博碩士論文 etd-0123106-144921 詳細資訊


[回到前頁查詢結果 | 重新搜尋]

姓名 鄭菲菲(Fei-Fei Cheng) 電子郵件信箱 fei@mis.nsysu.edu.tw
畢業系所 資訊管理學系研究所(Information Management)
畢業學位 博士(Ph.D.) 畢業時期 94學年第1學期
論文名稱(中) 框架效應之去偏誤化研究-以網路採購為例
論文名稱(英) Debiasing the framing effect-with examples of Internet purchasing
檔案
  • etd-0123106-144921.pdf
  • 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

    電子論文:校內校外均不公開

    論文語文/頁數 中文/126
    統計 本論文已被瀏覽 5610 次,被下載 0 次
    摘要(中) 行為學派的決策研究認為,環境的複雜性加上人類本身資訊處理能力的限制,決策者只能依賴一些經驗法則來將複雜的問題簡化成較簡單的判斷處理。這些經驗法則雖然很有用,卻經常會導致系統性的決策偏誤。偏誤的種類很多,其中一個廣受討論的是框架效應(framing effect)。它指的是當相同資訊以不同描述方式(例如:正面或負面)呈現時,會使人們的決策產生差異的現象。針對某一目標產品的屬性,以正面或負面方式進行產品描述,而使人們對於該目標產品的偏好(preference)及評估(evaluation)有所差異的情況,稱為屬性框架效應。
    本研究嘗試以一個廣泛且整體的架構,回顧過去決策偏誤的相關文獻,針對屬性框架可能發生的因素,包括決策者本身(內部資訊)、外部資訊與決策者努力不足等三個主要面向,分別進行框架效應去偏誤化的探討。
    在決策者個人方面,本研究針對決策者的個人差異(individual difference)變數,找出可能影響屬性框架效應的調節變數,包括受試者對目標產品的知識程度(主觀與客觀知識),以及受試者付出努力處理資訊的傾向(認知需求;need for cognition)程度為探討重點。此外,針對因外部資訊或決策者努力不足之面向,本研究嘗試設計四種去偏誤化(debias)策略,探討各種策略對於去除框架效應的效果。這四種去框架化策略包括決策問題的資訊完整性、產品屬性量、決策過程中之警告訊息提示(微弱與強烈兩種程度),以及誘發受試者進行思考(正向與反向思考)等。由於考慮上述不同去偏誤化策略之操弄可能互相干擾或產生學習效果,本研究設計四個實驗,分別用以瞭解決策者個人差異,以及四種去偏誤化策略對於屬性框架效應之影響。
    其中,實驗一探討受試者對產品的主觀、客觀知識程度與認知需求程度等個人差異變數對屬性框架效應之影響。實驗二則針對因外部資訊所造成之框架效應,探討資訊完整性與屬性量對屬性框架效應之影響。實驗三著重於因決策者努力不足所造成之框架效應,探討在受試者決策過程中給予警告訊息提示是否會影響屬性框架效應之發生,同時也分析警告訊息提示與認知需求之交互作用對框架效應之影響。實驗四亦針對決策者努力不足所造成之框架效應,探討誘發決策者進行正向或反向思考是否會影響框架效應,並分析誘發思考與決策者認知需求之交互作用對框架效應之影響。
    實驗結果發現,受試者的三種個人差異變數對框架效應皆無調節效果,無論受試者的知識程度或決策者是否傾向付出心力處理資訊,都無法避免框架效應的發生,顯示屬性框架訊息可能在無形中對決策者產生影響,與知識程度或認知需求的程度無關。其次,實驗二的結果發現以完整資訊(同時呈現正�負面訊息)來描述產品時,框架效應消失,這可能是因為同時呈現兩種框架訊息時,能夠讓決策者注意到一體的兩面,因此決策者的偏好與購買意願較偏向中立。
    此外,產品屬性量多寡則不會影響框架效應-無論屬性量有幾個,框架效應都會存在。換言之,只要一個屬性就足以造成框架效應,但屬性量愈多框架效應未必愈強,本研究發現,受試者的態度與負面屬性量呈倒U的關係,只有一個負面屬性時,決策者完全以此一屬性描述作為判斷的基礎,因此對目標產品的評價受到此一屬性的影響而非常低,當負面屬性量增加至三個時,可能因為功能數增加而提高受試者的偏好,此時受試者對產品的偏好是最高的,但若五個屬性全以負面方式描述時,受試者對目標產品的評價又會往下調降。
    至於在警告訊息提示的去框架化效果方面,本研究結果顯示微弱與強烈警告訊息雖然都可以減弱框架效應,但無法使其完全消失。此外,以微弱警告訊息提示即可幫助高認知需求者避免發生框架效應,但低認知需求者則需以強烈警告訊息提示才可達到去框架化的效果。
    最後,誘發受試者對自己的決策提供理由(正向思考),或是提供不支持其決策的理由(反向思考)皆能有效去除框架效應,效果最佳。此外,誘發思考的去偏誤化效果與決策者的認知需求程度並無絶對關聯,無論決策者的認知需求程度高低,誘發思考皆能達到去框架化的效果。
    摘要(英) With limited information processing capacity, people often rely on heuristics, or rule of thumb, to make decisions. In most situations, these heuristics are useful, however, it is possible to result in systematic biases. One of the biases is framing effect, which refers to the phenomenon that the framing message significantly affects how decision maker infer meaning and hence understand the situation. When a specific attribute is framed in positive or negative terms and result in different decision outome, the attribute framing effect occurs.
