1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Commerce
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

  • No doi shows Citation Infomation
題名 推敲可能性模式在兒童消費行為之應用
The Implication Of Elaboration Likelihood Model On Children
作者 鄧雅文
Teng, Ya Wen
貢獻者 別蓮蒂
鄧雅文
Teng, Ya Wen
日期 2002
上傳時間 10-May-2016 15:48:30 (UTC+8)
摘要 　　This research was designated with three goals. First, this study is aimed to investigate the influence of advertisement message (central cue) on children`s advertising attitude, belief and consumption intention. Secondly, to investigate the influence of brand (peripheral cue) on children`s advertising attitude, belief and usage intention. Lastly, the research is determined to find out the overall implication of the Elaboration Likelihood Model on children.
　　The framework of this research is based on Petty and Cacioppos` Elaboration Likelihood Model. A pretest was first conducted prior to the main study. Hamburger was chosen to represent the low involvement product and cartoon channel high involvement product for the main study. Piaget`s cognitive development stages were employed in choosing suitable subjects for the main study. A 2 (involvement: high or low) × 2 (argument message: with or without) × 3 (brand: Real brand — McDonald; New brand — Pokeman; No brand), factorial design was applied. 314 children from Taipei Municipal Elementary School had participated in this experimental study. Subjects were assigned to view one color printed advertisement for each high and low product involvement. Questionnaire was filled out each time after advertisement viewing. Advertisement attitude, cognitive level and consumption intention was measured.
　　The 6 Three-Way ANOVA results indicated that brand had shown significance for advertisement attitude but not advertisement message. The moderating effect of issue involvement and product involvement over message and brand, were both found not significant. Additionally, product involvement did reach significant level for cognitive level and consumption intention. The interaction between, “Advertisement Message by Issue Involvement by Product involvement” had reached significant level for consumption intention. The last significant interaction was observed in, “Brand by Issue Involvement by Product Involvement” for belief and consumption intention.
　　The major implication of this research for advertiser, marketers and consumer behavior research is that children are still best communicated through images. Children are aware of the message presented to them, and do process the information cognitively but enhancement of advertisement attitude is not obtained. Thus, it is suggested to keep advertisement short or leave it out of the advertisement completely. In terms of brand, character endorsement was found highly influential for advertisement attitude. It is therefore advice to the marketers, to consider having a character to represents their brand and product.
參考文獻 中文
中國社會, 五城市兒童月消費40億 平均每人897元, http://ofind.sina.com.tw/cgi-bin/news/, 2001/05/30 15:25.
行政院主計處,http://www.dgbas.gov.tw/dgbas03/bs8/look/looky.htm, 12/ 07/ 2002.
行政院主計處,http://www.dgbas.gov.tw/dgbas03/bs3/report/N910523.htm,12/ 07/ 2002.
行政院主計處,http://www.dgbas.gov.tw/census~n/Six/lue5/p890141.htm,12/ 07/ 2002.
李仁芳,民70,“兒童資訊處理與消費行為發展之研究,”國立政治大學企業管理學系博士論文,183 — 185.
電子商務資訊網,“兒童市場的網上行銷,” http:///www.e21times.com/ei/, 17-07-2001.
賽琳娜‧古伯 及 強‧貝瑞 (1999), 搶灘兒童行銷市場, 美商麥格羅‧希爾國際股份有限公司 台灣分公司,89; 143; 190-192;231,397.
English
Acuff, Dan S. and Robert H. Reiher (1997), What Kids Buy and Why: The Psychology of Marketing to Kids, New York: Simon & Schuster Inc., 61-82; 83-105; 135-158; 160-161; 169; 190.
Achenreiner, Gwen Bachmann (1996), “Children’s Reliance on Brand Name Heuristics: A Developmental Investigation,” July, 333.
Ajzen, Icek and Martin Fishbein (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Apsler, R. and D. O. Sears (1968), “Warning Personal Involvement, and Attitude Change,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 162-166.
Bahn, Kenneth Duyane (1985), “Dimensions Underlying Children’s Brand Discrimination and Preference Formation (Perception, Socialization, Affect, Cognition),” June, 3693.
Belk, Russell, Robert Mayer and Amy Driscoll (1984), “Children’s Recognition of Consuption Symbolism in Children’s Product,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 (March), 386-397.
Bem, Daryl J. (1972), “Self-Perception Theory,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 6, ed. Leonard Berkowitz, New York: Academic Press, 2-57.
Bettman, James R. (1979), “Memory Factors in Consumer Choice: A Review,” Journal of Marketing, 43 (Spring), 37-53.
Biel, Alexander L. and Association (1992), “How Brand Image Drives Brand Equity,” Journal of Advertising Research, 32 (11), 7.
Bloch, P. H. and M. L. Richins (1983), “A Theoretical Model for the Study of Product Importance Perceptions,” Journal of Marketing, 47, 69-81.
Boyle D.G. (1969), A Student’s Guide to Piaget, 1 ed., UK: Biddles Ltd., 90-92
Brisoux, Jacques E. and Emmaunel J. Cheron (1990), “Brand Categorization and Product Involvement,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, 101-103.
