進階搜尋


   電子論文尚未授權公開,紙本請查館藏目錄
(※如查詢不到或館藏狀況顯示「閉架不公開」,表示該本論文不在書庫,無法取用。)
系統識別號 U0026-0507201903530300
論文名稱(中文) 訊息框架對消費者態度與知覺的影響—以竹吸管為例
論文名稱(英文) The Influence of Message Framing on Consumer’s Attitude and Perception-Taking Bamboo Straw as an Example
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 企業管理學系
系所名稱(英) Department of Business Administration
學年度 107
學期 2
出版年 108
研究生(中文) 徐湘婷
研究生(英文) Hsiang-Ting Hsu
學號 R46061243
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 73頁
口試委員 指導教授-蔡燿全
口試委員-潘忠煜
口試委員-陳住銘
口試委員-小堀和彥
口試委員-陳靜誼
中文關鍵字 綠色產品  框架效應  產品態度  知覺風險  購買意願 
英文關鍵字 Green product  Message framing  Product attitude  Perceived risk  Purchase intention 
學科別分類
中文摘要 根據Earth Day Network統計數據,在2017年中,台灣人消耗了約1650萬個塑料袋和30億根塑料吸管。因此,環境保護促使消費者開始在網站上或店內購買環保餐具。而購買產品時,消費者易因網站陳列的資訊或是商品標籤說明而影響他們對產品的評價或購買行為,因此,該情況被稱之為“框架效應”。這也顯示框架效應可能會對消費者的產品態度及其購買意願產生影響。
本研究採取屬性框架與目標框架進行試驗,其中,屬性框架為正面或負面地描述一特定物品之屬性與特性;目標框架則敘述決策者採取某一行動或目標可得到的好處或損失。然而,不同類型的框架是否會影響消費者的產品態度、知覺風險及購買意願以及當中的差別至今仍是較為模糊的。因此,本研究選擇竹吸管為目標產品並針對環境保護為目標,去設計屬性框架與目標框架以進行後續研究。本研究採取實驗設計的方式並設計四份問卷。收集的資料數據經由檢定並得到研究結果如下:
1. 消費者接收正面屬性框架會較接收負面屬性框架產生更良好的產品態度。
2. 消費者接收負面框架會較接收正面框架之消費者產生更高的知覺風險。
3. 知覺風險會負面影響消費者的產品態度。
4. 消費者的產品態度會正面影響其購買意願。

關鍵字:綠色產品;框架效應;產品態度;知覺風險;購買意願
英文摘要 According to statistics from the Earth Day Network, people in Taiwan consumed 16.5 million plastic bags and 3 billion plastic straws in 2017. It is quite important to concern about the environment protection. Consequently, consumers start buying green products on websites or in-stores. While purchasing products, consumers might be susceptible to the presented information on websites or labels on products that probably affect their evaluation and purchasing behavior. This situation is called “framing effect.” It is demonstrated that message framing might affect consumer’s product attitude and purchase intention.
Nevertheless, it is still ambiguous whether or not different types of message framing affect consumer’s product attitude, perceived risk and purchase intention. Consequently, it is chosen bamboo straw to design attribute framing and goal framing which aim at environmental protection then to proceed the overall study.
The present study is conducted by experiment deign and there are four questionnaires to be delivered. Collected data is analyzed to test the hypotheses. The research results are as following.
1. Consumer under positive attribute framing would form a better product attitude than those who receive negative attribute framing.
2. Consumer under negative framing would have more perceived risk than those who receive positive framing.
3. Perceived risk would negatively affect product attitude.
4. Product attitude would positively affect purchase intention.

Key words: Green product;Message framing;Product attitude;Perceived risk;Purchase intention.
論文目次 Abstract I
摘要 II
誌謝 III
List of Tables VI
List of Figures VIII
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Research Background and Motivation 1
1.2 Research Objectives 3
1.3 Research Process 4
Chapter 2 Literature Review 5
2.1 Green Product 5
2.2 Prospect Theory 7
2.3 Framing Effect 7
2.4 Product Attitude 11
2.5 Perceived Risk 12
2.6 Purchase Intention 13
Chapter 3 Research Design and Methodology 14
3.2 Research Hypotheses 15
3.3 Research Variables and Measurement 20
3.4 Questionnaire Design and Data Collection 23
3.5 Data Analysis Procedure 27
Chapter 4 Data Analysis 29
4.1 Descriptive Statistics 29
4.2 Reliability Test and Factor Analysis 34
4.3 Regression Analysis 38
4.4 Sample Statistics 45
4.5 ANOVA 47
4.6 Independent Sample T-test 47
4.7 Result of Hypotheses Testing 55
Chapter 5: Conclusions 58
5.1 Research Conclusions 58
5.2 Managerial Implication 60
5.3 Suggestion for Future Studies 61
Reference 63
Appendix A: Four framed message in formal questionnaire 68
Appendix B: Formal Questionnaire 70
參考文獻 1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
2. Ajzen, I., (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 32 (4), 665–683.
3. Akaslan, D., & Law, E. L.-C. (2012). Analysing the Relationship between ICT Experience and Attitude toward E-Learning. 21st Century Learning for 21st Century Skills, 365–370.
