隨著科技與網路的發展，人們日常接收新聞的渠道不在受限於傳統報章雜誌或電視，越來越多人傾向選擇社群平台作為主要訊息接收渠道。同時，由於缺乏嚴謹的審查制度與法規，再加演算法的推波助瀾，社群平台成為了滋養假新聞的最佳溫床。2019年底，COVID-19疫情迅速蔓延全球，而疫情相關的假新聞也隨之氾濫於各大社群平台，許多民眾因此被誤導、欺騙，產生恐慌焦慮的情緒，甚至出現了衛生紙與口罩等物資的搶購風潮。有鑑於此，本研究以第三人效果理論探討假新聞於社群平台的傳播效力，並以理性行為理論解釋其對於恐慌性購買意圖的影響。一方面針對第三人效果的前置影響因素進行探討，另一方面更納入行為規範、情緒感染與期望利益等構念，一併探討疫情期間影響民眾恐慌性購買意圖的主要因素。
本研究採用線上問卷蒐集樣本數據，一共回收318份有效問卷。根據研究結果，自我效能、自我涉入感、事實查核經驗、社會不良性與媒介可信度皆能用於預測第三人效果。另一方面，針對第三人效果所帶來的後續影響，則可以透過理性行為理論進行解釋，同時，恐慌性購買意圖會受到態度、主觀規範、情緒感染與期望利益等因素影響，但行為規範並無法如預期般有效抑制恐慌性購買意圖。

With the development of technology and the Internet, people’s daily channels for receiving news are no longer limited to traditional newspapers and television. More and more people tend to choose social platforms as their main information receiving channels. At the same time, due to the lack of a rigorous censorship system and the algorithm, social platforms have become the best hotbed for nourishing fake news. At the end of 2019, the COVID-19 spread rapidly around the world, and the fake news related to the epidemic also flooded the major social platforms. Many people were misled and deceived, which led to panic and anxiety. There have even been many panic buying incidents of toilet paper and masks. In view of this, the study uses the Third-Person Effect theory to explore the effectiveness of fake news on social platforms, and uses Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) to explain its impact on intentions to panic buying. This research not only explores the pre-influencing factors of the Third-Person Effect, but also incorporates constructs such as behavior norm, emotional contagion and expected profit to discuss the main influencing factors of intentions to panic buying during the epidemic.
In this study, online questionnaires were used to collect sample data, and a total of 318 valid questionnaires were collected. According to the research results, self-efficacy, issue-involvement, fact checking experience, social undesirability, and media credibility can all be used to predict the Third-Person Effect. On the other hand, the subsequent impact of the Third-Person Effect can be explained through theory of reasoned action. At the same time, intentions to panic buying will be affected by factors such as attitude, subjective norms, emotional contagion and expected profit, but behavior norms cannot effectively suppress intentions to panic buying as expected.

論文審定書 i
公開授權書 ii
摘要 iii
Abstract iv
目錄 v
圖次 vi
表次 vii
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 研究問題與目的 5
第四節 研究方法與流程 6
第二章 文獻探討 7
第一節 假新聞(Fake news) 7
