你也上鉤了嗎？ 網路誘餌式標題的樣態與惱怒

Don't Bite That Clickbait：Types of Clickbait Headline and Irritation

林昀樺(YUN-HUA LIN)

指導教授 ： 汪志堅 ； 楊運秀

國立臺北大學/商學院/企業管理學系/碩士(2016年)

摘要

網路上充斥著各種資訊，在此資訊爆炸的時代，如何吸引使用者目光與注意，已成為許多網站與企業的重要課題，許多內容農場(Content Farm)網站為了吸引點擊以賺取廣告收入，發展出了一套獨特的誘餌式(Clickbait)下標法，讓讀者對未揭露的資訊產生好奇，致使讀者點擊。研究一將針對誘餌式標題進行研究，參考現有對於誘餌式標題的討論，整理出誘餌式標題的11類樣態，並給予每個樣態定義與說明。研究二則參考研究一之誘餌樣態，進行實驗設計，以檢驗誘餌標題對讀者之點擊意願與惱怒。
本研究一蒐集排名前三大內容農場網站所刊登的文章，隨機抽取共240則標題，使用內容分析法針對其標題的下標方式進行分類整理及編碼，以了解常見的誘餌式標題的類型分布。本研究之研究結果顯示，「前項指涉」的誘餌式標題是最常出現的誘餌式標題，使用「一般名詞作為前項指涉」的用法最常出現，計有207則，約佔86%，也就是大多數的誘餌式標題幾乎都會使用到這類對於前述所出現的名詞再次提及，為比例最高之用法；使用「引號作為前項指涉」共出現則數133則，約佔55%；而使用「刪節號作為前項指涉」出現91則，約佔38%。第二常出現的下標手法為「引發情緒用詞」與「違背預期」的樣態，分別為105則和97則，約佔44%與佔40%；而「他人態度」的樣態有93則，約佔39%。其他的「清單體」、「誇飾句法」、「讀者喊話」各出現了40則以上，約各占兩成的。而「對比」手法、「命令語氣」、「提式語句」、「專家權威」則是較少出現的下標方式，但最少也有15則，達6%。本研究結果也顯示，許多標題中往往同時混合多種下標方法，平均每一標題使用約三到四種。
研究二則針對標題以及內文做實驗設計，檢驗讀者對於誘餌貼文之點擊意願以及惱怒程度。檢驗後發現，內文與標題對於惱怒交互作用不顯著，但誘餌標題以及簡短內文對於讀者之惱怒反應相較於直述標題與豐富內文來得更強烈。

關鍵字

涉入 ； 點擊意願 ； 內容農場 ； 誘餌式標題 ； 惱怒

並列摘要

In the age of information overload, where headlines play an important role in attracting attention and encouraging visitors to click, it is an important issue for websites and companies to deal with headlines. A lot of ‘content farms’ have developed their headline strategy to exploit the "curiosity gap" by leaving out just enough information to encourage readers to click through the content and to generate page views that in turn generate advertising revenue. Therefore, these eye-catching headlines have emerged as "click baits". Because more and more content publishers are using click baits to engage users and gain advertising income, the purpose of these analyses is to understand different tricks and techniques in making click bait headlines. In this paper, we will discuss eleven different types of click baits according to the previous studies and learn how to design them. To start with, we have selected the top 3 content farms in Taiwan in 2015 and randomly collected 240 headlines from them. By using content analysis and coding the text in our research, it is shown that "forward-reference" is the most frequently used form in writing headline. 207 (86%) are " general nouns with implicit discourse deictic reference." It is said that almost every hardline is using forward-referring way to mention the forthcoming discourse. Forward-reference in headlines occurs in two forms: ellipsis and quotes. Of our sample, 91 (38%) are "ellipsis" and 133 (55%) are "quotes.” The "affective language" and "unexpected words" are also highly frequent: 105 (44%) are "affective language" and 97 (40%) are "unexpected words." Then 93 (39%) are "judgment." Other, less frequent types of click baits are "listicle", "hyperbole" and "reader-addressed", which are up to 20% respectively. Though, "antithesis," “imperative," “Question headline” and “Authority” have been left out, they still occur in 6% of headlines, respectively. Based on our analyses, it also shown that each headline use not only one but up to three to four clickbait techniques on average.

並列關鍵字

Irritation ； Involvement ； Click rate ； Content farm ； Clickbait

參考文獻

Aaker, D. A., & Bruzzone, D. E. (1985). Causes of irritation in advertising. The Journal of Marketing, 47-57.

Adams, W. C. (1978). Local public affairs content of TV news. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 55(4), 690.

Altheide, D. L. (1976). Creating reality: How TV news distorts events.

Baek, T. H., & Morimoto, M. (2012). Stay away from me. Journal of advertising, 41(1), 59-76.

Baicchi, A. (2004). The cataphoric indexicality of titles. PRAGMATICS AND BEYOND NEW SERIES, 17-38.