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 U0026-2408202004164300
論文名稱(中文) 從高低涉入族群探討交友軟體資訊喜好之差異研究
論文名稱(英文) A study of the Dating App Information Attractive Factor from the User Involvement.
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 工業設計學系
系所名稱(英) Department of Industrial Design
學年度 108
學期 2
出版年 109
研究生(中文) 王珉
研究生(英文) Min Wang
學號 P36074153
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 143頁
口試委員 指導教授-馬敏元
口試委員-張育銘
口試委員-楊佳翰
口試委員-何俊亨
口試委員-陳璽任
中文關鍵字 交友軟體  個人資訊  涉入理論  魅力工學 
英文關鍵字 dating apps  personal information  involvement theory  miryoku engineering 
學科別分類
中文摘要 在現今的資訊時代下,交友軟體創造了新的人際交友方式,成為現代人與建立社交網絡的管道之一,因此在挑選配對對象時,資訊之類型及程度皆為考量之要點,本研究導入涉入理論,將使用者做高、低涉入之分群,進而探討在交友軟體之使用動機,以及不同族群在選擇配對對象時,面對各類型的資訊之感受與魅力特質為何。實驗以交友軟體Tinder做為研究樣本,套用魅力工學之評價構造法捕捉高、低涉入族群之魅力因子之差異,並透過迴歸量化分析。
研究結果顯示,高、低涉入族群在資訊之魅力因素感受上,有部分的魅力因子相同,但綜觀來看是具有差異性的,吸引低涉入族群之六大魅力構面為【親切好相處的】、【共鳴的】、【順眼好看的】、【有眼界有格調的】、【正向健康的】及【坦蕩蕩的】,而吸引高涉入族群之魅力因素感受則為【好相處有親和力的】、【共鳴的】、【有經營自己/有自我要求的】、【認真誠懇的】、【善良有愛心的】、【自然不做作的】、【注重生活品質有格調的】、【大方直接的】及【有個人想法的/有特色的】,而高涉入族群之交友軟體使用動機主要為尋找戀愛關係、打發時間、找到同溫層的朋友/好奇;低涉入族群則為好奇、打發時間。低涉入族群中,以打發時間為動機的使用者認為【坦蕩蕩的】魅力構面最為重要,高涉入族群中,以打發時間及找到同溫層的朋友為動機的使用者分別認為【認真誠懇】的與【有經營自己有自我要求】的構面最為重要,研究結果期望能提供給交友軟體的使用者、相關領域的研究員或設計師做為設計之參考。
英文摘要 In the internet generation, dating apps has created a new mode of interpersonal friendship and become one of the popular ways of establishing relationships. Therefore, when selecting a new partner, the type and levels of personal information are the main points of consideration. This research uses the involvement theory categorizes users into high involvement and low involvement, and then explores the difference in information attractive factors between high and low involvement, also survey the motivation of using dating apps. The experiment uses the dating app Tinder as the research sample, applies the evaluation grid method of miryoku engineering to capture the attractive factors of the high and low involvement, and converts the results into questionnaires. The questionnaire results are quantitatively analyzed through regression analysis.
Research results show that some of the high and low involvement attractive factors are the same, but overall they are different. There are six abstract reasons of low involvement groups, as follows: [kind/sociable], [strike a chord], [easy on the eyes], [have wide horizons/have sense], [positive attitude/upright] and [frank], and nine abstract reasons of high involvement, as follows: [virtuous/benevolent], [strike a chord], [enjoy life/self-discipline], [sincere(make friends)], [friendly/easy going], [natural/not artificial], [care about quality of life/stylish], [honest/straightforward] and [have a mind of own/have personality trait], the motivations of high involvement are mainly to ‘find a boyfriend/girlfriend’, ‘kill time’, ‘find like-minded friends’ and ‘curious’, the motivations of low involvement are mainly to ‘kill time’ and ‘curious’. Low involvement users who's motivation are ‘kill time’ think that the abstract reason [frank] is the most important. High involvement users who's motivation are ‘kill time’ believe that [sincere] is most important, and users who's motivation are ‘find like-minded friends’ care about [enjoy life/self-discipline], the research results can be provided to users of dating apps, researchers in related fields or designers as reference for design.