第二節 理性行為理論(Theory of Reasoned Action, TRA) 16
第三節 行為規範(Behavior Norm) 20
第三章 研究方法 25
第一節 研究模型 25
第二節 研究假說 26
第三節 研究設計 43
第四章 資料分析 63
第一節 樣本基本資料分析 63
第二節 衡量模型 67
第三節 結構模型與假說驗證 83
第四節 中介效果分析 86
第五章 結論與建議 87
第一節 研究結果與討論 87
第二節 學術與實務意涵 95
第三節 研究限制與建議 97
參考文獻 98
附錄：本研究正式問卷 112

中文文獻
1. Hsueh, J.（2020年2月6日）。我們正經歷著一場大型社會實驗，或許「口罩」會創造出全新的經濟學模型。關鍵評論。https://www.thenewslens.com/article/130726
2. 于宗先、王金利（2003）。一隻看得見的手。聯經出版事業公司。
3. 中央社（2020年10月26日）。2020美國總統大選 本土假訊息超越俄羅斯干預。聯合新聞網。https://udn.com/news/story/121687/4965431
4. 中央流行疫情指揮中心。（2020年）。口罩實名制 2.0。https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Category/QAPage/IHfVhz0tuni8vhrWMcSMjQ#collapse6006
5. 中視新聞（2020年2月1日）。口罩來了！藥妝店、超商排隊人龍繞三圈。中視全球資訊網。 http://new.ctv.com.tw/Article/%E5%8F%A3%E7%BD%A9%E4%BE%86%E4%BA%86-%E8%97%A5%E5%A6%9D%E5%BA%97-%E8%B6%85%E5%95%86-%E6%8E%92%E9%9A%8A%E4%BA%BA%E9%BE%8D%E7%B9%9E%E4%B8%89%E5%9C%88-%E4%B8%AD%E8%A6%96%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E-20200201
6. 方世杰、方世榮（2002）。從交易成本與代理理論探討醫藥行銷通路-以行為規範與控制機制為調節變數。管理評論，21（3），1-24。
7. 王昌如（2018）。災害引發之民眾恐慌購買及囤貨行為成因探討。臺灣大學商學研究所學位論文， 1-77。
8. 台灣事實查核中心（2020a年5月27日）。【錯誤】網傳「 趕快去買口罩，6/1開始口罩解實名制，一片會漲到7～12元。」？。事實查核報告。https://tfc-taiwan.org.tw/articles/3881
9. 台灣事實查核中心（2020b年2月26日）。【錯誤】網傳「我爸爸是民進黨議員，上次和王世堅聊天提到肺炎，說現在台灣已經超過500例了，死亡200了...」？。事實查核報告。https://tfc-taiwan.org.tw/articles/2695
10. 台灣事實查核中心（2020c年3月13日）。【錯誤】網傳日本防衛大臣河野太郎推特圖「來自台灣的五十萬口罩安定下來，為台灣的安全祈禱」？。事實查核報告。https://tfc-taiwan.org.tw/articles/3046
11. 甘仲豪（2020年2月7日）。「衛生紙之亂2.0」！網群組謠傳「原料全拿去做口罩」　廠商回應了。CTWANT。https://www.ctwant.com/article/35831
12. 吳姿瑩（2006）。自由經濟體制下政府應扮演的角色。網路社會學通訊期刊，53。
13. 吳謹安（2019年7月31日）。為何人們喜歡傳假新聞？假新聞的傳播與心理學。公民學院。https://uc.watchout.tw/read/aZPEQD3OJygTduKrb96S
14. 李文華（2020年2月26日）。疫情謠言攻擊民進黨政府 警方追IP逮4人。民視新聞網。https://www.ftvnews.com.tw/news/detail/2020206C07M1
15. 李承傑、董旭英（2017）。偏最小平方法結構方程模型。科學發展（539），20-25。
16. 李峰、沈惠璋、張聰（2012）。我國危機事件下從眾意向模型——基於 FISHBEIN 合理行為模型的修正研究。管理學報， 9（3），451。
17. 李雯珂、鍾淑惠（2020年 8月23日）。彩色口罩代排一盒飆破3千元 「婆媽軍團」排隊。民視新聞網。https://www.ftvnews.com.tw/news/detail/2020823F02M1
18. 汪志堅、陳才（2019）。假新聞:來源・樣態與因應策略。前程文化。
19. 林雨佑、楊惠君、林慧貞、陳潔、楊智強、嚴文廷、……、許佳琦（2021年 5月28日）。【不斷更新】武漢肺炎大事記：從全球到台灣，疫情如何發展？。報導者。https://www.twreporter.org/a/2019-ncov-epidemic
20. 林美雅、向倩儀、蔡維鴻（2005）。瘦身廣告的第三人效果。中華傳播學刊（7），227-253。
21. 林素真（2009）。反毒影片之第一人效果。廣播與電視，31，23-53。
22. 林敬家（2020年8月13日）。帶著小孩、自備椅子排隊…美廉社口罩8分鐘賣光5萬盒。聯合新聞網。https://udn.com/news/story/7266/4777877
23. 社群藍皮書（2020）。資訊搜集行為與內容形式偏好。PIXNET Social Survey。https://2020pssurvey.events.pixnet.net/?utm_campaign=2020pssurvey&utm_source=pixnet&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=pixnet_01