    Although a large amount of studies on framing effect has been cumulated, related works on debiasing the framing effect is limited. Based on past literatures, this study proposed a comprehensive framework to suggest and investigate the effect of debiasing strategies, which were developed in terms of sources of bias including individual difference, imcomplete external information and insufficient cognitive effort of decision makers.
    Four experitmts were conducted in this study. First, the subjective knowledge, objective knowledge and need for cognition are considered as the possible moderator of attribute framing effect. The second experiment aimed to understand that whether the completeness of decision problem and amounts of attributes affect the phemenon of attribute framing effect. The debiasing effect of warning and elaboration were examind in the third and fourth experiments respectively.
    The results suggested that both subjective and objective knowledge as well as participants’ need for cognition did not moderate the attribute framing effect. Specifically, the attribute framing effect is observed in all groups regardless of the individual differences. Second, the attribute framing effect disappeared when subjects were provided with positive and negative messages simultaneously.
    Third, attribute framing effect occurred for subjects in one attribute, three and five attribute conditions. That is, one attribute is sufficient for the framing effect to be observed. Moreover, there is an inverted U relationship between subjects’ attitude and the amount of negative attributes.
    The framing effect was weakened but is not eliminated when the participants were provided with warnings. In addition, weak warning can prevent subjects of high level need for cognition from framing effect, whereas strong warning can eliminate subjects’ framing effect successfully for group of low level need for cognition. Finally, elaboration is the most effective debiasing strategy in this study to eliminate the framing effect.
    關鍵字(中)
  • 決策制定
  • 去偏誤化
  • 框架效應
  • 關鍵字(英)
  • debias
  • decision making
  • framing effect
  • 論文目次 誌謝 VII
    第一章 緒論 1
    第二章 文獻探討 6
    第一節 框架效應 6
    第二節 認知偏誤的種類及成因 8
    第三節 去偏誤化策略及相關研究 10
    第三章 研究設計 31
    第一節 研究流程 31
    第二節 整體研究架構 32
    第三節 選擇目標產品 34
    第四節 實驗一 36
    第五節 實驗二 45
    第六節 實驗三 51
    第七節 實驗四 55
    第四章 資料分析 59
    第一節 實驗一 59
    第二節 實驗二 67
    第三節 實驗三 74
    第四節 實驗四 80
    第五節 假說驗證結果 86
    第五章 結論與討論 93
    第一節 結論 93
    第二節 學術貢獻 96
    第三節 實務貢獻 98
    第四節 研究限制 99
    第五節 未來研究方向 100
    參考文獻 101
    參考文獻 1. Alba, J.W. and J.W. Hutchinson (1987), “Dimensions of consumer expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.411-454.
    2. Arkes, H. R. (1991), “Costs and benefits of judgment errors: Implications for debiasing,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 110, pp. 486-498.
    3. Arkes, H.R., Faust, D., Guilmette, T.J., and Hart, K. (1988), “Eliminating the hindsight bias,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73, No. 2, pp.305-307.
