳玉敏、王文芳、張正辰(2002)。同理心之概念分析，志為護理-慈濟護理雜誌，1(4)，7-12。
陸柯雯、任孝鹏 (2014)。慈善捐款行為: 影響因素及機制。 Advances in Psychology，4，163-179
張力仁(2009)。故事訴求、性別和受害者可辨別性對於捐款金額的影響（碩士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文系統。（系統編號098NCTU5457162）。
張俊明、陳慶華、傅譓菱(2020)。論我國非營利組織的變革與創新。JMPI管理專業與創新學報，1(1)，74-85。
馮智敏、朱潔 (2006)。公益廣告的攻心策略。西南交通大學學報，7(2)，49-51。
彭慰(1995)。調查研究法。國家教育研究院。http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1680064/
楊啟鈿、錢慶文(2004)。以分類迥歸樹法研究某教會醫院捐款人之捐款行為，醫務管理期刊，5(3)，271-287。
葉怡君(2016)。雇主品牌、個人-組織配適與組織人才吸引力之關係：五大人格特質之中介干擾效果（碩士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文系統。（系統編號104THU00121021）。
趙梅如、鍾思嘉(2004)。觀點取替故事同理心量表的發展。中華輔導學報，15，39-60。

鄭國勝(2007)。個人捐赠是慈善事業發展的基石。中州學刊，2007(1)，133-134。
蔡進發、蕭至惠、蕭元笙(2014)。哀兵訴求必勝? 品牌故事與品牌強度對消費者品牌認同與購買意願之影響。商略學報，6(4)，261-279。
錢玉芬、王可欣(2006)。廣告代言人的性格形象對品牌性格的影響-以 Nokia 新款手機的平面廣告為例。廣告學研究，26，27-59.
劉世捷、陳彦言、劉開源(2006)，談公益廣告的創意方法。商場現代化，X (475)， 222-223。
盧憶慧、林清壽(2013)。中高齡者慈善捐款行為意向之研究—以南投縣為例。福祉科技與服務管理學刊，1(3)，35-50.
賴佩婷(2006)。品牌故事及其結構與內容在不同商品類型下對廣告效果的影響（碩士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文系統。（系統編號094NTU05318079）。
謝旭洲(2011)。閱讀感性文章時的感動反應: 探索讀者同理心與文章真實感對感動程度之影響。通識教育與多元文化學報，2，1-31.
嚴進、楊珊珊(2013)。敘事傳输的说服機制。心理科學進展，21(6)，1125-1132。
 
二、英文文獻：
Andreoni, J., & Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 293-312.
Baberini, M., Coleman, C. L., Slovic, P., & Västfjäll, D. (2015). Examining the effects of photographic attributes on sympathy, emotions, and donation behavior. Visual communication quarterly, 22(2), 118-128.
Gregory W. Boller and Jerry C. Olson (1991) ,Experiencing Ad Meanings: Crucial Aspects of Narrative/Drama Processing, Association for Consumer Research,18, 164-171.
Bennett, A. and Royle, N. (1999), Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory.Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall
Basil, D. Z., Ridgway, N. M., & Basil, M. D. (2008). Guilt and giving: A process model of empathy and efficacy. Psychology & Marketing, 25(1), 1-23.
Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health education & behavior, 31(2), 143-164.
Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (2000),Balancing Act. How to Capture Knowledge Without Killing it, Harvard Business Review,77-80.
Bradley, A., Lawrence, C., & Ferguson, E. (2019). When the relatively poor prosper: the underdog effect on charitable donations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(1), 108-127.
Baberini, M., Coleman, C. L., Slovic, P., & Västfjäll, D. (2015). Examining the effects of photographic attributes on sympathy, emotions, and donation behavior. Visual communication quarterly, 22(2),118-128.
Costa P. T. & McCrae, R. R.(1986).Personality stability and its implications forclinical psychology, Clinical Psychology Review, 6 , 407-423.
Cohen, J. (2001).Defining identification:Atheoretical look at the identification of audienceswith media characters. Mass Communication, 4, 245–264.
Cohen, J. (1999). Social and emotional learning past and present: A psychoeducational dialogue. Educating minds and hearts: Social emotional learning and the passage into adolescence, 2-23.
Delgadillo, Y. and Escalas, J. E. (2004), Narrative word-of-mouth communication: Exploring memory and attitude effects of consumer storytelling,Advances in Consumer Research, 31(1), 186-192.
De Graaf, A., Hoeken, H., Sanders, J., & Beentjes, J. W. J.(2012). Identification as a mechanism of narrative persuasion. Communication Research, 39(6), 802–823.
Escalas, J. E., & Stern, B. B. (2003). Sympathy and empathy: Emotional responses to advertising dramas. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 566-578.
Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 283–308.
Escalas, J. E. (1998). Advertising narratives: What are they and how do they work. Representing consumers: Voices, views, and visions, 1, 267-289.