24. 金必煌、鄭子慧、施宏彬（2013）。正負面網路口碑對目的性與衝動性購買意願之行為研究。Electronic Commerce Studies，11（1），1-28。
25. 洪雅慧（2007）。網路電子郵件之「第三人效果」與「第一人效果」-以台灣「319槍擊疑雲」電子郵件散播為例。新聞學研究（90），1-42。
26. 胡元輝（2020）。事實是正確報導的礎石：台灣事實查核中心的經驗與反思。NCC NEWS，14（4）。
27. 胡幼偉（1998）。選舉民調第三者效果的因果分析。中華傳播學會年會論文。
28. 徐秀娥（2018年3月1日）。衛生紙之亂誰起的頭？一張圖顯示消息由這而來！。中時新聞網。 https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20180301003142-260405?chdtv
29. 書生百用（2020年2月15日）。介入市場抵制炒賣口罩？價格哄抬和管制的思辯。立場新聞。https://beta.thestandnews.com/society/%E4%BB%8B%E5%85%A5%E5%B8%82%E5%A0%B4%E6%8A%B5%E5%88%B6%E7%82%92%E8%B3%A3%E5%8F%A3%E7%BD%A9-%E5%83%B9%E6%A0%BC%E5%93%84%E6%8A%AC%E5%92%8C%E7%AE%A1%E5%88%B6%E7%9A%84%E6%80%9D%E8%BE%AF
30. 高尚濤（2006）。規範的含意與作用分析。國際政治研究，4，144-157。
31. 張佳弘（2000）。從政府管制探討競爭政策。公平交易季刊，8(3)，1-32。
32. 梁定澎（2012a）。 社會認知理論。載於梁定澎(主編)，資訊管理理論（頁 10-14-10-11）。前程文化。
33. 梁定澎（2012b）。 推敲可能性模式。載於梁定澎(主編)，資訊管理理論（頁 9-3-9-11）。前程文化。
34. 梁定澎（2012c）。 理性行為理論。載於梁定澎(主編)，資訊管理理論。（頁 6-3-6-10）。前程文化。
35. 陳宗薊（2009年5月25日）。口罩荒與平準物資的經濟學。國家研究報告。https://www.npf.org.tw/2/5922
36. 陳尚輝（2010）。空調水處理業經營策略之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。中原大學。
37. 陳柔瑜（2020年1月28日）。發災難財？口罩一盒500元遭控炒到天價。CTWANT。https://www.ctwant.com/article/34578
38. 陳啟亮（2012年10月）。自我效能。圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典。http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1679150/
39. 陳添枝、顧瑩華（2020）。COVID-19 對全球產業供應鏈的影響及臺灣的挑戰。經濟前瞻（191），28-34。
40. 陳琪嫆（2006）。負面網路交友新聞的第三人效果影響－以朱木炎新聞為例。中華傳播學會年會。
41. 彭文正（2007）。第三人效果的理解與疑惑。中華傳播學刊（12）， 3-52。
42. 彭台光、高月慈、林鉦棽（2006）。管理研究中的共同方法變異：問題本質、影響、測試和補救。管理學報，23（1），77-98。
43. 曾郁文（2012）。網路論壇中的第三人效果之研究－以批踢踢八卦版為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中山大學。
44. 馮兆音（2020年3月24日）。肺炎疫情：口罩中間商、囤貨者、生產商與政客的眾生相。BBC NEWS。https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/world-52013453
45. 黃承晧（2013）。社群網絡中訊息暗示與情緒感染對於從眾行為的影響（未出版之碩士論文）。屏東科技大學。
46. 黃俊儒、賴雁蓉、陳儀珈、范育綺、曾雅榮、蘇芸巧（2020年4月10日）。騙個資、假影片、AI造像：新媒體時代，6種你必須注意的作假新手法。報導者。https://www.twreporter.org/a/bookreview-science-anatomy-fake-news
47. 黃筱歡、翁世航（2020年2月10日）。警查獲3人散播「衛生紙短缺」假消息，其中1人為衛生用品承銷商。The News Lens關鍵評論。https://www.thenewslens.com/article/130976
48. 黃萬翠、陳瑛瑛（2020）。COVID-19（武漢肺炎）防疫戰-成功守住台灣之關鍵。護理雜誌，67（3），75-83。
49. 黃馨儀（2020）。政治新聞的真與假：閱聽人對真實的理解與辨偽未出版之碩士論文）。政治大學。
50. 楊棠堯、張瑞星、傅薏雯（2018）。自我指涉對部落格行銷效果影響之研究－論點品質與部落格態度的調節效果。南臺學報社會科學類，3（2），51-74。
51. 褚瑞婷（2007年10月31日）。「腳尾飯」事件之研析。國政分析。 https://www.npf.org.tw/3/3240
52. 劉志原（2005年4月30日）。烏龍舔耳案，李慶安判賠60萬。自由時報。 https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/paper/15209
53. 劉政宏、陳學志、張文哲、張仁和（2011）。論點立場與品質對高中生論點 贊否反應影響的意識處理機制。教育心理學報，42（3），491-515。
54. 蔡中民（2014）。論政府管制：一個政治經濟學的觀點。政治學報（57）， 31-51。