    4. Arnott, D. (2005), Cognitive biases and decision support systems development: A design science approach (Working paper. No. 2005/01), Melbourne, Austrialia: Decision Support Systems Laboratory, Monash University.
    5. Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, pp.644-656.
    6. Berkeley, D. and Humphreys, P. (1982), “Structuring decision problems and the bias heuristic,” Acta Psychology, Vol. 50, pp.201-252.
    7. Bettman, J.R. and C.W. Park (1980), “Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of the choice process on consumer decision processes: A protocol analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.234-248.
    8. Block, B.A. and Harper, D.R. (1991), “Overconfidence in estimation: Testing the anchoring-and-adjustment hypothesis,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 49, pp.188-207.
    9. Brucks, M. (1985), “The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp.1-16.
    10. Cacioppo, J.T. and Petty, R.E. (1982), “The need for cogntion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 116-131.
    11. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., and Morris, J.M. (1983), “Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall and persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp.805-818.
    12. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Morris, J.M., and Rodriguez, R. (1986), “Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, No. 5, p.1032-1043.
    13. Chatterjee, S., Heath, T.B., Milberg, S.J., and France, K. R. (2000), “The differential processing of price in gains and losses: The effects of frame and need for cognition,’ Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 13, pp.61-75.
    14. Cohen, A.R., Stotland, E., and Wolfe, D.M. (1955), “An experimental investigation of need for cognition,” Journal of Abnormal and Scial Psychology, Vol. 51, pp.291-294.
    15. Darley, W.K. (1999), “The relationship of antecedents of search and self-esteem to adolescent search effort and perceived product knowledge,” Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 16, pp.409-427.
    16. Davies, M. E. (1987), “Reduction of hindsight bias by restoration of foresight perspective: Effectiveness of foresight-encoding and hindsight-retrieval strategies,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 40, pp. 50-68.
    17. Davies, M.F. (1992), “Field dependence and hindsight bias: Cognitive restructuring and the generation of reasons,” Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 26, pp.58-74.
    18. Emby, C. and Finley, D. (1997), “Debiasing framing effects in auditors’ internal control judgments and testing decisions,” Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.55-77.
    19. Fagley, N.S. and Miller, P.M. (1987), “The effects of decision making on choice of risky vs. certain options,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 39, pp.264-277.
    20. Fischhoff, B, Riley, D., Kovacs, D.C., and Small, M. (1998), “What ifnroamtion belongs in a warning?” Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 15, No. 7, pp.663-686.
    21. Fischhoff, B. (1982), “Debiasing” in Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (Eds.), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 422-444.
    22. Ford, G.T. and Smith R.A. (1987), “Inferential beliefs in consumer evaluations: An assessment of alternative processing strategies,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, pp.363-371.
    23. Gardner, M.P. (1984), “Advertising effects on attributes recalled and criteria used for brand evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 (December), pp.310-318.
    24. George, J.F., Duffy, K., and Ahuja, M. (2000), “Countering the anchoring and adjustment bias with decision support systems,” Decision Support Systems, Vol. 29, pp.195-206.
    25. Gerald, S.E. (1996), “Framing in advertising and the moderating impact of consumer education,” Journal of Advertising Research (Sep./Oct.), pp.49-64.
    26. Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., and Kleinbolting, H. (1991), “Probabilistic mental models: A brunswikian theory of confidence,” Psychological Review, Vol. 98, pp.506-528.
    27. Gordon, M.E., McKeage, K., and Fox, M.A. (1998), “Relatioship marketing effectiveness: The role of involvement,” Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 15, pp. 443-459.
    28. Hell, W., Gigeranzer, G., Gauggel, Z., Mall, M., & Mueller, M. (1988), “Hindsight bias: An interaction of automatic and motivational factors?” Memory and Cognition, Vol. 16, No.6, pp. 533-538.
    29. Highhouse, S., and Pease, P.W. (1996), “Problem domain and prospect frame: Choice under opportunity versus threat,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 22, pp.124-132.
    30. Hoch, S.J. (1985), “Counterfactual reasoning and accuracy in predicting personal events,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol. 11, pp.719-731.
    31. Hogarth R. M. (1987), Judgment and Choice: The Psychology of Decision, 2nd Edition, Wiley-Interscience Publication.
    32. Holbrook, M.B., and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, pp.132-140.
    33. Huber, J. and McCann, J. (1982), “The impact of inferential beliefs on product evaluations,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, pp.324-333.
