個人涉入和事件風險對目標框架的影響

Effects of Personal Involvement and Task Risk on Goal Framing

顏淑鈴(Shu-Ling Yen)

指導教授 ： 李玉惠

中原大學/理學院/心理學研究所/碩士(2004年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu200400708

摘要

框架效果是指兩個其實完全相同的決定性問題，因為陳述的方式不同，而造成人們產生不同反應的現象。在探討框架效果的研究中，許多研究都曾探討涉入程度在目標框架上的作用，不過研究的結果卻不一致，因此本研究的第一個目的即是在澄清之前研究結果的差異，探討結果的差異是否是因為所用的事件議題有不同的風險度所致。本研究的第二個目的則是想要更進一步地探討，不同涉入程度者在不同的事件風險度之下，是否會產生不同程度的風險知覺，進而使得正向和負向框架訊息有不同的說服效果。
本研究採用一個2 (框架性質：正向/負向) × 2 (涉入程度：高/低) × 2 (事件風險度：高/低)的三因子受試者間實驗設計。受試者為中原大學的學生，實驗一中共有160人，實驗二中共有136人，皆以隨機方式分派到各個實驗情境。依變項為受試者在接受完框架訊息後對事件的態度及行為意圖，另外還測量受試者的風險知覺。在本研究中事件議題控制為固定，均為「英文檢定畢業考方案」，藉由指導語來操弄事件的風險度，以此來探討先前涉入程度對框架效果的影響之研究是否忽略了事件風險度的作用。
本研究假設高涉入者在高風險下時，會產生高度的風險知覺，使得個體較注重可能的損失，因而受負向框架的影響較大。高涉入者在低風險下和低涉入者在高風險下時，均會產生低度的風險知覺，使得個體較在意可能的好處，因此受正向框架的影響較大。而當低涉入者在低風險之下時，會產生極弱甚至沒有風險知覺，使得個體並不特別注重可能的得或失，因此正向和負向框架的影響大致相同。
在實驗一中，風險知覺的假設並不符合預期，結果顯示，風險知覺僅受涉入程度影響，涉入程度越高者風險知覺越大，事件風險度並沒有效用。在框架效果的假設方面，行為意圖上看不到任何的框架效果，態度上的結果則完全符合研究假設。
在實驗一中，風險知覺的假設並沒有成立，筆者認為可能是因為實驗一中，風險知覺的問卷有措詞上的問題，且沒有測量到完整的風險知覺，所以在實驗二中，修改風險知覺問卷，以期望能反應出真實的風險知覺，並再次檢驗框架效果。實驗二的結果發現，涉入程度和事件風險度的確會共同作用影響風險知覺，進而在行為意圖和態度上產生預期般的框架效果。
綜合實驗一和實驗二的結果可以知道，涉入程度和風險知覺會共同作用而影響個體的風險知覺，再經由風險知覺調節框架效果。因此支持，先前研究結果會產生不一致的現象是因為先前學者忽略了事件風險度所導致。

關鍵字

事件風險 ； 風險知覺 ； 框架效果 ； 個人涉入

並列摘要

Framing refers to the phenomena that two logically equivalent questions lead to different responses because information is processed in different ways. Researchers have demonstrated that framing is a reliable phenomenon and personal involvement moderates goal framing. Nevertheless, conflicting findings have been observed in this line of research. The main purpose of the present study is to clarify such inconsistency by introducing another moderator, i.e., task risk. It is proposed that personal involvement and task risk can additively affect people’s risk perception of the action course, which further moderates framing.
Two experiments, both with a 2 (message frame: positive/negative) × 2 (personal involvement: high/low) × 2 (task risk: high/low) between-subjects design, were conducted. Experiment 2 was basically identical to Experiment 1, with some modifications in the questionnaire of risk perception. In both experiments, English Proficiency Test for Graduation was the task. Involvement, task risk, and message frame were manipulated by instructions.
The dependent variables were subjects’ attitudes and behavioral intentions toward the action course after they read the framed messages. In addition, the subject was assessed risk perception of the action course. There were 160 undergraduate students served as participants in Experiment 1, and 136 undergraduate students participated in Experiment 2. Subjects were randomly assigned to 8 experimental conditions.
Our hypotheses are as follows: people under the condition of high involvement/high task risk would produce high risk perception, which further directs the subject’s attention to potential losses. Thus, the negatively framed message is more persuasive than the positive framed message. People under the conditions of high involvement/low task risk and low involvement/high task risk would generate low risk perception, which draws the participant’s attention to potential gains. Therefore, a positively frame was more persuasive than a negative one. People under the condition of low involvement/low task risk would produce the weakest risk perception, leading them care about neither potential gains nor losses. Thus, positively and negatively framed messages had the same effect.
In Experiment 1, Findings in attitudes supported the hypotheses of framing effects, although findings in behavioral intentions failed to do so. As to the hypotheses regarding risk perception, the results were not as expected. It was conjectured that the unexpected findings in risk perception was due to either ambiguous wordings of risk questionnaire or the incomplete measurement of risk perception. Thus, in Experiment two, the questionnaire for assessing risk perception was modified and framing effects were reexamined. In Experiment 2, empirical results supported both hypotheses regarding risk perception and framing effects.
In summary, personal involvement and task risk will additively influence an individual’s risk perception of the action course, which further moderates framing effects. Therefore, the present study reconciles conflicting findings in goal framing.

並列關鍵字

task risk ； framing effect ； personal involvement ； risk perception

參考文獻

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Detweiler, J. B., Bedell, B. J., Salovey, P., Pronin, E., & Rothman, A. J. (1999). Message framing and sunscreen use: Gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychology, 18, 189-196.

Dholakia, U. M. (2000). A motivational process model of product involvement and consumer risk perception. European Journal of Marketing, 35, 1340-1360.

Ganzach, Y., Weber, Y., & Ben-Or, P. (1997). Message framing and buying behavior: On the difference between artifical and natural environment. Journal of Business Research, 40, 91-95.

Gregory, R., & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). Perceived risk, dread, and benefits. Risk Analysis, 13, 259-264.