55. 衛生福利部（2020）。COVID-19防疫關鍵決策時間軸。 https://covid19.mohw.gov.tw/ch/sp-timeline0-205.html
56. 衛生福利部疾病管制署（2020a年6月7日）。記錄每個關鍵時刻！「COVID-19臺灣防疫關鍵決策網」上線。https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Bulletin/Detail/azlnmIDpdrfPWPAEoRAQnQ?typeid=9
57. 衛生福利部疾病管制署（2020b年10月26日）。網路流傳「在台北市的越南人大規模染疫」是假的！勿轉傳以免觸法。 https://www.mohw.gov.tw/cp-4343-55789-1.html
58. 衛生福利部疾病管制署（2021）。COVID-19全球疫情地圖。https://covid-19.nchc.org.tw/
59. 盧映慈（2020年4月3日）。全球確診超過100萬人！回顧爆發94天的新冠病毒到底有多恐怖。HEHO。https://heho.com.tw/archives/76952
60. 賴慧琪（2020）。行政機關澄清假新聞機制與運作之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。臺灣大學。
61. 賴麒元（2018）。Facebook假新聞第三人效果研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中正大學。
62. 聯合新聞網（2020a年4月3日）。實名制美意變調　網友爆料口罩抬價轉售「15片400元」。好房網。https://news.housefun.com.tw/news/article/207671251103.html
63. 聯合新聞網（2020b年8月20日）。衝夜排！屈臣氏售中衛特殊色口罩人潮爆 民眾：4點50就全滿。聯合新聞網。https://udn.com/news/story/7266/4796129
64. 聯合新聞網（2020c年2月21日）。臉書直播賣口罩100個1500元 被酸還反嗆「我是發災難財達人」。聯合新聞網。https://udn.com/news/story/120911/4361036
65. 謝章升（2013年11月22日）。PLS偏最小平方法教材。三星課程網。https://www.slideshare.net/beckett53/pls20131122
66. 謝登隆（2014）。供給與需求。載於個體經濟學：生活與個案。智勝文化。
67. 趨勢科技（2020年3月25日）。面對疫情人心惶惶 ! 詐騙、謠言滿天飛。趨勢科技防詐達人打擊假消息有一套 呼籲民眾共同對抗假訊息蔓延。https://www.trendmicro.com/zh_tw/about/newsroom/press-releases/2020/2020-03-25.html
68. 羅文輝（2001）。性策略理論、性別、第三人效果與支持限制色情媒介。新聞學研究（63），201-222。
69. 羅真、簡浩正（2020年3月12日）。口罩2.0上路大當機「比高鐵票還難搶」。聯合新聞網。https://health.udn.com/health/story/120950/4408663
70. 關秉寅（2008）。信度與效度。社會研究方法。
71. 嚴文廷（2020年4月27日）。【口罩國家隊的挑戰】3個月產能增8.5倍幕後祕辛：台灣怎麼做到？產業升級可能嗎？。報導者。https://www.twreporter.org/a/covid-19-mask-national-team-taiwan-can-help
72. 蘇品誠、鄭鈺霖（2020）。以機器學習演算法為基礎探討假新聞之網路安全教育。工程、技術與科技教育學術研討會，136-146。
73. 蘇衡（2018年3月23日）。當新世代只在網路偶遇新聞。名人堂電子報。https://paper.udn.com/udnpaper/PID0030/324885/web/index.html

英文文獻
1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Orgnizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. De Young, 509-526.
2. Alicke, M. D. (1985). Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and controllability of trait adjectives. Journal of personality and social psychology, 49(6), 1621.
3. Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of economic perspectives, 31(2), 211-236.
4. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411.
5. Apuke, O. D., & Omar, B. (2021). Fake news and COVID-19: modelling the predictors of fake news sharing among social media users. Telematics and Informatics, 56, 101475.
6. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory: Prentice-hall.
7. Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health education & behavior, 31(2), 143-164.
