本研究試圖比較以個人或是群體受害者故事呈現，何種有較佳的慈善廣告效果。過去的研究顯示，個人受害者的影響是來自可辨識受害者效應理論。本研究提出，受害者數量的效應可能會受到慈善議題種類與自我建構個人差異的影響。本研究採實驗設計方法，並以兩個實驗來驗證假設。實驗一以非營利組織作為實驗設計內容；實驗二側重於善因行銷，由公司所發起的慈善活動，並且使用2（受害者數量：個人v.s群體）x 2（慈善議題種類：突發性災難v.s持續性悲劇）x 2（自我建構：獨立我v.s相依我）三因子設計。實驗結果顯示，當相依我的受訪者在觀看的故事為突發性災難且描述成群體時，比起描述成個體故事，有更佳的廣告效果。反之，獨立我的受訪者則是完全相反的模式。但當相依我與獨立我的受訪者觀看的故事為持續性災難，描述成個體或群體故事則沒有顯著差異。消費者觀看廣告後所產生的同情心是影響上述三維交互作用對慈善廣告效果產生影響之中介機制。

This research attempts to examine between individual victim and group victims on charity advertising effectiveness. The effect of showing a single victim is based on the previous research on identified victim effect. In the current research, we propose that the effect of victim number is subject to cause acuteness and individual differences in self-construal. This research conducts two experiments to test hypotheses. While Study1 uses a non-profit context, Study2 focuses on the context og cause-related marketing, in which the charitable campaign is initiated by a company. In both studies, a 2 (victim number: single vs. group) x 2 (cause acuteness: sudden disaster vs. ongoing tragedy) x 2 (self-construal: interdependent vs. independent) between-subjects design is used. The results reveal that, when people with interdependent self-construal read a story of a sudden disaster, depicting group victims is more effective than the same story depicting a single victim. Opposite patterns are found on people with independent self-construal. No such differences of self-construal are found when reading a story of ongoing tragedy depicting a single victim or group victims. Sympathy is found to be the underlying mechanism to explain the effects of three-way interaction effect among victim number, cause acuteness and self-construal.

論文審定書 i
致謝 ii
論文審定書 i
致謝 ii
摘要 iii
ABSTRACT iv
第壹章 緒論 1
第一節 前言 1
第二節 研究背景 1
第三節 研究動機 4
第四節 研究目的與問題 5
第五節 研究架構 6
第貳章　文獻探討 8
第一節 前言 8
第二節 受害者數量 8
第三節 慈善議題類型 18
第四節 自我建構的個人差異 20
第五節 慈善行為背後的動機 27
第六節 小結 28
第參章　研究假設發展 29
第一節 前言 29
第二節 研究假設與架構 29
第三節 實驗設計建立 34
第四節 小結 35
第肆章 實驗一設計與分析 36
第一節 前言 36
第二節 研究變數操作型定義與衡量 36
第三節 研究設計 42
第四節 實驗一結果分析 44
第五節 小結 50
第伍章 實驗二設計與分析 52
第一節 前言 52
第二節 研究變數操作型定義與衡量 52
第三節 研究設計 59
第四節 實驗二結果分析 60
第五節 小結 84
第陸章 結論與建議 85
第一節 前言 85
第二節 研究結果討論 85
第三節 研究貢獻 87
第四節 研究限制 90
第五節 未來研究與建議 91
第六節 小結 94
參考文獻 96
附錄一 實驗一問卷（1） 101
附錄一 實驗一問卷（2） 104
附錄一 實驗一問卷（3） 107
附錄一 實驗一問卷（4） 110
附錄二 實驗二問卷（1） 113
附錄二 實驗二問卷（2） 117
附錄二 實驗二問卷（3） 121
附錄二 實驗二問卷（4） 125
附錄二 實驗二問卷（5） 129
附錄二 實驗二問卷（6） 133
附錄二 實驗二問卷（7） 137
附錄二 實驗二問卷（8） 141