論文目次 摘要 I
SUMMARY II
致謝 III
目錄 IV
表目錄 VIII
圖目錄 X
英文版論文 1
第1章 緒論 31
1.1 研究背景與動機 31
1.2 研究目的 34
1.3 研究範圍與限制 34
1.4 研究流程與架構 36
第2章 文獻探討 37
2.1 網際網路交友 37
2.1.1 網路交友的興起 37
2.1.2 交友軟體介紹 38
2.1.3 各國交友軟體發展 40
2.1.4 交友軟體相關研究 40
2.1.5 小結 42
2.2 涉入理論 42
2.2.1 涉入定義 42
2.2.2 涉入分類 43
2.2.3 涉入衡量 46
2.2.4 涉入理論相關研究 47
2.2.5 小結 49
2.3 魅力工學與評價構造法 49
2.3.1 魅力工學 49
2.3.2 評價構造法 50
2.4 小結 50
第3章 交友軟體涉入程度之調查 51
3.1 涉入問卷的設計與發放 51
3.1.1 問卷內容 51
3.1.2 受測對象 53
3.2 小結 56
第4章 交友軟體之魅力因素萃取 57
4.1 訪談前期規劃 57
4.1.1 訪談規劃 57
4.1.2 訪談樣本 57
4.1.3 訪談設備與環境 58
4.2 正式訪談 59
4.2.1 訪談步驟與流程 59
4.2.2 KJ法 60
4.3 高、低涉入族群之評價構造圖 61
4.3.1 高、低涉入族群魅力因子萃取 61
4.3.2 高、低涉入族群魅力因子簡化 62
4.3.3 高、低涉入族群整體評價構造圖 68
4.4 高、低涉入族群之評價構造圖比較 71
4.4.1 高、低涉入族群上位魅力得點比較 71
4.4.2 高、低涉入族群中位魅力得點比較 72
4.4.3 高、低涉入族群下位魅力得點比較 75
4.5 小結 79
第5章 交友軟體動機與資訊魅力之量化分析 80
5.1 量化分析問卷設計與發放 80
5.2 基本資料分析 80
5.3 魅力構面對應魅力因素之關聯性分析 82
5.3.1 低涉入族群魅力構面與魅力因素關聯 82
5.3.2 高涉入族群之魅力構面與魅力因素關聯 86
5.4 高、低涉入族群之魅力構面與魅力因素比較 90
5.5 高、低涉入族群使用動機分析 93
5.5.1 高、低涉入族群之動機 93
5.5.2 高、低涉入族群動機對應魅力構面之關聯 94
5.6 小結 96
第6章 結論與建議 97
6.1 研究結論 97
6.1.1 高、低涉入族群之魅力因素差異 97
6.1.2 高、低涉入族群交友軟體使用動機 98
6.1.3 高、低涉入族群的動機對應構面分析 99
6.2 研究建議 99
6.3 未來發展應用 100
參考文獻 101
附錄一 涉入程度之調查問卷 109
附錄二 高涉入使用者之分數排序表 117
附錄三 低涉入使用者之分數排序表 119
附錄四 高涉入魅力因素調查 121
附錄五 低涉入魅力因素調查 127
附錄六 個人評價構造圖-低涉入01 132
附錄七 個人評價構造圖-低涉入02 133
附錄八 個人評價構造圖-低涉入03 134
附錄九 個人評價構造圖-低涉入04 135
附錄十 個人評價構造圖-低涉入05 136
附錄十一 個人評價構造圖-低涉入06 137
附錄十二 個人評價構造圖-高涉入01 138
附錄十三 個人評價構造圖-高涉入02 139
附錄十四 個人評價構造圖-高涉入03 140
附錄十五 個人評價構造圖-高涉入04 141
附錄十六 個人評價構造圖-高涉入05 142
附錄十七 個人評價構造圖-高涉入06 143

參考文獻 陳國祥、管倖生、 鄧怡莘與張育銘 (2000)。感性工學課程教學方法之初探,工業設計,第 28 期。
林建全(2006),消費性電子產品的誘目特徵之研究。成功大學工業設計學系學位論文,1-125。
馬云芊(2011)。從女性族群的產品涉入程度探討健身器材魅力因素之研究。成功大學工業設計學系學位論文。2011。1-138。
馬敏元(2010) ,淺談日本新產品開發之感「心」技術。工業材料雜誌,280,160-172。
財團法人台灣網路資訊中心(2018)。 2018 台灣網路報告. 取自https://report.twnic.tw/2018/TWNIC_TaiwanInternetReport_2018_CH.pdf
黃俊英、賴文彬(1990),涉入的理論發展與實務應用,管理科學學報 第七卷第一期,15-29。
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality.
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological monographs, 47(1), i.
Aretz, W., Demuth, I., Schmidt, K., & Vierlein, J. (2010). Partner search in the digital age. Psychological characteristics of online-dating-service-users and its contribution to the explanation of different patterns of utilization. Journal of Business and Media Psychology, 1(1), 8-16.
Apsler, R., & Sears, D. O. (1968). Warning, personal involvement, and attitude change. Journal of personality and social psychology, 9(2p1), 162.
Antil, J. H. (1984). Conceptualization and operationalization of involvement. Advances in Consumer Research, 11(1), 203-209
Andrews, J. C., Durvasula, S., & Akhter, S. H. (1990). A framework for conceptualizing and measuring the involvement construct in advertising research. Journal of advertising, 19(4), 27-40.
Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet. Journal of social issues, 58(1), 33-48.
Berger, C. R., Gardner, R. R., Parks, M. R., Schulman, L., & Miller, G. R. (1976). Interpersonal epistemology and interpersonal communication. Explorations in interpersonal communication, 5, 149-171.
Berry, W. (2018). Sex, economy, freedom, & community: Eight essays. Counterpoint Press.
Bilton, N. (2014 October29). Tinder, the fast-growing dating app, taps an age-old truth. New York Times, Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/fashion/tinder-the-fast-growing-dating-app-taps-an-age-old-truth.html
Burger, J. M. (1993). Personality. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks.
Butt, S., & Phillips, J. G. (2008). Personality and self reported mobile phone use. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 346-360.
Bloch, P. H. (1981). An exploration into the scaling of consumers' involvement with a product class. ACR North American Advances.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1983). Social psychophysiology: A sourcebook. New York:Guildford Press.
Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Journal of consumer research, 15(2), 210-224.
Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., Gonzaga, G. C., Ogburn, E. L., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2013). Marital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(25), 10135-10140.
Chen, Y. F., Tsai, C. W., & Chen, B. Y. (2013). Who Likes to Meet Blind Dating on the Internet?. International Journal of E-Adoption (IJEA), 5(3), 1-16.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Craig Smith(2019). 50 Interesting tinder Satistics and Facts. Retrieved from https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/tinder-statistics/
Derlaga, V. J., & Berg, J. H. (Eds.). (1987). Self-disclosure: Theory, research, and therapy. Springer Science & Business Media.
Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public interest, 13(1), 3-66.
Forest, A. L., & Wood, J. V. (2012). When social networking is not working: Individuals with low self-esteem recognize but do not reap the benefits of self-disclosure on Facebook. Psychological science, 23(3), 295-302.
Fox, J., Warber, K. M., & Makstaller, D. C. (2013). The role of Facebook in romantic relationship development: An exploration of Knapp’s relational stage model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(6), 771-794.
Festinger, M. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University.
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. Review of personality and social psychology, 2(1), 141-165.
Heim, M. (1991). The erotic ontology of cyberspace. Cyberspace: first steps, 59-80.
Houston, Michael J. and Michael L. Rothschild (1978), Conceptual and Methodological Perspectives on Involvement, Research Frontiers in Marketing: Dialogues and Directions, ed. Subhash C. Jain, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 184-187.
Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self‐disclosure in computer‐mediated communication: The role of self‐awareness and visual anonymity. European journal of social psychology, 31(2), 177-192.
Josiam, B. M., Smeaton, G., & Clements, C. J. (1999). Involvement: Travel motivation and destination selection. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5(2), 167-175.
Kelly, G. (1955). Personal construct psychology. Nueva York: Norton.
Krugman, H. E. (1965). The impact of television advertising: Learning without involvement. Public opinion quarterly, 29(3), 349-356.
Lamb, M. E., Chuang, S. S., Wessels, H., Broberg, A. G., & Hwang, C. P. (2002). Emergence and construct validation of the Big Five factors in early childhood: A longitudinal analysis of their ontogeny in Sweden. Child Development, 73(5), 1517-1524.
Lee, J. E. R., Moore, D. C., Park, E. A., & Park, S. G. (2012). Who wants to be “friend-rich”? Social compensatory friending on Facebook and the moderating role of public self-consciousness. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 1036-1043.
Lexi Sydow(2019a). Mobile Minute: Facebook Vying for Piece of $2.2 Billion Mobile Dating Market. Retrieved from https://www.appannie.com/en/insights/mobile-minute/facebook-dating-2019/
Lexi Sydow(2019b). Dating Apps Carve Into Share of Wallet on Valentine’s Day. Retrieved from https://www.appannie.com/en/insights/market-data/dating-apps-share-of-wallet-valentines-day/
Lexi Sydow(2020, February 13). Subscriptions:The Revenue Model Powering Mobile Apps. Retrieved from https://www.appannie.com/en/insights/market-data/subscriptions-powering-mobile-apps/
Lastovicka, J.L., &Gardner, D.M.,(1979) Components of involvement.In J.C. Maloney and B. Silverman(Eds.),Attitude research plays for high stakes. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 53-73.
Laczniak, R. N., & Muehling, D. D. (1993). The relationship between experimental manipulations and tests of theory in an advertising message involvement context. Journal of Advertising, 22(3), 59-74.
Martin, R. (1997). “Girls don't talk about garages!”: Perceptions of conversation in same‐and cross‐sex friendships. Personal Relationships, 4(2), 115-130.
McKenna, K. Y., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction?. Journal of social issues, 58(1), 9-31.