8. Bandura, A., Freeman, W., & Lightsey, R. (1999). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control: Springer.
9. Bandura, A., & Watts, R. E. (1996). Self-efficacy in changing societies: Springer.
10. Banning, S. A., & Sweetser, K. D. (2007). How much do they think it affects them and whom do they believe?: Comparing the third-person effect and credibility of blogs and traditional media. Communication Quarterly, 55(4), 451-466.
11. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173.
12. Batailler, C., Brannon, S. M., Teas, P. E., & Gawronski, B. (2021). A signal detection approach to understanding the identification of fake news. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 22.
13. Blackwell, R. D., Miniard, P. W., & Engel, J. F. (2001). Consumer behavior 9th. South-Western Thomas Learning. Mason, OH.
14. Bolton, D. M., & Yaxley, J. (2017). Fake news and clickbait–natural enemies of evidence‐based medicine. BJU international, 119, 8-9.
15. Borel, B. (2017). Fact-Checking Won’t Save Us from Fake News. FiveThirtyEight, January, 4.
16. Bowman, S., & Willis, C. (2003). We media: How audiences are shaping the future of news and information. The Media Center At the American Press Institute. Reston .
17. Brosius, H.-B., & Engel, D. (1996). The causes of third-person effects: Unrealistic optimism, impersonal impact, or generalized negative attitudes towards media influence? International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8(2), 142-162.
18. Bruns, A. (2011). Gatekeeping, gatewatching, real-time feedback: new challenges for journalism. Brazilian Journalism Research, 7(2), 117-136.
19. Cantarella, M., Fraccaroli, N., & Volpe, R. (2020). Does fake news affect voting behaviour?
20. Caplan, R., Hanson, L., & Donovan, J. (2018). Dead reckoning: Navigating content moderation after fake news. Data & Society.
21. Carmon, Z., & Ariely, D. (2000). Focusing on the forgone: How value can appear so different to buyers and sellers. Journal of consumer research, 27(3), 360-370.
22. Cheng, Y., & Chen, Z. F. (2020). The Influence of Presumed Fake News Influence: Examining Public Support for Corporate Corrective Response, Media Literacy Interventions, and Governmental Regulation. Mass Communication and Society, 1-25.
23. Chin, W. W. (1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling: JSTOR.
24. Chin, W. W. (2010). Bootstrap cross-validation indices for PLS path model assessment Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 83-97): Springer.
25. Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information systems research, 14(2), 189-217.
26. Chung, M., & Kim, N. (2020). When I Learn the News is False: How Fact-Checking Information Stems the Spread of Fake News Via Third-Person Perception. Human Communication Research.
27. Chung, N., Han, H., & Koo, C. (2015). Adoption of travel information in user-generated content on social media: the moderating effect of social presence. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(9), 902-919.
28. Cialdini, R. B. (1993). The psychology of persuasion. New York.
29. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences: Routledge.
30. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS quarterly, 189-211.
31. Corbu, N., Oprea, D.-A., Negrea-Busuioc, E., & Radu, L. (2020). ‘They can’t fool me, but they can fool the others!’Third person effect and fake news detection. European Journal of Communication, 35(2), 165-180.
32. Darwin, G. H. (1872). Development in dress. Macmillan's Magazine, 26, 410-416.
33. Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public opinion quarterly, 47(1), 1-15.
34. Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL: A guide for the uninitiated: Sage.
35. DiFranzo, D., & Gloria-Garcia, K. (2017). Filter bubbles and fake news. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students, 23(3), 32-35.
36. Doherty, R. W. (1997). The emotional contagion scale: A measure of individual differences. Journal of nonverbal Behavior, 21(2), 131-154.
37. Drezner, D., & Farrell, H. (2004). The power and politics of blogs.
38. Driscoll, P. D., & Salwen, M. B. (1997). Self-perceived knowledge of the OJ Simpson trial: Third-person perception and perceptions of guilt. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74(3), 541-556.
39. Duck, J. M., Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1995). The perceived influence of AIDS advertising: Third-person effects in the context of positive media content. Basic and applied social psychology, 17(3), 305-325.
40. Eisend, M. (2017). The third-person effect in advertising: A meta-analysis. Journal of advertising, 46(3), 377-394.
41. Eveland Jr, W. P., & McLeod, D. M. (1999). The effect of social desirability on perceived media impact: Implications for third-person perceptions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 11(4), 315-333.