    34. Janiszewski, C., Silk, T., and Cooke, Alan D. J. (2003), “Different scales for different frames: The role of subjective scales and experience in explaining attribute-araming effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30, pp. 311-325.
    35. Johnson, E.J., and Russo, J.E. (1984), “Product familiarity and learning new information,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 49, pp.41-53.
    36. Kanwar, R., Olson, J.C. and Sims, L.S. (1981), “Toward conceptualizing and measuring cognitive structures,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, ed. Kent Monroe, Ann Arbor, MI: Assiciation for Consumer Research, pp.122-127.
    37. Kennedy, J. (1993), “Debiasing audit judgment with accountability: A framework and experimental results,” Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn), pp.231-245.
    38. Kennedy, J. (1995), “Debiasing the curse of knowledge in audit judgment,” The Accounting Review (April), pp.249-274.
    39. Koehler, D.J. (1991), “Explanation, imagination, and confidence in judgment,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 110, pp.499-519.
    40. Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., and Fischhoff, B. (1980), “Reasons for overconfidence,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human learning and Memory, Vol. 6, pp.107-118.
    41. Kramer, R.M. (1989), “Windows of vulnerability or cognitive illusions? Cognitive processes and the nuclear arms race,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 79-100.
    42. Krishnamurthy P., P. Carter and E. Blair (2001), “Attribute framing and goal framing effects in health decisions,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 382–399.
    43. Kűhberger, A. (1995), “The framing of decisions: A new look at old problems,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 62, pp.230-240.
    44. Kühberger, A. (1998), “The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 75, No. 1, pp.23-55.
    45. Kuvaas, B. and Selart, M. (2004), “Effects of attribute framing on cognitive processing and evaluation,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 95, pp.198-207.
    46. Lawson, R. and Bhagat, P.S. (2002), “The role of price knowledge in consumer product knowledge structures,” Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 19, pp.551-568.
    47. LeBoeuf, R.A. and Shafir, E. (2003), “Deep thoughts and shallow frames: On the susceptibility to framing effects,’ Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 16, pp.77-92.
    48. Levin I. P. and Gaeth, G. J. (1988), “How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 374-378.
    49. Levin I. P., Gaeth, G. J., Schreiber, J. and Lauriola M. (2002), “A new look at framing effects: Distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 88, No.1, pp. 411-429.
    50. Levin I. P., Schneider, S. L. and. Gaeth, G. J (1998) “All frames are not created equal: A yypology and critical analysis of framing effects,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 76, No. 2, pp. 149–188.
    51. Levin, I.P., Johnson, R. D., Russo, C.P. and Deldin, P.J. (1985), “Framing effects in judgment tasks with varying amounts of information,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 36, pp. 362-377.
    52. Levin, I.P., Johnson, R.D., and Faraone, S.V. (1984), “Information integration in price-quality tradeoffs: The effects of missing information,” Memory & Cognition, Vol. 12, pp.96-102.
    53. 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, Vol. 28, pp.48-64.
    54. Levin, I.P., Johnson, R.D., Russo, C.P., and Deldin, P.J. (1985), “Framing effects in judgment tasks with varying amounts of information,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 36, pp.362-377.
    55. Levin, I.P., Kim, K.J., and Corry, F.A. (1976), “Invariance of the weight parameter in information integration,” Memory & Cognition, Vol. 4, pp.43-47.
    56. Loke, W.H. (1989), “The effects of framing and incomplete information on judgments,” Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 10, pp.329-341.
    57. Loke, W.H. and Tan, K.F. (1992), “Effects of framing and missing information in expert and novice judgment,” Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 187-190.
    58. Lord, C. G., Perston, E., and Lepper, M.R. (1984), “Considering the opposite: A corrective strategy for social judgment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 47, pp. 1231-1243.
    59. MacInnis, D.J., Mooreman, C., and Jaworski, B.J. (1991), “Enhancing and measuring consumers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads.,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55, pp.32-53.
    60. Markes, L.J. and Olson, J.C. (1981), “Toward a cognitive structure conceptualization of product familiarity,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, ed. Kent Monroe, Ann Arbor, MI: Assiciation for Consumer Research, pp.145-150.
    61. Marks, R.W. (1951), “The Effect of Probability, Desirability, and Privilege on the Stated Expectations of Children,” Journal of Personality (19), pp.431-465.