Brooks-Harris, Jeff E. (1996), “Changing Men’s Male Gender-Role Attitudes by Applying the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Attitude Change,” Sex Roles, New York, Nov, Vol.35, Iss. 9/10, 563-581.
Brucks, Merrie, Gary M. Armstrong, and Marvin E. Goldberg (1988),“Children’s Use of Cognitive Defenses Against Television Advertising: A Cognitive Response Approach,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (March), 471-482.
Cateora, P. R. (1963), An Analysis of the Teenage Market, Austin, TX: Bureau of Business Research.
Chaiken, Shelly (1980), “Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus Message Cues in Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (November), 752-766.
Clarke, Keith and Russel W. Belk (1978), “The Effects of Product Involvement and Task Definition on Anticipated Consumer Effort,” Advances in Consumer Research, 5. H. Keith Hunt. Ed., Ann Arbor. MI., Association for Consumer Research, 313-318.
Cummings, William H. and M. Venkatesan (1976), “Cognitive Dissonance and Consumer Behavior: A Review of the Evidence,” Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (August), 303-308.
Davis, J. (1990), Youth and the Condition of Britian: Images of Adolescent Conflict, London: Athlone Press.
Day, G. S. (1970), Buyer Attitudes and Brand Choice, New York: Free Press.
Dinoff, Beth L (1999), “Reducing AIDS Risk Behavior: The Combination Efficiency of Protection Motivation Theory and the ELM,” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, New York, Summer, Vol. 18, Iss. 2, 223-240.
Dotson, Michael J. and Eva M. Hyatt (2000), “Religious Symbols as Peripheral Cues in Advertising: A Replication of the Elaboration Likelihood Model,” Journal of Business Research, 48, 64.
Festinger, Leon (1957), “A theory of Cognitive Dissonance,” Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Greenwald, Anthony G. (1968), “Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response to Persuasion, and Attitude Change,” in Psychological Foundations of Attitudes, eds. Anthony G. Greenwald, Timothy C. Brock, and Thomas Ostrom, New York: Academic Press, 147-170.
Greenwald, Anthony G. and Clark Leavitt (1968), “Audience Involvement in Advertising: Four Levels,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (June), 581-592.
Gunter, Barrie and Adrian Furnham (1998), Children as Consumers: A Psychological Analysis of the Young People’s Market, London: Routledge, 31.
Hale, Jerold L. (1995), “Cognitive Processing of Fear-Arousing Message Content,” Communication Research (H.W. Wilson — SSA), August, Vol. 22, 459.
Heesacker, Martin (1995), “Individual Counseling and Psycho Therapy: Applications From the Social Psychology of Attitude Change,” The Counseling Psychologist (H.W. Wilson — SSA), October, Vol. 23, 611.
Heppner, Mary J. (1995), “Examining Sex Differences in Altering Attitudes About Rape: A Test of the ELM,” Journal of Counseling and Development (H.W. Wilson — EDUC), July / August, Vol. 73, 640.
Houston, Michael J. and Michael L. Rothschild (1978), “Conceptual and Methodological Perspectives on Involvement,” 1978 Educators’ Proceedings, Ed., S.C. Jain, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 184-187.
Hovland, Carl I., Irving Janis, and Harold Kelly (1953), Communication and Persuasion, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Howard, Daniel J. (1997), “Familiar Phases as Peripheral Persuasion Cues,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (H.W Wilson — SSA), May, Vol. 33, 231.
Janis, Irving L., D. Kaye, and P. Kirschner (1965), “Facilitating Effects of‘Eating while Reading’on Responsiveness to Persuasiveness Communication,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1 (February), 181-186.
Johnson, Blair T. and Alice H. Eagly (1989), “Effect of Involvement on Persuasion: A Meta-Analysis,” American Psychological Association, Vol. 106, No.2, 290-293.
Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal of Marketing, New York, January, Vol.57, Iss. 1.
Kelman, Herbert C. (1961), “ Process of Opinion Change,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 25 (Spring), 57-78.
King, Stephne H. M. (1989), “Branding opportunities in Financial Services,” Paper Delivered to the British Market Research Society Conference on Advertising and Marketing Financial Services, July.
Krugman, Herbert E. (1967), “The Measurement of Advertising Involvement,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 30 (Winter), 583-596.
Lammers, H. Bruce (2000), “Effect of Deceptive Packaging & Product Involvement on Purchase Intention: An ELM Perspective,” Psychology Reports (H.W. Wilson — SSA), April, Vol. 86, Iss.2, 546.
Lannon, Judie (1991), Paper delivered at the 10th Annual Conference of the Society for Consumer Psychology, San Francisco, May.
Leavitt Clark (1987), “Understanding Brand Images: A Theory and Methodology,” Working paper, the Ogilvy Center for Research & Development, October.
Lutz, Richard J. and James R. Bettman (1977), “Multiattribute Models in Marketing: A Bicentennial Review,” in Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior, eds. Arch Woodside, Jagdish Sheth, and Peter D. Bennett, New York: Elsevier North-Holland, 137-150.
McCormick, Kari Leigh Scherz (1989), “The Incidence of Demand For Brand Name Clothing Among A Selected Group Of Children,” Fall, 386.