42. Finn, R. (1972). Effects of some variations in rating scale characteristics on the means and reliabilities of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 32(2), 255-265.
43. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.
44. Fishbein, M., & Azjen, I.（1980）。Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior。Englewood Cliffs。
45. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New media & society, 9(2), 319-342.
46. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981a). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
47. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981b). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics: Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA.
48. Fritz, H. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations: New York: John Wiley and Sons.
49. Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information systems, 16(1), 5.
50. Golan, G. J., Banning, S. A., & Lundy, L. (2008). Likelihood to vote, candidate choice, and the third-person effect: Behavioral implications of political advertising in the 2004 presidential election. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(2), 278-290.
51. Goode, L. (2009). Social news, citizen journalism and democracy. New media & society, 11(8), 1287-1305.
52. Gottfried, J., & Shearer, E. (2016). News Use Across Social Medial Platforms 2016: Pew Research Center.
53. Graham, B., Dodd, D. L. F., & Cottle, S. (1934). Security analysis: McGraw-Hill New York.
54. Greene, C. M., Nash, R. A., & Murphy, G. (2021). Misremembering Brexit: Partisan bias and individual predictors of false memories for fake news stories among Brexit voters. Memory, 1-18.
55. Grinberg, N., Joseph, K., Friedland, L., Swire-Thompson, B., & Lazer, D. (2019). Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Science, 363(6425), 374-378.
56. Gu, L., Kropotov, V., & Yarochkin, F. (2017). The Fake News Machine. How Propagandists Abuse the Internet and Manipulate the Public. Pobrane, 25.
57. Guess, A., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. (2019). Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science advances, 5(1), eaau4586.
58. Gunther, A. (1991). What we think others think: Cause and consequence in the third-person effect. Communication research, 18(3), 355-372.
59. Gunther, A., & Thorson, E. (1992). Perceived persuasive effects of product commercials and public service announcements: Third-person effects in new domains. Communication research, 19(5), 574-596.
60. Gunther, A. C. (1992). Biased press or biased public? Attitudes toward media coverage of social groups. Public opinion quarterly, 56(2), 147-167.
61. Gunther, A. C. (1995). Overrating the X‐rating: The third‐person perception and support for censorship of pornography. Journal of Communication, 45(1), 27-38.
62. Gunther, A. C., & Mundy, P. (1993). Biased optimism and the third-person effect. Journalism Quarterly, 70(1), 58-67.
63. Höller, M. (2021). The human component in social media and fake news: the performance of UK opinion leaders on Twitter during the Brexit campaign. European Journal of English Studies, 25(1), 80-95.
64. Haridakis, P. M., & Rubin, A. M. (2005). Third-person effects in the aftermath of terrorism. Mass Communication & Society, 8(1), 39-59.
65. Hartley, K., & Vu, M. K. (2020). Fighting fake news in the COVID-19 era: policy insights from an equilibrium model. Policy Sciences, 53(4), 735-758.
66. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotional contagion. Current directions in psychological science, 2(3), 96-100.
67. Henriksen, L., & Flora, J. A. (1999). Third-person perception and children: Perceived impact of pro-and anti-smoking ads. Communication research, 26(6), 643-665.
68. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 43(1), 115-135.
69. Hermida, A. (2010). Twittering the news: The emergence of ambient journalism. Journalism practice, 4(3), 297-308.
70. Hocevar, K. P., Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2014). Social media self-efficacy and information evaluation online. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 254-262.
71. Hsu, M.-H., & Chiu, C.-M. (2004). Internet self-efficacy and electronic service acceptance. Decision support systems, 38(3), 369-381.
72. Hunt, E.(2017) Fake news' named word of the year by Macquarie Dictionary.
73. Institute, R.(2020). Digital news report: Taiwan 2020.
74. Jang, S. M., & Kim, J. K. (2018). Third person effects of fake news: Fake news regulation and media literacy interventions. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 295-302.
75. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: new york university press.
76. Kanihan, S. F., & Chafee, S. H. (1996). Situational influence of political involvement on information seeking: A field experiment.
77. Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C., & Wei, K.-K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS quarterly, 113-143.
78. Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. (1999). Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS quarterly, 183-213.
79. Keynes, J. M. (2018). The general theory of employment, interest, and money: Springer.
80. Kiousis, S. (2001). Public trust or mistrust? Perceptions of media credibility in the information age. Mass Communication & Society, 4(4), 381-403.
81. Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. American journal of occupational therapy, 45(3), 214-222.
82. Krugman, H. E. (1965). The impact of television advertising: Learning without involvement. Public opinion quarterly, 29(3), 349-356.
83. Lada, S., Tanakinjal, G. H., & Amin, H. (2009). Predicting intention to choose halal products using theory of reasoned action. International journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern finance and management.
84. LaPiere, R. T. (1934). Attitudes vs. actions. Social forces, 13(2), 230-237.
85. Lasorsa, D. L. (1989). Real and perceived effects of ‘Amerika’. Journalism Quarterly, 66(2), 373-529.
86. Leataru, K.（2017）。Did Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg coin the phrase ‘fake news’? Forbes。
87. Lee, B., & Tamborini, R. (2005). Third-person effect and Internet pornography: The influence of collectivism and Internet self-efficacy. Journal of Communication, 55(2), 292-310.
88. Lee, H., & Park, S.-A. (2016). Third-person effect and pandemic flu: The role of severity, self-efficacy method mentions, and message source. Journal of Health Communication, 21(12), 1244-1250.
89. Lee, M.-C. (2009). Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: An integration of TAM and TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit. Electronic commerce research and applications, 8(3), 130-141.
90. Lewis, K. M. (2000). When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negative emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 21(2), 221-234.
91. Liu, P. L., & Huang, L. V. (2020). Digital Disinformation About COVID-19 and the Third-Person Effect: Examining the Channel Differences and Negative Emotional Outcomes. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking.
92. Madsen, D. (1987). Political self-efficacy tested. The American Political Science Review, 571-581.
93. McLeod, D. M., Detenber, B. H., & Eveland Jr, W. P. (2001). Behind the third‐person effect: Differentiating perceptual processes for self and other. Journal of Communication, 51(4), 678-695.
94. McLeod, D. M., Eveland Jr, W. P., & Nathanson, A. I. (1997). Support for censorship of violent and misogynic rap lyrics: An analysis of the third-person effect. Communication research, 24(2), 153-174.
95. McQuarrie, E. F., & Munson, J. M. (1992). A revised product involvement inventory: Improved usability and validity. ACR North American Advances.
96. Mecacci, A. (2016). Aesthetics of Fake. An Overview. Aisthesis. Pratiche, linguaggi e saperi dell’estetico, 9(2), 59-69.
97. Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (1988). Psychological testing. Principles, and Applications, Englewood Cliffs, 18.
98. Mutz, D. C. (1989). The influence of perceptions of media influence: Third person effects and the public expression of opinions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 1(1), 3-23.
99. Neuwirth, K., & Frederick, E. (2002). Extending the framework of third-, first-, and second-person effects. Mass Communication & Society, 5(2), 113-140.
100. Neuwirth, K., Frederick, E., & Mayo, C. (2002). Person-effects and heuristic-systematic processing. Communication research, 29(3), 320-359.
101. Newman, N. (2018). Journalism, media and technology trends and predictions 2018.
102. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory.
103. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you: Penguin UK.
104. Park, H. S., & Salmon, C. T. (2005). A test of the third-person effect in public relations: Application of social comparison theory. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(1), 25-43.
105. Paul, B., Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. (2000). The third-person effect: A meta-analysis of the perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication & Society, 3(1), 57-85.
106. Perloff, R. M. (1989). Ego-involvement and the third person effect of televised news coverage. Communication research, 16(2), 236-262.
107. Perloff, R. M. (1999). The third person effect: A critical review and synthesis. Media psychology, 1(4), 353-378.
108. Perloff, R. M. (2002). The third-person effect Media effects (pp. 499-516): Routledge.
109. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion Communication and persuasion (pp. 1-24): Springer.
110. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of management, 12(4), 531-544.
111. Rosenthal, S., Detenber, B. H., & Rojas, H. (2018). Efficacy beliefs in third-person effects. Communication research, 45(4), 554-576.
112. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173-220): Elsevier.
113. Salmon, C. T., & Dervin, B. (1986). Perspectives on involvement in consumer and communication research. Progress in communication sciences, 7, 243-268.
114. Salwen, M. B., & Driscoll, P. D. (1997). Consequences of third-person perception in support of press restrictions in the OJ Simpson trial. Journal of Communication, 47(2), 60-78.
115. Saraf, N., Langdon, C. S., & Gosain, S. (2007). IS application capabilities and relational value in interfirm partnerships. Information systems research, 18(3), 320-339.