Baberini, M., Coleman, C.-L., Slovic, P., & Västfjäll, D. (2015). Examining the effects of photographic attributes on sympathy, emotions, and donation behavior. Visual Communication Quarterly, 22(2), 118-128.
Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 107-122.
Chang, C.-T., & Cheng, Z.-H. (2015). Tugging on heartstrings: shopping orientation, mindset, and consumer responses to cause-related marketing. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 337-350.
Chochinov, H. M. (2005). Vicarious grief and response to global disasters. The Lancet, 366(9487), 697-698.
Cone, C. L. (2002). Corporate citizenship study: The role of cause branding. Boston: Cone.
Cornwell, T. B., & Coote, L. V. (2005). Corporate sponsorship of a cause: the role of identification in purchase intent. Journal of Business Research, 58(3), 268-276.
Cryder, C. E., Loewenstein, G., & Scheines, R. (2013). The donor is in the details. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(1), 15-23.
Cui, Y., Trent, E. S., Sullivan, P. M., & Matiru, G. N. (2003). Cause-related marketing: How generation Y responds. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(6), 310-320.
Duclos, R., & Barasch, A. (2014). Prosocial behavior in intergroup relations: How donor self-construal and recipient group-membership shape generosity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 93-108.
Ellen, P. S., Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2000). Charitable programs and the retailer: Do they mix? Journal of Retailing, 76(3), 393-406.
Erlandsson, A., Björklund, F., & Bäckström, M. (2015). Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 1-14.
Friedrich, J., & McGuire, A. (2010). Individual differences in reasoning style as a moderator of the identifiable victim effect. Social Influence, 5(3), 182-201.
Grau, S. L., & Folse, J. A. G. (2007). Cause-related marketing (CRM): The influence
of donation proximity and message-framing cues on the less-involved consumer. Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 19-33.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Lee, C. M. (2003). Assessing the validity of self construal scales: A response to Levine et al. Human Communication Research, 29(2), 253-274.
Guy, B. S. (1988). The marketing of altruistic causes: Understanding why people help. Journal of Services Marketing, 2(1), 5-16.
Guy, B. S., & Patton, W. E. (1989). The marketing of altruistic causes: Understanding why people help. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6(1), 5-16.
Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103(2), 336-355.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotional contagion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2(3), 96-100.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1-26.
Hong, J., & Chang, H. H. (2015). “I” follow my heart and “We” rely on reasons: The impact of self-construal on reliance on feelings versus reasons in decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1392-1411.
Hou, J., Du, L., & Li, J. (2008). Cause's attributes influencing consumer's purchasing intention: Empirical evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 20(4), 363-380.
Irwin, J. R., Jones, L. E., & Mundo, D. (1996). Risk perception and victim perception: The judgment of HIV cases. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9(1), 1-22.
Kemmelmeier, M., Jambor, E. E., & Letner, J. (2006). Individualism and good works: Cultural variation in giving and volunteering across the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(3), 327-344.
Kogut, T. (2011). Someone to blame: When identifying a victim decreases helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(4), 748-755.
Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005). The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(3), 157-167.
Krishna, A., Zhou, R., & Zhang, S. (2008). The effect of self-construal on spatial judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 337-348.
Lafferty, B. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2005). Cause–brand alliances: Does the cause help the brand or does the brand help the cause? Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 423-429.
Landreth, S. (2002). For a good cause: The effects of cause important, cause proximity, congruency and participation effort on consumers' evaluation of cause related marketing. LSU Doctoral Dissertations.
Lee, S., & Feeley, T. H. (2016). The identifiable victim effect: A meta-analytic review. Social Influence, 11(3), 199-215.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
Nesler, M. S., Aguinis, H., Quigley, B. M., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1993). The Effect of credibility on perceived power 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(17), 1407-1425.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3-72.
Redelmeier, D. A., & Tversky, A. (1990). Discrepancy between medical decisions for individual patients and for groups. New England Journal of Medicine, 322(16), 1163-1164.
Ritov, I., & Kogut, T. (2011). Ally or adversary: The effect of identifiability in inter-group conflict situations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(1), 96-103.
Ross, J. K., Stutts, M. A., & Patterson, L. (1991). Tactical considerations for the effective use of cause-related marketing. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 7(2), 58-65.
Simpson, B., White, K., & Laran, J. (2017). When public recognition for charitable giving backfires: The role of independent self-construal. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(6), 1257-1273.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580-591.
Skitka, L. J. (1999). Ideological and attributional boundaries on public compassion: Reactions to individuals and communities affected by a natural disaster. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(7), 793-808.
Slovic, P. (2010). If I look at the mass I will never act: Psychic numbing and genocide. In Emotions and Risky Technologies (pp. 37-59): Springer.
Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(1), 5-16.
Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 143-153.
Small, D. A., & Verrochi, N. M. (2009). The face of need: Facial emotion expression on charity advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 777-787.
Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J. G. (1998). Donations to charity as purchase incentives: How well they work may depend on what you are trying to sell. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 434-446.
Strombach, T., Jin, J., Weber, B., Kenning, P., Shen, Q., Ma, Q., & Kalenscher, T. (2014). Charity begins at home: Cultural differences in social discounting and generosity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27(3), 235-245.
Sun, S., Merolla, A. J., Seo, M., & Zhang, S. (2013). Self-construal and natural disaster coverage: How self perception influences psychological intrusion and concern for others. Asian Journal of Communication, 23(1), 17-37.
Susskind, J., Maurer, K., Thakkar, V., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, J. W. (1999). Perceiving individuals and groups: Expectancies, dispositional inferences, and causal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 181-191.
Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Organizational Identity: A Reader, 56-65.
Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 649-655.
van Horen, F., Pöhlmann, C., Koeppen, K., & Hannover, B. (2008). Importance of personal goals in people with independent versus interdependent selves. Social Psychology, 39(4), 213-221.
Vanhamme, J., Lindgreen, A., Reast, J., & Van Popering, N. (2012). To do well by doing good: Improving corporate image through cause-related marketing. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(3), 259-274.
Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 58-74.
Wang, Y. (2014). Individualism/collectivism, charitable giving, and cause‐related marketing: a comparison of Chinese and Americans. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19(1), 40-51.
Wild, B., Erb, M., & Bartels, M. (2001). Are emotions contagious? Evoked emotions while viewing emotionally expressive faces: quality, quantity, time course and gender differences. Psychiatry Research, 102(2), 109-124.
Ye, N., Teng, L., Yu, Y., & Wang, Y. (2015). “What's in it for me?”: The effect of donation outcomes on donation behavior. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 480-486.