McGuire, William J. (1976), “Some Internal Psychological Factors Influencing Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (March), 302-319.
McNeal, James U. (1992), Kids as Consumers, D.C Health and Company, Lexington Book, 6; 14-16; 24; 31-34; 47; 53; 54; 55; 63-64; 89; 93.
McNeal, J. U. (1969), “The Child as Consumer: A New Market,” Journal of Retailing, Summer, 15-22, 84.
Mitchell, Andrew A. (1979), “Involvement: A Potentially Important Mediator of Consumer Behavior,” Advances in Consumer Research, 6, W.L. Wilkie, Ed., Association of consumer Research, 191-196.
Mitchell, Andrew A. and Jerry C. Olson (1981), “Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (August), 318-332.
Moore, Elizabeth S. and Richard J. Lutz (2000), “Children, Advertising, and Product Experiences: A Multimethod Inquiry,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.27 (June), 32.
Mowen, John C. (1980), “On Product Endorser Effectiveness: A Balance Model Approach,” in Current Issues and Research in Advertising, eds. James H. Leigh and Claude R. Martin, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 41-57.
Newman, Larry M. and Ira J. Dolich (1979), “An Examination of Ego-Involvement as a Modifier of Attitude Changes Caused from Product Testing,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 6, ed. William L. Wilkie, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 180-183.
Olson, Jerry C. (1977), “Price as an informational Cue: Effects in Product Evaluation,” Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior, Arch G. Woodside, Jagdish N. Sheth, and Peter D. Bennet, eds. New York: North Holland Publishing Company, 267-286.
Overstreet, Kay L. (1994), “Children’s Inference Based On Brand Personality,” June, 955.
Pecheux, Claude and Christian Derbaix (1999), “Children And Attitude toward the Brand: A New Measurement Scale”.
Petty, Richard E. (1997), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Implication for the Practice of School Psychology,” Journal of School Psychology (H.W. Wilson — EDUC), Summer, Vol. 35, 107.
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1986), Communication and persuasion— Central and Peripheral Route to Attitude Change, New York: Spring — Verlag, 2-5.
Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo (1984a), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion,” Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 673-675.
Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo (1984b), “Source Factors and the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion,” Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 668-672.
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1980), “Effects of Issue Involvement on Attitudes in an Advertising Context,” in Proceeding of the Division 23 Program, eds. Gerald G. Gorn and Marvin E. Goldberg, Montreal, Canada: American Psychological Association, 75-79.
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1979), “Issue Involvement Can Increase or Decrease Persuasion by Enhancing Message-Relevant Cognitive Responses,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37, No. 10, 1916.
Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo, and Rachel Goldman (1981), “Personal Involvement as a Determinant of Argument-Based Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41 (November), 847-855.
Petty, Richard E., Thomas Ostrom, and Timothy C. Brock (1981), “Historical Foundations of the Cognitive Response Approach to Attitudes and Persuasion,” in Cognitive Response in Persuasion, eds. Richard E. Petty, Thomas Ostrom, and Timothy C. Brock, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 5-29.
Petty, Richard, E., John T Cacioppo and David Schumann (1983), “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.10 (Sep), 135-137,144.
Richard, E. (1997), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Implication for the practice of School Psychology,” Journal of School Psychology [H.W. Wilson — EDUC], Vol. 35 (Summer), 107.
Richins, M. L. and P. H. Bloch (1986), “After the New Wears off: The Temporal Context of Product Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 280-285.
Richmond, P.G. (1970), An introduction to Piaget, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited, 46-48
Roedder, Deborah L. (1981), “Age Differences in Children’s Responses to Television Advertising: An Information-Processing Approach,” Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (September), 144-153.
Rossiter, John R. (1977), “Reliability of a short-Test Measuring Children’s Attitudes toward TV Commercials,” Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (March), 179-184.
Rothschild, M. L. (1979a), “Advertising Strategies for High and Low Involvement Situations,” Attitudes Research Plays for High Stakes, J.C. Maloney and B. Silverman eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 74-93.
Rothschild, M. L. (1979b), “Marketing Communication in Nonbusiness Situations,” Journal of Marketing, 43 (Spring), 11-20.
Rothschild, M. L. (1984), “Perspectives on Involvement: Current Problems and Future Directions,” Advances in Consumer Research, 11, T.C. Kinnear Ed., Association for Consumer Research, 216-217.
Schlenker, Barry R. (1980), Impression Management: The Self-Concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations, Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Scott, Carol A. (1978), “Self-Perception Processes in Consumer Behavior: Interpreting One’s Own Experiences,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, ed. H. Keith Hunt, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 714-720.
Shaffer, David R. (1988), Developmental Psychology: Childhood and Adolescence, Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 2nd Ed, 306-346.
Sherif, M. and H. Cantril (1947), The Psychology of Ego Involvement, New York: John Wiley.
Sherif, C. W. and C. I. Hovland (1961), Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sherif , C. W., M. Kelly, M. Rogers, H. L. Jr. Sarup and B. I. Tittler (1973), “Personal Involvement, Social Judgment, and Action,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 311-328.