Genette, G & Jane E. L (1980). Narrative Discourse, an Essay in Method. The Johns Hopkins95(5),1414-1421
Goldschmied, N., & Vandello, J. A. (2009). The advantage of disadvantage: Underdogs in the political arena. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31(1), 24-31.
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of personality and social psychology, 79(5), 701.–721.
Goldschmied, N., & Vandello, J. A. (2009). The advantage of disadvantage: Underdogs in the political arena. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31(1), 24-31.
Goldschmied, Nadav. (2007). The Appeal of the Underdog: Definition of the Construct and Implications for the Self. University of South Florida
Goldschmied, N. P., & Vandello, J. A. (2012). The future is bright: The underdog label, availability, and optimism. Basic and applied social psychology, 34(1), 34-43.
Grossman, M., & Wood, W. (1993). Sex differences in intensity of emotional experience: a social role interpretation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 65(5), 1010-1022
Hamstra, C. (2011), Storytelling as Foundation: Intersection of Mind, Body, and Heart,
Interdisciplinary Humanities, 28(1), 86-91.
Hoffman, M. L. (1984). Interaction of affect and cognition in empathy. Emotions, cognition, and behavior, 103-131.
Hendel, R.S. (1990). Review of the book Underdogs and Tricksters: A Prelude to Biblical Folklore. Hebrew Studies 31, 222-224.
Kim, J. H., Allison, S. T., Eylon, P., Goethals, G. R., Markus, M. J., Hindle, S. M., & McGuire, H. A. (2008). Rooting for (and then abandoning) the underdog. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 2550–2573.
Kikvilashvili, E., & Tao, S. P. (2016). A study on the relationship between creative storytelling and self-image in perfume advertisements. 創造學刊, 7(2), 53-64.
Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005). The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual?. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(3), 157-167.
Kogut, T. (2011). Someone to blame: When identifying a victim decreases helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(4), 748-755.
Swanson, D. J. (1996). Humor as a Presentational Device in Broadcast Public Service Announcements, Northeast Louisiana University, Monroe, La
Merchant, A., Ford, J. B., & Sargeant, A. (2010). Charitable organizations' storytelling influence on donors' emotions and intentions. Journal of Business Research, 63(7), 754-762.
Moyer-Gusé, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication theory, 18(3), 407-425.
Merchant, A., Ford, J. B., & Sargeant, A. (2010). Charitable organizations' storytelling influence on donors' emotions and intentions. Journal of Business Research, 63(7), 754-762.
McGinnis, L. P., & Gentry, J. W. (2009). Underdog consumption: An exploration into meanings and motives. Journal of Business Research,62, 191–199.
McGinnis Lee, P., Gao, T., Jun, S., & Gentry, J. (2017). Motivational bases for consumers’ underdog affection in commerce. Journal of Service Management, 28(3), 563-592.
Moyer‐Gusé, E., & Dale, K. (2017). Narrative persuasion theories. The international encyclopedia of media effects, 1-11.
Moyer-Gusé, E., & Nabi, R. L. (2010). Explaining the effects of narrative in an entertainment television program: Overcoming resistance to persuasion. Human communication research, 36(1), 26-52.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Personality and individual differences, 36(3), 587-596.
Oatley, K. (1999). Meetings of minds: Dialogue, sympathy, and identification, in reading fiction. Poetics, 26(5-6), 439-454.
Paharia, N., Keinan, A., Avery, J. and Schor, J. B.(2011). The Underdog Effect: The Marketing of Disadvantage and Determination through Brand Biography, Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5),775-790.
Rooney, P. M., Mesch, D. J., Chin, W., & Steinberg, K. S. (2005). The effects of race, gender, and survey methodologies on giving in the US. Economics Letters, 86(2), 173-180.
Forcier, Eric, Rathi, Dinesh, & Given, Lisa. (2013). Tools of engagement for knowledge management: using social media to capture non-profit organizations' stories. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS/Actes du congrès annuel de l'ACSI.
Stern, B. B. (1994). Classical and vignette television advertising dramas: Structural models, formal analysis, and consumer effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 601-615.
Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and uncertainty, 26(1), 5-16.
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Markers: A Brief Version of Goldberg’s Unipolar Big-Five Markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(3), 506–516.
Moyer‐Gusé, E., & Dale, K. (2017). Narrative persuasion theories. The international encyclopedia of media effects, 1-11.
Shankar, A., Elliott, R. and Goulding, C. (2001), Understanding consumption: contributions from a narrative perspective, Journal of Marketing Management, 17(3-4), 429-453.
Saito, Y., Ueshima, A., Tanida, S., & Kameda, T. (2019). How does social information affect charitable giving?: Empathic concern promotes support for underdog recipient. Social neuroscience, 14(6), 751-764.
Shirai, M. (2017). Underdog effects: the role of consumption domain and retail crowding. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 34(5), 384-392.
Wells, W. D. (1989). Lectures and dramas. Cognitive and affective responses to advertising, 13-20.