Mendelson, A. L., & Papacharissi, Z. (2010). Look at us: Collective narcissism in college student Facebook photo galleries. The networked self: Identity, community and culture on social network sites, 1974, 1-37.
McKenna, K. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Causes and consequences of social interaction on the Internet: A conceptual framework. Media psychology, 1(3), 249-269.
McKenna, K. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and social psychology review, 4(1), 57-75.
Mlačić, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). An analysis of a cross-cultural personality inventory: The IPIP Big-Five factor markers in Croatia. Journal of personality assessment, 88(2), 168-177.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Scullen, S. M., & Rounds, J. (2005). Higher‐order dimensions of the big five personality traits and the big six vocational interest types. Personnel psychology, 58(2), 447-478.
Moscoso, S., & Iglesias, M. (2009). Job experience and big five personality dimensions. International journal of selection and assessment, 17(2), 239-242.
Muris, P. (2006). Maladaptive schemas in non‐clinical adolescents: Relations to perceived parental rearing behaviours, big five personality factors and psychopathological symptoms. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy: An International Journal of Theory & Practice, 13(6), 405-413.
Mitchell, A. A. (1981), “The Dimensions of Advertising Involvement”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.8, PP. 25-30.
Orosz, G., Tóth-Király, I., Bőthe, B., & Melher, D. (2016). Too many swipes for today: The development of the Problematic Tinder Use Scale (PTUS). Journal of behavioral addictions, 5(3), 518-523.
Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 1(4), JCMC144.
Peter, J., Valkenburg, P. M., & Schouten, A. P. (2005). Developing a model of adolescent friendship formation on the Internet. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8(5), 423-430.
Pervin, L. A., & John, O. P. (1997). Personality: Theory and research (7th ed.).
Pervin, L. A. (1994). Personality stability, personality change, and the question of process.
Phares, E. J., & Chaplin, W. F. (1997). Introduce to personality (4 th).
Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. MIT press.
Press.Groth, J. C., and McDaniel,S. W. (1993). The Exclusive Value Principle: The Basis for Prestige Pricing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10 (1), 10-16.
Russell-Bennett, R., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Coote, L. V. (2007). Involvement, satisfaction, and brand loyalty in a small business services setting. Journal of Business Research, 60(12), 1253-1260.
Rothschild, M. L. (1984). Perspectives on Involvement: Current Problems and Future Directions. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 216-217.
Rosenfeld, M. J., Thomas, R. J., & Hausen, S. (2019). Disintermediating your friends: How online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(36), 17753-17758.
Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in human behavior, 25(2), 578-586.
Rowatt, W. C., Cunninghan, M. R., & Druen, P. B. (1998). Deception to get a date. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(11), 1228-1242.
Savickas, M. L., Briddick, W. C., & Watkins Jr, C. E. (2002). The relation of career maturity to personality type and social adjustment. Journal of Career Assessment, 10(1), 24-49.
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Markers: A brief version of Goldberg's unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of personality assessment, 63(3), 506-516.
Seidman, G. (2013). Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality influences social media use and motivations. Personality and individual differences, 54(3), 402-407.
Shinmura, I. (2008). Kōjien(Japanese dictionary). Tokyo. Iwanami Shoten.
Smith, C. D., & Jones, A. B. (2004). Perspectives on curriculum and instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 55(1), 28-5
Socha, A., Cooper, C. A., & McCord, D. M. (2010). Confirmatory factor analysis of the M5-50: An implementation of the International Personality Item Pool item set. Psychological Assessment, 22(1), 43.
Stempfhuber, M., & Liegl, M. (2016). Intimacy mobilized: Hook-up practices in the location-based social network Grindr. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 41(1), 51-70.
Stoll, C. (1995). Silicon snake oil: Second thoughts on the information highway. Anchor.
Solomon,M.R. (2007) Consumer behavior,7th ed., Upper Saddle River,NJ:Pearson education,pp. 131-134.
Sherif, M. & Cantril, H. (1947), The psychology of ego-involvements: Social attitudes and identifications., New York:Wiley.
Tice, D. M., Butler, J. L., Muraven, M. B., & Stillwell, A. M. (1995). When modesty prevails: Differential favorability of self-presentation to friends and strangers. Journal of personality and social psychology, 69(6), 1120.
Tok, S., & Morali, S. (2009). Trait emotional intelligence, the big five personality dimensions and academic success in physical education teacher candidates. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 37(7), 921-931.
Traylor, M. B. (1981). Product involvement and brand commitment. Journal of Advertising Research.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Who visits online dating sites? Exploring some characteristics of online daters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(6), 849-852.
Walther, J. B. (1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collaboration. Human communication research, 23(3), 342-369.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of consumer research, 12(3), 341-352.
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2020-09-03起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2022-08-24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