Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/132073| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 林日璇 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Lin, Jih-Hsuan Tammy | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author | 林詩賢 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Lin, Shih-Hsien | en_US |
| dc.creator | 林詩賢 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator | Lin, Shih-Hsien | en_US |
| dc.date | 2020 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2020-10-05T07:17:23Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2020-10-05T07:17:23Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2020-10-05T07:17:23Z | - |
| dc.identifier | G0106461005 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/132073 | - |
| dc.description | 碩士 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 國立政治大學 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 國際傳播英語碩士學位學程(IMICS) | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 106461005 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究使用自我決定論探討勝任感、自主性、連結感及臨場感與互動性、媒體愉悅感及行為動機的關聯。本研究採用線上田野實驗法，在以社群媒體為基礎的品牌社群中招募140位民眾，分為與360度照片互動組和觀看平面照片組。\n研究發現(1)勝任感與使用360度科技的專業度有交互作用，360度照片互動組當中有專業度的勝任感會高於觀看平面照片組；自主性與過去騎乘 Gogoro旅行的經驗也有交互作用，360度照片互動組當中有旅行經驗的自主性會高於觀看平面照片組；連結感則無顯著差異。(2)與360度照片互動產生的自主性會增加媒體愉悅感，與360度照片互動產生的臨場感則不會影響媒體愉悅感。(3)社群媒體使用者的媒體愉悅感，以觀看平面照片組高於與360度照片互動組，且須考量消費者在品牌社群中的連結，以進一步影響使用者騎乘Gogoro旅行的的動機。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Despite the increasing number of the 360-degree picture appears on social media, the effective use of the technology remained unknown. Applying self-determination theory (SDT), this study examined whether the factors of competence, autonomy, relatedness, and presence were correlated with interactivity, media enjoyment, and behavioral intention. Fifty-six participants participated in the online field experiment on social media-based brand communities to either (1) interact with the 360-degree picture or (2) see the conventional flat picture. The findings indicated that people with the expertise of 360-degree technology had greater competence, and people who had traveling experience with Gogoro had greater autonomy when they interacted with the panoramic picture than a flat picture, whereas it had no significant effect on relatedness. Also, the positive correlation between autonomy and presence was found; autonomy of the 360-degree picture was related to enjoyment, whereas presence was not. Moreover, the results suggested that social media users had higher media enjoyment on the flat picture than the 360-degree picture, which, together with customer/other customer relationship, were influential in the user`s behavioral intention. | en_US |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | Chapter 1. Introduction 6\n1.1 360-degree picture on social media 6\n1.2 Social media-based brand community 7\nChapter 2. Literature Review 9\n2.1 Active viewing and passive viewing 9\n2.2 Motivations of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) 10\n2.3 Interactivity and SDT 12\n2.3.1 User-machine interaction and competence 13\n2.3.2 User-message interaction and autonomy 14\n2.3.3 User-message interaction and relatedness 17\n2.4 Interactivity of the 360-degree picture, autonomy, presence, and media enjoyment 18\n2.4.1 360-degree picture and presence 18\n2.4.2 Autonomy and spatial presence 19\n2.4.3 Media enjoyment as the effect of autonomy and presence 20\n2.5 Media enjoyment and behavioral intention 21\nChapter 3. Method 25\n3.1 Participants and design 25\n3.2 Procedures and Stimulus 26\n3.3 Measures 26\n3.3.1 Independent variables 26\n3.3.2 Dependent variables 27\n3.3.3 Control variables 30\nChapter 4. Results 32\n4.1 Two-way ANOVA for H1a-c 32\n4.2 Serial mediation for H2-H5 34\n4.3 Simple mediation model for H6 36\nChapter 5. Discussion 38\n5.1 Interactivity and needs satisfaction 38\n5.1.1 Interactivity and competence 38\n5.1.2 Interactivity and autonomy 40\n5.1.3 Interactivity and relatedness 40\n5.2 Interactivity, autonomy, presence, and media enjoyment 41\n5.2.1 Autonomy and presence 41\n5.2.2 Presence and media enjoyment 42\n5.2.3 Autonomy and media enjoyment 43\n5.2.4 Autonomy and presence as mediator 44\n5.3 Media Enjoyment, behavioral intention, and customer/other customer relationship 47\n5.4 Limitations 48\nChapter 6. Conclusion 50\nReferences 54\nAPPENDIX A: Measurement 62\nAPPENDIX B: Questionnaire (Interactivity) 64\nAPPENDIX C: Questionnaire (No Interactivity) 70 | zh_TW |