Sherif, Carolyn W., Muzifer Sherif, and Roger E. Nebergall (1965), Attitude and Attitude Change: The Social Judgment-Involvement Approach, Philadelphia: Saunders.
Solomon, Michael R. (2002), The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion, Consumer Behavior, Fifth Edition, pg246-250.
Sternthal, Brian, and C. Samuel Craig (1974), “Fear Appeals: Revisited and Revised,” Journal of Consumer Research, 1 (December), 22-34.
Stoltenberg, Cal D (1995), “Persuasion & Development in Counselor Supervision,” The Counseling Psychologist (H.W. Wilson — SSA), October, Vol. 23, 633.
Swanson, Kathi Jordan (1988),“The Effect(s) Of Familiarity on Children’s Product Choices: An Information-Processing Perspective,” October, 886.
Troutman, C. Michael and James Shanteau (1976), “Do Consumers Evaluate Products by Adding or Averaging Attribute Information,” Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (December), 101-106.
Wells, William D. (1965), “Communicating with Children,” Journal of Advertising Research, 5 (April), 2-14.
Worchel, Stephne, Virginia Andreoli and Joe Eason (1975), “ Is the Medium the Message? A Study of the Effects of Media, Communicator and Message Characteristics on Attitude Change,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5 (April-June), 157-172.
Young, Brian M. (1990), Television Advertising and Children. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 43-44
Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1985), “Measuring the Involvement Construct,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (December), 341-352.
Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1994), “The Personal Involvement Inventory: Reduction, Revision, and Application to Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, Vol. 13, No. 4, December, 59-70.
Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1988), “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 (July), 2-22.
Zimbardo, Phillip (1960), “Involvement and Communication Discrepancy as Determinants of Opinion Conformity,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60 (January), 86-94.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
企業管理學系
89355063
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#A2010000472
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 別蓮蒂zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 鄧雅文zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Teng, Ya Wenen_US
dc.creator (作者) 鄧雅文zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Teng, Ya Wenen_US
dc.date (日期) 2002en_US
dc.date.accessioned 10-May-2016 15:48:30 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 10-May-2016 15:48:30 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 10-May-2016 15:48:30 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) A2010000472en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/95868-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 企業管理學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 89355063zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 　　This research was designated with three goals. First, this study is aimed to investigate the influence of advertisement message (central cue) on children`s advertising attitude, belief and consumption intention. Secondly, to investigate the influence of brand (peripheral cue) on children`s advertising attitude, belief and usage intention. Lastly, the research is determined to find out the overall implication of the Elaboration Likelihood Model on children.
　　The framework of this research is based on Petty and Cacioppos` Elaboration Likelihood Model. A pretest was first conducted prior to the main study. Hamburger was chosen to represent the low involvement product and cartoon channel high involvement product for the main study. Piaget`s cognitive development stages were employed in choosing suitable subjects for the main study. A 2 (involvement: high or low) × 2 (argument message: with or without) × 3 (brand: Real brand — McDonald; New brand — Pokeman; No brand), factorial design was applied. 314 children from Taipei Municipal Elementary School had participated in this experimental study. Subjects were assigned to view one color printed advertisement for each high and low product involvement. Questionnaire was filled out each time after advertisement viewing. Advertisement attitude, cognitive level and consumption intention was measured.
　　The 6 Three-Way ANOVA results indicated that brand had shown significance for advertisement attitude but not advertisement message. The moderating effect of issue involvement and product involvement over message and brand, were both found not significant. Additionally, product involvement did reach significant level for cognitive level and consumption intention. The interaction between, “Advertisement Message by Issue Involvement by Product involvement” had reached significant level for consumption intention. The last significant interaction was observed in, “Brand by Issue Involvement by Product Involvement” for belief and consumption intention.