116. Schofield, J. W. (1975). Effect of norms, public disclosure, and need for approval on volunteering behavior consistent with attitudes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 31(6), 1126.
117. Shah, D. V., Faber, R. J., & Youn, S. (1999). Susceptibility and severity: Perceptual dimensions underlying the third-person effect. Communication research, 26(2), 240-267.
118. Sharma, K., Qian, F., Jiang, H., Ruchansky, N., Zhang, M., & Liu, Y. (2019). Combating fake news: A survey on identification and mitigation techniques. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 10(3), 1-42.
119. Sherif, M., & Cantril, H. (1947). The psychology of ego-involvements: Social attitudes and identifications.
120. Ştefăniţă, O. (2018). Fake news and the third-person effect: They are more influenced than me and you. Journal of Media Research, 11(3), 5-23.
121. Sundar, S. S. (1999). Exploring receivers' criteria for perception of print and online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(2), 373-386.
122. Talwar, S., Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Zafar, N., & Alrasheedy, M. (2019). Why do people share fake news? Associations between the dark side of social media use and fake news sharing behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 72-82.
123. Talwar, S., Dhir, A., Singh, D., Virk, G. S., & Salo, J. (2020). Sharing of fake news on social media: Application of the honeycomb framework and the third-person effect hypothesis. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57, 102197.
124. Tandoc, E. C., Lim, Z. W., & Ling, R. (2018). Defining “Fake News”. Digital Journalism, 6(2), 137-153. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143
125. Tewksbury, D., Moy, P., & Weis, D. S. (2004). Preparations for Y2K: Revisiting the behavioral component of the third-person effect. Journal of Communication, 54(1), 138-155.
126. Turcotte, J., York, C., Irving, J., Scholl, R. M., & Pingree, R. J. (2015). News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: Effects on media trust and information seeking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(5), 520-535.
127. Tyler, T. R., & Cook, F. L. (1984). The mass media and judgments of risk: Distinguishing impact on personal and societal level judgments. Journal of personality and social psychology, 47(4), 693.
128. UNWTO. (2020, 05.08). INTERNATIONAL TOURIST NUMBERS COULD FALL 60-80% IN 2020. https://www.unwto.org/news/covid-19-international-tourist-numbers-could-fall-60-80-in-2020
129. Urbach, N., & Ahlemann, F. (2010). Structural equation modeling in information systems research using partial least squares. Journal of Information technology theory and application, 11(2), 5-40.
130. Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., Maruping, L. M., & Bala, H. (2008). Predicting different conceptualizations of system use: the competing roles of behavioral intention, facilitating conditions, and behavioral expectation. MIS quarterly, 483-502.
131. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146-1151.
132. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation.
133. Walters, C. G. (1978). Consumer Behavior: Theory and Practice, Richard D., Irwin. Inc., Illinois.
134. Wardle, C. (2018, 12.27). 5 Lessons for Reporting in an Age of Disinformation. Agents of disinformation use anonymous online spaces to seed rumors and fabricated content, hoping to eventually reach professional news outlets. How can journalists protect themselves from being manipulated?
135. Wei, R., Chia, S. C., & Lo, V.-H. (2011). Third-person effect and hostile media perception influences on voter attitudes toward polls in the 2008 US presidential election. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23(2), 169-190.
136. Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory: General Learning Press.
137. Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of personality and social psychology, 39(5), 806.
138. White, C., & Scheb, J. M. (2000). Impact of media messages about the Internet: Internet anxiety as a factor in the adoption process in the USA. New media & society, 2(2), 181-194.
139. White, H. A. (1997). Considering interacting factors in the third-person effect: Argument strength and social distance. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74(3), 557-564.
140. Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social issues, 25(4), 41-78.
141. Williams, A., Wardle, C., & Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2011). “Have they got news for us?” Audience revolution or business as usual at the BBC? Journalism practice, 5(1), 85-99.
142. Wu, W., & Koo, S. H. (2001). Perceived effects of sexually explicit Internet content: The third-person effect in Singapore. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(2), 260-274.
143. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1986). Conceptualizing involvement. Journal of advertising, 15(2), 4-34.
144. Zhao, X., & Cai, X. (2008). From self-enhancement to supporting censorship: The third-person effect process in the case of Internet pornography. Mass Communication and Society, 11(4), 437-462.
145. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 82-91.