| dc.format.extent | 1401996 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.source.uri | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106461005 | en_US |
| dc.subject | 360度照片 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 自我決定論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 互動性 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 自主性 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 媒體愉悅感 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 品牌社群 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 360-degree picture | en_US |
| dc.subject | Interactivity | en_US |
| dc.subject | Self-determination Theory | en_US |
| dc.subject | Autonomy | en_US |
| dc.subject | Presence | en_US |
| dc.subject | Media enjoyment | en_US |
| dc.subject | Brand community | en_US |
| dc.title | 與 360 度照片互動：使用自我決定論探討社群媒體使用者的愉悅感和行為動機 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Interact with the 360-degree picture: Employ the self-determination theory in explaining social media user’s enjoyment and behavioral intention | en_US |
| dc.type | thesis | en_US |
| dc.relation.reference | Abiocca, F. (1988). Opposing conceptions of the audience: The active and passive hemispheres of mass communication theory. Annals of the International Communication Association, 11(1), 51-80.\nAitamurto, T., Zhou, S., Sakshuwong, S., Saldivar, J., Sadeghi, Y., & Tran, A. (2018). Sense of presence, attitude change, perspective-taking and usability in first-person split-sphere 360 video. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-12).\nAjzen, I., & Driver, B. L. (1992). Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to Leisure Choice. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(3), 207–224.\nAlgesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of brand community: Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of marketing, 69(3), 19-34.\nBauer, R. A. (1964). The obstinate audience. American Psychologist, 19, 319-328.\nBracken, C. (2005). Presence and image quality: The case of high definition television. Media Psychology, 7(2), 191-205.\nCarr, C. T., Wohn, D. Y., & Hayes, R. A. (2016). As social support: Relational closeness, automaticity, and interpreting social support from paralinguistic digital affordances in social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 385–393.\nCho, C. H., & Leckenby, J. D. (1997). Internet-related programming technology and advertising. In Proceedings of the Conference-American Academy of Advertising, (pp. 69-79). American Academy of Advertising.\nChoi, Y., Hickerson, B., & Lee, J. (2018). Investigation of the technology effects of online travel media on virtual travel experience and behavioral intention. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 35(3), 320-335.\nChristodoulides, G., Jevons, C., & Bonhomme, J. (2012). Memo to marketers: Quantitative evidence for change: How user-generated content really affects brands. Journal of advertising research, 52(1), 53-64.\nDeci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of research in personality, 19(2), 109-134.\nDeci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘why’’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.\nEllis, M. (2008). ‘Spectacles within doors’: Panoramas of London in the 1790s. Romanticism, 14(2), 133-148.\nFortin, D. R., & Dholakia, R. R. (2005). Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a web-based advertisement. Journal of business research, 58(3), 387-396.\nGambino, A., Kim, J., & Sundar, S. S. (2017). Using theory of interactive media effects (TIME) to analyze digital advertising. In Digital Advertising (pp. 116-139). Routledge.\nGerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1986). Living with television: The dynamics of the cultivation process. Perspectives on media effects, 1986, 17-40.\nGreen, M. C., & Jenkins, K. M. (2014). Interactive narratives: Processes and outcomes in user-directed stories. Journal of Communication, 64(3), 479-500.\nGreen, M. C., Brock, T. C., & Kaufman, G. F. (2004). Understanding media enjoyment: The role of transportation into narrative worlds. Communication Theory, 14(4), 311-327.\nHabibi, M. R., Laroche, M., & Richard, M. O. (2014). The roles of brand community and community engagement in building brand trust on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 152-161.\nHauben M, Hauben R. 1997. Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.\nHuang, Y. C., Backman, K. F., Backman, S. J., & Chang, L. L. (2016). Exploring the implications of virtual reality technology in tourism marketing: An integrated research framework. International Journal of Tourism Research, 18(2), 116-128.\nJohnson, D., Gardner, M. J., & Perry, R. (2018). Validation of two game experience scales: the player experience of need satisfaction (PENS) and game experience questionnaire (GEQ). International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 118, 38-46.\nJung, Y. (2011). Understanding the role of sense of presence and perceived autonomy in users` continued use of social virtual worlds. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(4), 492-510.\nKelley, J. B., & Alden, D. L. (2016). Online brand community: through the eyes of self-determination theory. Internet Research, 26(4), 790-808.\nKim, E., & Drumwright, M. (2016). Engaging consumers and building relationships in social media: How social relatedness influences intrinsic vs. extrinsic consumer motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 970-979.\nKim, K., Schmierbach, M. G., Chung, M. Y., Fraustino, J. D., Dardis, F., & Ahern, L. (2015). Is it a sense of autonomy, control, or attachment? Exploring the effects of in-game customization on game enjoyment. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 695-705.\nKlein, L. R. (2003). Creating virtual product experiences: The role of telepresence. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17(1), 41-55.\nKool, H. (2016). The Ethics of Immersive Journalism: A Rhetorical Analysis of News Storytelling with Virtual Reality Technology.” Intersect: The Stanford Journal of Science, Technology & Society, 9 (3), 1-11.\nKrishen, A. S., Berezan, O., Agarwal, S., & Kachroo, P. (2016). The generation of virtual needs: Recipes for satisfaction in social media networking. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5248-5254.\nKwok, L., & Yu, B. (2013). Spreading social media messages on Facebook: An analysis of restaurant business-to-consumer communications. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(1), 84-94.\nLee, K. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication theory, 14(1), 27-50.\nLee, S. Y., Hansen, S. S., & Lee, J. K. (2016). What makes us click “like” on Facebook? Examining psychological, technological, and motivational factors on virtual endorsement. Computer Communications, 73, 332-341.\nLevy, M., & Windahl, S. (1984). Audience activity and gratifications: A conceptual clarification and exploration. Communication Research, 11, 51-78.\nMajchrzak, A., & Markus, M. L. (2012). Technology affordances and constraints in management information systems (MIS). Encyclopedia of Management Theory,(Ed: E. Kessler), Sage Publications, Forthcoming.\nMartínez-Navarro, J., & Bigné, E. (2017). The value of marketer-generated content on social network sites: media antecedents and behavioral responses. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 18(1), 52.\nMcAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric Properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a Competitive Sport Setting: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60(1), 48–58.\nNevzat, R. (2018). Reviving Cultivation Theory for Social Media. MediAsia 2018: IAFOR, Japan.\nNikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2017). Mobile-Based assessment: Integrating acceptance and motivational factors into a combined model of Self-Determination Theory and Technology Acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 83-95.\nPark, N., Lee, K. M., Jin, S. A. A., & Kang, S. (2010). Effects of pre-game stories on feelings of presence and evaluation of computer games. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(11), 822-833.\nPongpaew, W., Speece, M., & Tiangsoongnern, L. (2017). Social presence and customer brand engagement on Facebook brand pages. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 26(3), 262-281.\nRigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. K. (2009). Virtual worlds and the learner hero: How today`s video games can inform tomorrow`s digital learning environments. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 214-223.\nRigby, C. S., & Ryan, M. (2016). Time well-spent? Motivation for entertainment media and its eudaimonic aspects through the lens of self-determination theory. In L. Reinecke & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Handbook of media use and well-being (pp. 34–48). London: Routledge.\nRogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations: modifications of a model for telecommunications. In Die diffusion von innovationen in der telekommunikation (pp. 25-38). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.\nRyan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.\nRyan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and emotion, 30(4), 344-360.\nSato, S., & Kageto, M. (2020). The use of 360-degree videos to facilitate pre-learning and reflection on learning experiences. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 27(4), 381-394.\nSchnotz W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In The Cambridge Handbook of Multi-media Learning (ed. R.E. Mayer) (pp. 49–69). CambridgeUniversity Press, New York.\nSchuemie, M. J., Van Der Straaten, P., Krijn, M., & Van Der Mast, C. A. (2001). Research on presence in virtual reality: A survey. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4(2), 183-201.\nShin, D. (2018). Empathy and embodied experience in virtual environment: To what extent can virtual reality stimulate empathy and embodied experience?. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 64-73.\nSirgy, M.J. (1985). Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase motivation. Journal of Business Research, 13 (3), 195-206.\nSkalski, P., Tamborini, R., Shelton, A., Buncher, M., & Lindmark, P. (2011). Mapping the road to fun: Natural video game controllers, presence, and game enjoyment. New Media & Society, 13(2), 224-242.\nSu, N., Reynolds, D., & Sun, B. (2015). How to make your Facebook posts attractive: A case study of a leading budget hotel brand fan page. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(8), 1772-1790.\nSweeney, J. C., Webb, D., Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. N. (2014). Self‐determination theory and word of mouth about energy‐saving behaviors: an online experiment. Psychology & Marketing, 31(9), 698-716.\nTamborini, R., & Skalski, P. (2006). The role of presence in the experience of electronic games. In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games: Motives, responses and consequences (pp. 225–240). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.\nTamborini, R., Bowman, N. D., Eden, A., Grizzard, M., & Organ, A. (2010). Defining media enjoyment as the satisfaction of intrinsic needs. Journal of communication, 60(4), 758-777.\nTamborini, R., Eastin, M. S., Skalski, P., & Lachlan, K. (2004). Violent virtual video games and hostile thoughts. J. Broad. & Elec. Media, 48, 335.\nVorderer, P. (2000). Interactive entertainment and beyond. In D. Zillmann & P. Vorderer (Eds.), LEA`s communication series. Media entertainment: The psychology of its appeal (pp. 21–36). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.\nWang, X., & Li, Y. (2016). Users` satisfaction with social network sites: A self-determination perspective. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 56(1), 48-54.\nWeibel, D., Wissmath, B., & Mast, F. W. (2011). Influence of mental imagery on spatial presence and enjoyment assessed in different types of media. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(10), 607-612.\nWhiting, A., & Williams, D. (2013). Why people use social media: a uses and gratifications approach. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 16(4), 362-369.\nWirth, W., Hartmann, T., Böcking, S., Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., Schramm, H., ... & Biocca, F. (2007). A process model of the formation of spatial presence experiences. Media Psychology, 9(3), 493-525.\nWu, D. Y., & Lin, J. H. T. (2018). Ways of seeing matter: The impact of a naturally mapped perceptual system on the persuasive effects of immersive virtual reality advertising. Communication Research Reports, 35(5), 434-444.\nYamashita, Y., & Nakajima, T. (2017). Comparison of 360 Degree Cameras and Normal Cameras in Terms of Presence. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 1182-1185). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).\nZeltzer, D. (1992). Autonomy, interaction, and presence. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 1(1), 127-132. | zh_TW |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6814/NCCU202001721 | en_US |
| item.openairecristype | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec | - |
| item.openairetype | thesis | - |
| item.fulltext | With Fulltext | - |
| item.grantfulltext | open | - |
| item.cerifentitytype | Publications | - |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100501.pdf | 1.37 MB | Adobe PDF2 | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.