　　The major implication of this research for advertiser, marketers and consumer behavior research is that children are still best communicated through images. Children are aware of the message presented to them, and do process the information cognitively but enhancement of advertisement attitude is not obtained. Thus, it is suggested to keep advertisement short or leave it out of the advertisement completely. In terms of brand, character endorsement was found highly influential for advertisement attitude. It is therefore advice to the marketers, to consider having a character to represents their brand and product.		zh_TW
dc.description.tableofcontents ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ABSTRACT-----i
TABLE OF CONTENTS-----iii
LIST OF TABLES-----vi
LIST OF FIGURES-----iX
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCCTION-----1
　　Motivation and Research Background-----1
　　Children and Branding-----4
　　Objectives-----4
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW-----7
　　Child Development-----7
　　　　Piaget Theory-----8
　　　　Periods of Cognitive Development-----9
　　　　　　Sensorimotor Period (0-2 years)-----9
　　　　　　Preoperational period (roughly 2-7 years)-----9
　　　　　　Concrete Operations (roughly 7 to 11 years)-----12
　　　　　　Formal Operations (roughly 11 to 12 and beyond)-----13
　　Child`s Concept of Brand-----15
　　　　Value of Brand-----15
　　　　Children`s Brand Awareness-----16
　　　　How Children See Brand-----18
　　　　Children and Characters-----20
　　The Elaboration Likelihood Model-----23
　　　　Introduction of Elaboration Likelihood Model-----23
　　　　　　Message as the Central Cue in ELM for Children-----24
　　　　　　Brand and Character Endorsement as the Peripheral
　　　　　　Route in ELM for Children-----25
　　　　Involvement and Elaboration Likelihood Model Theory-----26
　　　　　　Types of Involvement-----33
　　　　　　　　Issue Involvement-----35
　　　　　　Product Involvement-----36
　　　　The Moderating Effect of Involvement in ELM-----37
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY-----43
　　Research Framework-----43
　　Subjects of Main Study-----46
　　Pretest-----47
　　　　Informal Talk-----47
　　　　Pretest Product Selection-----50
　　　　Pretest Design and Procedure-----51
　　　　Pretest Results and Main Study Product Choice-----53
　　Design of Main Study-----55
　　Color Printed Advertisement-----56
　　Independent Variables-----57
　　　　Issue Involvement-----57
　　　　Product Involvement-----58
　　　　Message-----59
　　　　Brand-----59
　　Dependent Variables-----60
　　　　Advertisement Attitude-----60
　　　　Beleif-----61
　　　　Consumption Intention Measure-----61
　　Main Study Procedure-----61
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS-----64
　　Sample Size-----64
　　Manipulation Checks-----66
　　Descriptive Statistics-----68
　　　　Advertisement Attitude-----68
　　　　Belief-----68
　　　　Consumption Intention-----69
　　Dependent Variable Checks-----72
　　　　Advertisement Attitude-----72
　　　　Belief-----73
　　Test of Hypothesis-----75
　　　　Message Model-----76
　　　　　　Advertisement Attitude-----76
　　　　　　Belief-----78
　　　　　　Consumption Intention-----80
　　Brand Model-----84
　　　　Advertisement Attitude-----84
　　　　Belief-----88
　　　　Consumption Intention-----90
　　Summary of Results-----94
　　Additional Findings-----95
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS-----96
　　Conclusions and Discussion-----96
　　　　Message as Central Cue-----96
　　　　Brand as Peripheral Cue-----97
　　　　Additional Findings-----98
　　Implications and Contribution-----100
　　Limitations and Suggestion for Future Research-----104
REFERENCES-----109
APPENDICES
　　Appendix A. Pretest Questionnaire-----119
　　Appendix B. Main Study Questionnaire
　　　　Version 1 (Hamburger)-----122
　　　　Version 2 (Cartoon Channel)-----123
　　Appendix C. Color Printed Advertisement
　　　　Version 1 — 5 (Hamburger)-----124
　　　　Version 6 — 10 (Cartoon Channel)-----129

LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Piaget`s Cognitive Development Stages-----14
2.2 The Global Concept Of Involvement-----33
3.1 One-Way ANOVA Result Of Six Pretest Products` Involvement Level-----53
3.2 Mean Value for Six Pretest Products-----53
3.3 Paired Comparison for Hamburger, Cola, Convenience Store, Sports Shoes and Cartoon Channel-----54
3.4 The Recognition Percentage for Brand Mark in the Pretest-----55
4.1 Respondents` Age and Gender Profile-----65
4.2 Number of Children In Each Low Product Involvement (Hamburger) Experimental Cell-----66
4.3 Number of Children In Each High Product Involvement(Cartoon Channel) Experimental Cell-----66
4.4 High Issue Involvement Group`s Gift-Given Question Response-----67
4.5 Means & Standard Deviations For Low & High Product Involvements’Advertisement Attitude, Cognition Level And Consumption Intention Variables-----70
4.6 Percentage Of Advertisement Parts That Had Attracted The Respondents The Most-----71
4.7 Respondent`s Reasoning For Advertised Hamburger To BeDelicious And Cartoon Channel To Be Interesting-----72
4.8 Cumulative Percentages, Factor Loading and Cronbach Alpha Value For High And Low Issue Involvement`s Two Advertisement Attitude Questions-----73
4.9 Cumulative Percentages, Factor Loading and Cronbach Alpha Value For High And Low Issue Involvement`s Three Cognition Level Questions-----74
4.10 Mean For High And Low Issue Involvement`s Advertisement Attitude And Cognition Level-----75
4.11 ANOVA Results of Advertisement Attitude-----76
4.11 Subgroup Comparison of Issue Involvement by Advertisement Message for Advertisement Attitude-----76
4.12 Subgroup Comparison of Issue Involvement by Product Involvement for Advertisement Attitude-----78
4.13 ANOVA Results of Message Model for Belief-----79
4.14 ANOVA Results of Message Model for Consumption Intention-----81
4.15 Subgroup Comparison of Advertisement Message by Issue Involvement by Product Involvement for Consumption Intention-----83
4.16 ANOVA Results of Brand Model for Advertisement Attitude-----85
4.17 Subgroup Comparison of Brand by Issue Involvement by Product Involvement for Advertisement Attitude-----87
4.18 ANOVA Results of Brand Model for Belief-----89
4.19 ANOVA Results of Brand Model for Consumption Intention-----91
4.20 Subgroup Comparison of Brand by Issue Involvement by Product Involvement for Consumption lntention-----93
4.21 Summary of Supported Hypothesis-----94
4.22 Additional Findings-----95

LIST OF FIGURES
2.1 Communication and persuasion-Central and Peripheral Route to Attitude Change-----30
3.1 Conceptual Framework-----44
4.1 Interaction of Issue Involvement by Advertisement Message for Advertisement Attitude-----78
4.2 Interaction of Advertisement Message by Issue Involvement by Product Involvement for Consumption lntention-----83
4.3 Interaction of Brand by Issue Involvement by Product Involvement for Advertisement Attitude-----87
4.4 Interaction of Brand by Issue Involvement by Product Involvement for Consumption lntention-----93		zh_TW
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#A2010000472en_US
dc.title (題名) 推敲可能性模式在兒童消費行為之應用zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The Implication Of Elaboration Likelihood Model On Childrenen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文
中國社會, 五城市兒童月消費40億 平均每人897元, http://ofind.sina.com.tw/cgi-bin/news/, 2001/05/30 15:25.