    62. Maule A.John (1985), Cognitive approaches to decision making, in Wright George (1985), Behavioral Decision Making, New York: Plenum Press.
    63. Meyerowitz, B. E. and Chaiken, S. (1987), “The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 500–510.
    64. Miller, P.M. and Fagley, N.S. (1991), “The effects of framing problem variations, and providing rational on choice,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 17, pp.517-522.
    65. Mittal, B. (1989), “Must consumer involvement always imply more information search?” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 16, pp.167-172.
    66. Monroe, K.B. (1976), “The influence of price differences and brand familiarity on brand preferences,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 3 (June), pp.42-49.
    67. O’Clock, P. and Devine, K. (1995), “An investigation of framing and firm size on the auditor’s going concern decision,” Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 25, pp. 197-207.
    68. Papastavrou, J. and Lehto, M. (1996), “Improving the effectiveness of warnings by increasing the appropriateness of their information content: Some hypotheses about human compliance,” Safety Science, Vol. 21, pp.175-189.
    69. Park, C.W. and Lessig, V. P. (1981), “Familiarity and its impacts on consumer decision biases and heuristics,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8 (September), pp.223-230.
    70. Park, C.W., Mothersabugh, D.L., and Feick, L. (1994), “Consumer knowledge assessment,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21, pp.71-82.
    71. Park, C.W. and Moon, B.J. (2003), “The relationship between product involvement and product knowledge: Moderating roles of product type and product knowledge type,” Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.977-997.
    72. Payne J. W., Bettman, J. R., and Johnson, E. J. (1993), The Adaptive Decision Maker, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    73. Payne, J.W. (1976), “Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: an information search and protocol analysis,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16, pp.366-387.
    74. Payne, J.W., and Braunstein, M.L. (1971), “Preferences among gambles with equal underlying distributions,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 87, pp.13-18.
    75. Petty, R.E., and Wegener, D.T. (1993), “Flexible correction processes in social judgment: Correcting for context-induced contrast,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 29, pp.137-165.
    76. Rao, A.R. and Monroe, K.B. (1988), “The moderating effect of prior knowledge on cue utilization in product evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.253-264.
    77. Robberson, M.R. and Rogers, R.W. (1988), “Beyond fear appeals: Negative and positive persuasive appeals to health and self-esteem,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 277-287.
    78. Rothman, A. J. and P. Salovey (1997), “Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The Role of Message Framing,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 121, pp.3–19.
    79. Rudell, F. (1979), Consumer Food Selection and Nutrition Information, New York: Praeger.
    80. Russo,J.E. and Johnson, E.J. (1980), “What do consumers know about familiar products?” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, ed. Jerry C. Olson, Ann Arbor, MI: Assiciation for Consumer Research, pp.417-423.
    81. Sanna, L. J. and Schwarz, N. (2003), “Debiasing the hindsight bias: The role of accessibility experiences and (mis)attributions,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 39, pp.287-295.
    82. Sanna, L.J., Schwarz, N., and Stocker, S.L. (2002), “When debiasing backfires: Accessible content and accessibility experiences in debiasing hindsight,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol. 28, pp.497-502.
    83. Schwarz, N. and Bless, H. (1992), “Constructing reality and its alternatives: an inclusion/exclusion model of assimilation and contrast effects in social judgment,” In L. Martin and A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of Social Judgments, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.217-245.
    84. Selnes, F. and Gronhaug, K. (1986), “Subjective and objective measure of product knowledge contrasted,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, pp.67-71.
    85. Sieck, W., and Yates, J.F. (1997), “Exposition Effects on Decision Making: Choice and Confidence in Choice,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 70, pp.207-219.
    86. Simon, A., Fagley, N.S., and Halleran, J.G. (2004), “Decision framing: Moderating effects of individual differences and cognitive processing,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 17, pp.77-93.
    87. Slovic, P. (1972), “From Shakespeare to Simon: Speculation- and Some Evidence-about Man’s Ability to Process Information,” Oregon Research Institute Bulletin, Vol. 12, No. 3.
    88. Slovic, P. and Lichtenstein, S. (1968), “The Relative Importance of Probabilities and Payoffs in Risk Taking,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, Monograph Supplement, Vol. 78, Part 2.
    89. Slovic, P., and MacPhillamy, D.J. (1974), “Dimensional commensurability and cue utilization in comparative judgment,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 11, pp. 172-194.
    90. Smith, G.E. and Wortzel, L.L.H. (1997), “Prior knowledge and the effect of suggested frames of reference in advertising,” Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 121-143.
    91. Smith, S.M., and Levin, I.P. (1996), “Need for Cognition and Choice Framing Effects,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 9, pp.283-290.
    92. Staelin, R. (1978), “The effects of consumer education on consumer product safety behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 5 (June), pp.30-40.
    93. Strack, F. and Mussweiler, T. (1997), “Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (73), pp.437-446.
    94. Strack, F., Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Kubler, A., and Wanke, M. (1993), “Awareness of the Influence as a Determinant of Assimilation versus Contrast,” European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 23, pp. 53-62.
    95. Sujan, M. (1985), “Consumer knowledge: Effects on evaluation strategies mediating consumer judgments,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp.31-46.
    96. Takemura, K. (1993), “The effect of Decision Frame and Decision Justification on Risky Choice,” Japanese Psychological Research, Vol. 35, pp.36-40.
    97. Takemura, K. (1994), “Influence of Elaboration on the Framing of Decision,” The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 128, pp.33-39.
    98. Thaler, R. (1980), “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 1, pp. 39–60.
    99. Tversky A., and Kahneman, D. (1981), “The Framing of Decisions and The Psychology of Choice,” Science (211), pp.453-458.
    100. Tversky, A. (1969), “Intransitivity of Preferences,” Psychological Review, Vol. 76, pp.31-48.
    101. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1991), “Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 107, pp. 1039–1061.
    102. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1974), “Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases,” Science, Vol. 185, pp.1124-1131.
    103. Vaughn, R. (1980), “How advertising works: A planning model,” Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 20, pp.27-33.
    104. Vaughn, R. (1986), “How advertising works: A planning model revisited,” Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 26, pp.57-66.
    105. Verplanken, B. (1993), “Need for cognition and external information search: Responses to time pressure during decision making,” Journal of Research in Persoanlity, Vol. 27, pp.238-252.
    106. Warrington, P. and Shim, S. (2000), “An empirical investigation of the relationship between product involvement and brand commitment,” Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 17, pp.761-782.
    107. Wason, P.C. and P.N. Johnson-Laird (1972), Psychology of Reasoning: Structure and Content, London: Batsford.
    108. Wegener, D.T., and Petty, R.E. (1995), “Flexible Correction Processes in Social Judgment: Te Role of Naïve Theories in Corrections for Perceived Bias,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 68, pp.36-51.
    109. Wilson, D.K., Kaplan, R.M., and Schneiderman, L.J. (1987), “Framing of Decisions and Selections of Alternatives in Health Care,” Social Behaviour, Vol. 2, pp. 51-59.
    110. Wilson, T. D., Houston, C. E., Etling, K. M., and Brekke, N. (1996), “A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 125, pp. 387-402.
    111. Wright, G. (1985), Behavioral Decision Making, New York: Plenum Press.
    112. Wright, G. and Goodwin, P. (2002), “Eliminating a Framing Bias by Using Simple Instructions to Think Harder and Respondents with Managerial Experience: Comment on Breaking the Frame,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23, pp.1059-1067.
    113. Yamagishi, T., and Hill, C.T. (1981), “Adding versus averaging models revisited: A test of a path-analytic integration model,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 41, pp.13-25.
    114. Yates, J.F., Jagacinski, C.M., and Faber, M.D (1978), “Evaluation of Partially Described Multiattribute Options,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 21, pp.240-251.
    115. Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985), “Measuring the involvement construct,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp. 341-352.
    116. Zhang, Y. and Buda, R. (1999), “Moderating effects of need for cognition on responses to positively versus negatively framed advertising messages,” Journal of Advertising, Vol. XXVII, No. 2, pp.1-15.
    口試委員
  • 陳鴻基 - 召集委員
  • 劉書助 - 委員
  • 吳仁和 - 委員
  • 郭峰淵 - 委員
  • 林信惠 - 指導教授
  • 口試日期 2005-12-23 繳交日期 2006-01-23

    [回到前頁查詢結果 | 重新搜尋]


    如有任何問題請與論文審查小組聯繫