4. Ariff, M. S. M., Sylvester, M., Zakuan, N., Ismail, K., & Ali, K. M. (2014). Consumer Perceived Risk, Attitude and Online Shopping Behaviour; Empirical Evidence from Malaysia. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Volume 58, conference 1.
5. Banks, S. M., Salovey, P., Greener, S., Rothman, A. J., Moyer, A., Beauvais, J., & Epel, E. (1995). The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychology, 14(2), 178-184.
6. Bauer, R. A. (1960). Consumer behavior as risk taking”, in R. S. Hancock (Ed.). Dynamic Marketing for a Changing World. Chicago: America Marketing Association, pp.389-398.
7. Bettman, J. R., (1973). Perceived Risk and Its Components: A Model and Empirical Test. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(2), 184-190.
8. Buda, R., & Zhang, Y. (2000). Consumer product evaluation: the interactive effect of message framing, presentation order, and source credibility. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9(4), 229–242.
9. Chang, C.T. (2007). Interactive Effects of Message Framing, Product Perceived Risk, and Mood—The Case of Travel Healthcare Product Advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 47(1), 51–65.
10. Chen, T. B., and Chai, L. T. (2010). Attitude Towards The Environment And Green Products: Consumers’ Perspective. Management Science and Engineering, 4(2), 27-39.
11. Cheng, F. F., & Wu, C. S. (2010). Debiasing the framing effect: The effect of warning and involvement. Decision Support Systems, 49(3), 328–334.
12. Chowdhury, F. P., Islam, M. T., & Rana, M. A. (2016). Investigating Factors Influencing Consumer Attitude toward SMS Advertising: An Empirical Study in Bangladesh. International Journal of Business and Management, 11(10), 233.
13. Dangelico, R. M., & Pontrandolfo, P. (2010). From green product definitions and classifications to the Green Option Matrix. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(16-17), 1608–1628.
14. De Moura, A., Cunha, L., Castro‐Cunha, M., Lima, C., (2012). "A comparative evaluation of women's perceptions and importance of sustainability in fish consumption: An exploratory study among light consumers with different education levels", Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 23 Issue: 4, pp.451-461,
15. Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers’ Product Evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307.
16. Dowling, R. and R. Staelin, 1994. A model of perceived risk and intended risk handling activity. J. Consumer Res., 21: 110-134.
17. Elkington, J and Hailes, “The Green Consumer”, Viking Penguin, USA. Inc., 1993.
18. Fishbein, M.. & Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes toward objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral Criteria. Psychological Review, 81, 59ó74.
19. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: AddisonóWesley.
20. Grahame R. D. and Staelin R., (1994). A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended Risk-Handling Activity. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Jun., 1994), pp. 119-134
21. Grewal D., Gotlieb J. and Marmorstein H., (1994). The Moderating Effects of Message Framing and Source Credibility on the Price-perceived Risk Relationship. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(July), 145-153.
22. Homer, Pamela M. and Yoon, S. G., (1992). Message framing and the interrelationships among ad-based feelings, affect, and cognition. Journal of Advertising. 21(1), p.19
23. Jacoby J. and Kaplan L. B. (1972). "The Components of Perceived Risk", in SV- Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, eds. M. Venkatesan, Chicago, IL: Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 382-393.
24. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A., (1979). PROSPECT THEORY: AN ANALYSIS OF DECISION UNDER RISK. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
25. Khoiriyah S., Toro M. J. S.. (2018) ATTITUDE TOWARD GREEN PRODUCT, WILLINGNESS TO PAY AND INTENTION TO PURCHASE. International Journal of Business and Society, Vol. 19 S4, 2018, 620-628.
26. Kim T. T., Karatepe O. M., Lee G.& Demiral H., (2018). Do Gender and Prior Experience Moderate the Factors Influencing Attitude toward Using Social Media for Festival Attendance? Sustainability, 10(10):1-19
27. Kim, S.B., & Kim, D.Y. (2013). The Effects of Message Framing and Source Credibility on Green Messages in Hotels. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 55(1), 64–75.