行政院主計處,http://www.dgbas.gov.tw/dgbas03/bs8/look/looky.htm, 12/ 07/ 2002.
行政院主計處,http://www.dgbas.gov.tw/dgbas03/bs3/report/N910523.htm,12/ 07/ 2002.
行政院主計處,http://www.dgbas.gov.tw/census~n/Six/lue5/p890141.htm,12/ 07/ 2002.
李仁芳,民70,“兒童資訊處理與消費行為發展之研究,”國立政治大學企業管理學系博士論文,183 — 185.
電子商務資訊網,“兒童市場的網上行銷,” http:///www.e21times.com/ei/, 17-07-2001.
賽琳娜‧古伯 及 強‧貝瑞 (1999), 搶灘兒童行銷市場, 美商麥格羅‧希爾國際股份有限公司 台灣分公司,89; 143; 190-192;231,397.
English
Acuff, Dan S. and Robert H. Reiher (1997), What Kids Buy and Why: The Psychology of Marketing to Kids, New York: Simon & Schuster Inc., 61-82; 83-105; 135-158; 160-161; 169; 190.
Achenreiner, Gwen Bachmann (1996), “Children’s Reliance on Brand Name Heuristics: A Developmental Investigation,” July, 333.
Ajzen, Icek and Martin Fishbein (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Apsler, R. and D. O. Sears (1968), “Warning Personal Involvement, and Attitude Change,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 162-166.
Bahn, Kenneth Duyane (1985), “Dimensions Underlying Children’s Brand Discrimination and Preference Formation (Perception, Socialization, Affect, Cognition),” June, 3693.
Belk, Russell, Robert Mayer and Amy Driscoll (1984), “Children’s Recognition of Consuption Symbolism in Children’s Product,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 (March), 386-397.
Bem, Daryl J. (1972), “Self-Perception Theory,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 6, ed. Leonard Berkowitz, New York: Academic Press, 2-57.
Bettman, James R. (1979), “Memory Factors in Consumer Choice: A Review,” Journal of Marketing, 43 (Spring), 37-53.
Biel, Alexander L. and Association (1992), “How Brand Image Drives Brand Equity,” Journal of Advertising Research, 32 (11), 7.
Bloch, P. H. and M. L. Richins (1983), “A Theoretical Model for the Study of Product Importance Perceptions,” Journal of Marketing, 47, 69-81.
Boyle D.G. (1969), A Student’s Guide to Piaget, 1 ed., UK: Biddles Ltd., 90-92
Brisoux, Jacques E. and Emmaunel J. Cheron (1990), “Brand Categorization and Product Involvement,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, 101-103.
Brooks-Harris, Jeff E. (1996), “Changing Men’s Male Gender-Role Attitudes by Applying the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Attitude Change,” Sex Roles, New York, Nov, Vol.35, Iss. 9/10, 563-581.
Brucks, Merrie, Gary M. Armstrong, and Marvin E. Goldberg (1988),“Children’s Use of Cognitive Defenses Against Television Advertising: A Cognitive Response Approach,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (March), 471-482.
Cateora, P. R. (1963), An Analysis of the Teenage Market, Austin, TX: Bureau of Business Research.
Chaiken, Shelly (1980), “Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus Message Cues in Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (November), 752-766.
Clarke, Keith and Russel W. Belk (1978), “The Effects of Product Involvement and Task Definition on Anticipated Consumer Effort,” Advances in Consumer Research, 5. H. Keith Hunt. Ed., Ann Arbor. MI., Association for Consumer Research, 313-318.
Cummings, William H. and M. Venkatesan (1976), “Cognitive Dissonance and Consumer Behavior: A Review of the Evidence,” Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (August), 303-308.
Davis, J. (1990), Youth and the Condition of Britian: Images of Adolescent Conflict, London: Athlone Press.
Day, G. S. (1970), Buyer Attitudes and Brand Choice, New York: Free Press.
Dinoff, Beth L (1999), “Reducing AIDS Risk Behavior: The Combination Efficiency of Protection Motivation Theory and the ELM,” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, New York, Summer, Vol. 18, Iss. 2, 223-240.
Dotson, Michael J. and Eva M. Hyatt (2000), “Religious Symbols as Peripheral Cues in Advertising: A Replication of the Elaboration Likelihood Model,” Journal of Business Research, 48, 64.
Festinger, Leon (1957), “A theory of Cognitive Dissonance,” Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Greenwald, Anthony G. (1968), “Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response to Persuasion, and Attitude Change,” in Psychological Foundations of Attitudes, eds. Anthony G. Greenwald, Timothy C. Brock, and Thomas Ostrom, New York: Academic Press, 147-170.
Greenwald, Anthony G. and Clark Leavitt (1968), “Audience Involvement in Advertising: Four Levels,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (June), 581-592.
Gunter, Barrie and Adrian Furnham (1998), Children as Consumers: A Psychological Analysis of the Young People’s Market, London: Routledge, 31.
Hale, Jerold L. (1995), “Cognitive Processing of Fear-Arousing Message Content,” Communication Research (H.W. Wilson — SSA), August, Vol. 22, 459.
Heesacker, Martin (1995), “Individual Counseling and Psycho Therapy: Applications From the Social Psychology of Attitude Change,” The Counseling Psychologist (H.W. Wilson — SSA), October, Vol. 23, 611.
Heppner, Mary J. (1995), “Examining Sex Differences in Altering Attitudes About Rape: A Test of the ELM,” Journal of Counseling and Development (H.W. Wilson — EDUC), July / August, Vol. 73, 640.
Houston, Michael J. and Michael L. Rothschild (1978), “Conceptual and Methodological Perspectives on Involvement,” 1978 Educators’ Proceedings, Ed., S.C. Jain, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 184-187.
Hovland, Carl I., Irving Janis, and Harold Kelly (1953), Communication and Persuasion, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Howard, Daniel J. (1997), “Familiar Phases as Peripheral Persuasion Cues,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (H.W Wilson — SSA), May, Vol. 33, 231.
Janis, Irving L., D. Kaye, and P. Kirschner (1965), “Facilitating Effects of‘Eating while Reading’on Responsiveness to Persuasiveness Communication,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1 (February), 181-186.
Johnson, Blair T. and Alice H. Eagly (1989), “Effect of Involvement on Persuasion: A Meta-Analysis,” American Psychological Association, Vol. 106, No.2, 290-293.
Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal of Marketing, New York, January, Vol.57, Iss. 1.
Kelman, Herbert C. (1961), “ Process of Opinion Change,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 25 (Spring), 57-78.
King, Stephne H. M. (1989), “Branding opportunities in Financial Services,” Paper Delivered to the British Market Research Society Conference on Advertising and Marketing Financial Services, July.
Krugman, Herbert E. (1967), “The Measurement of Advertising Involvement,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 30 (Winter), 583-596.
Lammers, H. Bruce (2000), “Effect of Deceptive Packaging & Product Involvement on Purchase Intention: An ELM Perspective,” Psychology Reports (H.W. Wilson — SSA), April, Vol. 86, Iss.2, 546.
Lannon, Judie (1991), Paper delivered at the 10th Annual Conference of the Society for Consumer Psychology, San Francisco, May.
Leavitt Clark (1987), “Understanding Brand Images: A Theory and Methodology,” Working paper, the Ogilvy Center for Research & Development, October.
Lutz, Richard J. and James R. Bettman (1977), “Multiattribute Models in Marketing: A Bicentennial Review,” in Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior, eds. Arch Woodside, Jagdish Sheth, and Peter D. Bennett, New York: Elsevier North-Holland, 137-150.
McCormick, Kari Leigh Scherz (1989), “The Incidence of Demand For Brand Name Clothing Among A Selected Group Of Children,” Fall, 386.
McGuire, William J. (1976), “Some Internal Psychological Factors Influencing Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (March), 302-319.
McNeal, James U. (1992), Kids as Consumers, D.C Health and Company, Lexington Book, 6; 14-16; 24; 31-34; 47; 53; 54; 55; 63-64; 89; 93.
McNeal, J. U. (1969), “The Child as Consumer: A New Market,” Journal of Retailing, Summer, 15-22, 84.
Mitchell, Andrew A. (1979), “Involvement: A Potentially Important Mediator of Consumer Behavior,” Advances in Consumer Research, 6, W.L. Wilkie, Ed., Association of consumer Research, 191-196.
Mitchell, Andrew A. and Jerry C. Olson (1981), “Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (August), 318-332.
Moore, Elizabeth S. and Richard J. Lutz (2000), “Children, Advertising, and Product Experiences: A Multimethod Inquiry,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.27 (June), 32.
Mowen, John C. (1980), “On Product Endorser Effectiveness: A Balance Model Approach,” in Current Issues and Research in Advertising, eds. James H. Leigh and Claude R. Martin, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 41-57.
Newman, Larry M. and Ira J. Dolich (1979), “An Examination of Ego-Involvement as a Modifier of Attitude Changes Caused from Product Testing,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 6, ed. William L. Wilkie, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 180-183.
Olson, Jerry C. (1977), “Price as an informational Cue: Effects in Product Evaluation,” Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior, Arch G. Woodside, Jagdish N. Sheth, and Peter D. Bennet, eds. New York: North Holland Publishing Company, 267-286.
Overstreet, Kay L. (1994), “Children’s Inference Based On Brand Personality,” June, 955.
Pecheux, Claude and Christian Derbaix (1999), “Children And Attitude toward the Brand: A New Measurement Scale”.
Petty, Richard E. (1997), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Implication for the Practice of School Psychology,” Journal of School Psychology (H.W. Wilson — EDUC), Summer, Vol. 35, 107.
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1986), Communication and persuasion— Central and Peripheral Route to Attitude Change, New York: Spring — Verlag, 2-5.
Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo (1984a), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion,” Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 673-675.
Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo (1984b), “Source Factors and the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion,” Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 668-672.
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1980), “Effects of Issue Involvement on Attitudes in an Advertising Context,” in Proceeding of the Division 23 Program, eds. Gerald G. Gorn and Marvin E. Goldberg, Montreal, Canada: American Psychological Association, 75-79.
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1979), “Issue Involvement Can Increase or Decrease Persuasion by Enhancing Message-Relevant Cognitive Responses,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37, No. 10, 1916.
Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo, and Rachel Goldman (1981), “Personal Involvement as a Determinant of Argument-Based Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41 (November), 847-855.
Petty, Richard E., Thomas Ostrom, and Timothy C. Brock (1981), “Historical Foundations of the Cognitive Response Approach to Attitudes and Persuasion,” in Cognitive Response in Persuasion, eds. Richard E. Petty, Thomas Ostrom, and Timothy C. Brock, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 5-29.
Petty, Richard, E., John T Cacioppo and David Schumann (1983), “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.10 (Sep), 135-137,144.
Richard, E. (1997), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Implication for the practice of School Psychology,” Journal of School Psychology [H.W. Wilson — EDUC], Vol. 35 (Summer), 107.
Richins, M. L. and P. H. Bloch (1986), “After the New Wears off: The Temporal Context of Product Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 280-285.
Richmond, P.G. (1970), An introduction to Piaget, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited, 46-48
Roedder, Deborah L. (1981), “Age Differences in Children’s Responses to Television Advertising: An Information-Processing Approach,” Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (September), 144-153.
Rossiter, John R. (1977), “Reliability of a short-Test Measuring Children’s Attitudes toward TV Commercials,” Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (March), 179-184.
Rothschild, M. L. (1979a), “Advertising Strategies for High and Low Involvement Situations,” Attitudes Research Plays for High Stakes, J.C. Maloney and B. Silverman eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 74-93.
Rothschild, M. L. (1979b), “Marketing Communication in Nonbusiness Situations,” Journal of Marketing, 43 (Spring), 11-20.
Rothschild, M. L. (1984), “Perspectives on Involvement: Current Problems and Future Directions,” Advances in Consumer Research, 11, T.C. Kinnear Ed., Association for Consumer Research, 216-217.
Schlenker, Barry R. (1980), Impression Management: The Self-Concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations, Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Scott, Carol A. (1978), “Self-Perception Processes in Consumer Behavior: Interpreting One’s Own Experiences,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, ed. H. Keith Hunt, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 714-720.
Shaffer, David R. (1988), Developmental Psychology: Childhood and Adolescence, Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 2nd Ed, 306-346.
Sherif, M. and H. Cantril (1947), The Psychology of Ego Involvement, New York: John Wiley.
Sherif, C. W. and C. I. Hovland (1961), Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sherif , C. W., M. Kelly, M. Rogers, H. L. Jr. Sarup and B. I. Tittler (1973), “Personal Involvement, Social Judgment, and Action,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 311-328.
Sherif, Carolyn W., Muzifer Sherif, and Roger E. Nebergall (1965), Attitude and Attitude Change: The Social Judgment-Involvement Approach, Philadelphia: Saunders.
Solomon, Michael R. (2002), The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion, Consumer Behavior, Fifth Edition, pg246-250.
Sternthal, Brian, and C. Samuel Craig (1974), “Fear Appeals: Revisited and Revised,” Journal of Consumer Research, 1 (December), 22-34.
Stoltenberg, Cal D (1995), “Persuasion & Development in Counselor Supervision,” The Counseling Psychologist (H.W. Wilson — SSA), October, Vol. 23, 633.
Swanson, Kathi Jordan (1988),“The Effect(s) Of Familiarity on Children’s Product Choices: An Information-Processing Perspective,” October, 886.
Troutman, C. Michael and James Shanteau (1976), “Do Consumers Evaluate Products by Adding or Averaging Attribute Information,” Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (December), 101-106.
Wells, William D. (1965), “Communicating with Children,” Journal of Advertising Research, 5 (April), 2-14.
Worchel, Stephne, Virginia Andreoli and Joe Eason (1975), “ Is the Medium the Message? A Study of the Effects of Media, Communicator and Message Characteristics on Attitude Change,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5 (April-June), 157-172.
Young, Brian M. (1990), Television Advertising and Children. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 43-44
Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1985), “Measuring the Involvement Construct,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (December), 341-352.
Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1994), “The Personal Involvement Inventory: Reduction, Revision, and Application to Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, Vol. 13, No. 4, December, 59-70.
Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1988), “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 (July), 2-22.
Zimbardo, Phillip (1960), “Involvement and Communication Discrepancy as Determinants of Opinion Conformity,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60 (January), 86-94.		zh_TW