28. Kotchen, M. & Reiling, S., (2000). Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species. Ecol. Econ. 32, 93–107.
29. Kotler, P. (1991). Marketing management: analysis, planning, implementation and control (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
30. Krishnamurthy, P., Carter, P., and Blair, E., (2001), Attribute Framing and Goal Framing Effects in Health Decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(2), 382-399.
31. Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro‐Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(6), 503–520.
32. Lee, J., Park, D.-H., & Han, I. (2008). The effect of negative online consumer reviews on product attitude: An information processing view. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7(3), 341–352.
33. Levin, I. P. (1987). Associate effects of information framing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 25, 85–86.
34. 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, 15, 374–378.
35. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., and Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 2, 149–188.
36. Liker, J. K., & Sindi, A. A. (1997). User acceptance of expert systems: a test of the theory of reasoned action. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 14(2), 147–173.
37. Loroz, P. S. (2007). The interaction of message frames and reference points in prosocial persuasive appeals. Psychology & Marketing 24 (11):1001-23.
38. Mazar, N., & Zhong, C.-B. (2010). Do Green Products Make Us Better People? Psychological Science, 21(4), 494–498.
39. Mitchell, V. (1999). Consumer perceived risk: conceptualisations and models. European Journal of Marketing, 33(1/2), 163–195.
40. Mullet, G.M. & Karson, M. (1985) , Analysis of purchase intentscales weighted by Probability of actual purchase. Journal of Marketing Research 22(1),93-96.
41. Mykytyn, P.P. & Harrision D.A., The Application of the Theory of Reasoned Action to Senior Management and Strategic Information Systems. Information Resources Management Journal, Volume 6 Issue 2, April 1993, pp.15-26
42. Ottman, J. A. (1999). Green marketing: Opportunity for innovation. Raleigh, NC: Contemporary Publishing Company.
43. Paul, J., Modi, A., & Patel, J.,(2016). Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 29, 123–134.
44. Peter, J. P., & Tarpey, Sr., L. X. (1975). A Comparative Analysis of Three Consumer Decision Strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(1), 29.
45. Petty R. E., Wegener D. T., Fabrigar L. R. (1997). ATTITUDES AND ATTITUDE CHANGE, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1997. 48:609–47
46. Puto, C. P., (1987). The Framing of Buying Decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Dec., 1987), pp. 301-315
47. Roselius, T. (1971). Consumer Rankings of Risk Reduction Methods. Journal of Marketing, 35(1), 56.
48. Sample J. and Warland R., (1973). Attitude and Prediction of Behavior.Social Forces, Vol. 51, No. 3 (Mar., 1973), pp. 292-304
49. Shimp, T. A. and Bearden W. O., (1982). Warranty and Other Extrinsic Cue Effects on Consumer Risk Perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(June), 38-46.
50. Simon, Greener Marketing: A Responsible Approach to Business, 1992
51. Smith. G. E. (1996). Framing in advertising and the moderating impact of consumer education. Journal of advertising research, September/October,51, pp.49-64.
52. Soliha E., Dharmmesta B. S., Purwanto B.M., & Syahlani S. P., (2014). Message Framing, Source Credibility, and Consumer Risk Perception with Motivation as Moderating Variable in Functional Food Advertisements. American International Journal of Contemporary Research Vol. 4 No. 1; January 2014
53. Solomon M. R., Consumer behavior. Buying, having and being, 2015
54. Spears, N., & Singh, S. N. (2004). Measuring Attitude toward the Brand and Purchase Intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53–66.
55. Stone, R. N., & Grønhaug, K. (1993). Perceived Risk: Further Considerations for the Marketing Discipline. European Journal of Marketing, 27(3), 39–50.
56. Tarkiainen, A., & Sundqvist, S. (2005). Subjective norms, attitudes and intentions of Finnish consumers in buying organic food. British Food Journal, 107(11), 808–822.
57. Tsang M. M., Ho S. C., and Liang T. P., (2004). Consumer Attitudes Toward Mobile Advertising: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce / Spring 2004, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 65–78.
58. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 1981, 453–458.
59. Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 310–320.
60. White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Dahl, D. W. (2011). It’s the Mind-Set That Matters: The Role of Construal Level and Message Framing in Influencing Consumer Efficacy and Conservation Behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 472–485.
61. Wu, C. S., & Cheng, F. F. (2011). The joint effect of framing and anchoring on internet buyers’ decision-making. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 10(3), 358–368.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2024-06-06起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw