Post on 30-Aug-2019
1
Facebook 2004 2 Mark Zuckerberg
Facebook Faceboo k
MySpace
Hardy(2008) Facebook Facebook
Facebook2009123.5 (Facebook2009)
16 Facebook
(Nielsen)Facebook 2008
700% (2009)Facebook
2008 6 ARO
2009 8 5,735,530 Facebook 45%
7 58.37% 2009 11 3 Facebook 500
( 1-1-1)
2
1-1-1 Facebook
Checkfacebook (2009). CheckfacebookTaiwan users distribution.
2009.11.12 http://www.checkfacebook.com/
Facebookcheck.com (2009 9/3-9/13)
26.69% ( 1-1-2)
3
1-1-2 Facebook
Checkfacebook (2009). Fastest growing over past week.
2009.11.12 http://www.checkfacebook.com/
Facebook Facebook
(the wall) (Gift) (Marketplace) (Pokes) (Status)
(events) Facebook
2007 5 24 Facebook
(http://developers.facebook.com/)
(Social Networking Site SNS)
McQauil(1993)
SNS
(reciprocity) (Valenzuela, Park & Kee, 2009)
(1) (Information Connection)
(Weak Ties) (Kenski & Stroud, 2006;
http://www.checkfacebook.com/4
Shah et al., 2001)Facebook
News Feedfacebook
Mini-FeedNews Feed
(Wall) (Valenzuela, S. & Park, N. & Kee, K. F., 2009)Facebook
(Hargittai, 2007)
(Group)
(Group)
( 2) (Communication Reciprocity)
Facebook (Reciprocal Services)
(Wall Post)(E-mail) (Photo Comment)
(Applications or Widgets)()
(Gilbert, & Karahalios, 2009)
Facebook Coca-cola
350 Coca-cola
Coca-cola
Coca-cola Facebook
Coca-cola
(2009)
5
1990
Web1.0 Web2.0
(user- generated interface )
Facebook (Goossen, 2008)
Goossen (2008)Web2.0
Murdoch (News Gorp.) 5 8
MySpace Microsoft Facebook
2 4 1.6%
Gladwell (2002)
(The Tipping Point : How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference)
Tapscott (2009)
N (Grown Up DigitalHow the Net
Generation is Changing Your World) 5%
30%Donath Boyd(2004)
Web2.0
(Social Network Service)
ComScore (2009)
Facebook 2008 4 MySpace
Facebook TechCrunch
Facebook (Facebook world Tour) Facebook
(2008)
3.5 Facebook
1-2-1
QQ 3
(2009)
http://search.books.com.tw/exep/prod_search.php?cat=F01&key=Grown%20Up%20Digital%A1GHow%20the%20Net%20Generation%20is%20Changing%20Your%20Worldhttp://search.books.com.tw/exep/prod_search.php?cat=F01&key=Grown%20Up%20Digital%A1GHow%20the%20Net%20Generation%20is%20Changing%20Your%20World6
1-2-1
(2009)
2009.9.8
http://financenews.sina.com/sinacn/000-000-107-115/2009-04-06/17
301048804.html
Facebook 4.5 (
2009)
Razorfish Fluent
(Kunz, B., 2009)(FIND) Harris Interactive
Harris Interactive
Coca-Cola Brown
(conversation) (York, Zmuda & Mullman, 2009)
( Facebook)
eMarketer
http://financenews.sina.com/sinacn/000-000-107-115/2009-04-06/17301048804.htmlhttp://financenews.sina.com/sinacn/000-000-107-115/2009-04-06/17301048804.html7
(FIND) Universal McCann
1-2-22009
(FIND) (2009)Universal McCann
2009.11.3
http://www.find.org.tw/find/home.aspx?page=news&id=5568
1-2-2 48%
()
Armstrong & Hagel (1998)
14.5%
17%
23.5%
23.7%
24.4%
29.1%
29.9%
33.1%
33.5%
35.3%
47.9%
56.4%
74.3%
76.3%
81.5%
/
/
/
/
http://www.find.org.tw/find/home.aspx?page=news&id=55688
(Homophily)
(Social Network Ties) (Brown & Reingen,
1987)
(Homophily)(
) (Homophily)
(Rogers, 1983;
Brown & Reingen, 1987; McPherson, Smith-Lovin & Cook, 2001)
(McPherson et al.,
2001)
Granovetter (1973)(weak ties)
(strong ties) (Granovetter, 1973)
(Nod)
Granovetter (1973)The
Strength of Weak Ties (Weak Ties)
(Social Capital)
(Tie strength)
( Gilbert & Karahalios, 2009)
(Uzzi,1999)
9
(Lalley, 2009)
Facebook 2009 12 3.5 (Facebook, 2009)
Facebook 80 2009 9
500 (2009) Harris Interactive
(FIND, 2009)
Razorfish 75%
40%Facebook
69%
Facebook Arrix
(Zmuda,
2009)
(Critical Mass)
(Profile) (Post Wall)
10
(word of mouth)
(Arndt, 1967)
(Marney, 1995; Silverman, 1997; Henricks, 1998; Gilly et al., 1998;
Bansal & Voyer, 2000; Writz & Chew, 2002)
(Silverman, 1997; Writz & Chew, 2002;
Derbaix & Vanhamme, 2003)
(Writz & Chew, 2002)
(Katona & Mueller, 1954; Robertson, 1971; Price & Feick, 1984;
Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955) (Bayus, 1985)
(Katz & Lazarsfeld 1955 Day, 1971 Kiel & Layton, 1981 Price & Feick, 1984
Murray, 1991)
(1).
(2).
11
(Arndt, 1967; Cunningham, l967; Hugstand et al., 1987;
Crane & Lynch, l988)
(3).
(Coleman etal.,1966; Arndt,l967; Engel et al.,1969; Sheth 1971; Rogers 1983;
Richins,1983; Reingen & Kernan,1986; Brown & Reingen,1987)
(4).
(Coleman et al., 1957; Feldman & Spencer, 1965; Silk, 1966; King & Haefner,
l988; Crane & Lynch, 1988; Murray, l99l; Gelb & Johnson, 1995)
(5).
Robertson (1971)
MSNBBS
(2004)
Gelb Johnson (1995)
Hanson (2000)
2-1-1
12
2-1-1
nmn-1/m-1
(2004)
---
13
(Hovland & Janis, 1953)
(1). (source factor)
(2). (message factor)
(3). (audience factor)
1. (Gilly et al., 1998)
2. (Engel et al., 1986; Brown & Reingen, 1987; Bansal & Voyer,
2000)
3. (Arndt, 1967; Roselius, 1971)
4. (Ziethaml, 1981)
Gilly et al. (1998)(1)
(2)
(3)Bansal Voyer (2000)
Gilly et al. (1998)
Gilly et al. (1998)
14
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(-)
(-)
(+)
2-2-1Gilly
(2004)
---
(-)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+) (+)
(+) (+)
(+)
2-2-2Bansal & Voyer
(2004)
---
15
(Bristor, 1990)
(Mitchell & Dacin, 1996)
(Gilly et al., 1998;
Bansal & Voyer, 2000)
(Silk, 1966) (Kiel & Layton,1981) (Arndt,1967; Reingen &
Kernan, 1986)
(Gilly et al., 1998; Bansal & Voyer, 2000)
(2004)
(Bansal & Voyer, 2000)Bettman Park (1980)
U
(Bansal & Voyer, 2000)
16
Bettman et al. (1980)
(Gilly et al., 1998;
Bansal & Voyer, 2000)
Brown et al. (1987)
(Homophily) (Ties)
(Homophily)
(Homophily)
(Rogers, 1983; Brown & Reingen, 1987; McPherson,
Smith-Lovin & Cook, 2001)
(McPherson et al., 2001)
Brown et al. (1987)
Rogers & Bhowmiks (1971)
Brown & Reingen (1987)
McPherson et al. (2001)
Brown et al. (1987)
Granovetter (1973)
17
(The Strength of Ties)
(Gilbert & Karahalios, 2009)
Granovetter (1973)(Tie Strength)
(duration of time)
(emotional intensity) (intimacy)() (reciprocal
services)
(Strong ties) (Weak ties)
(Absent ties) 2-2-3 (Granovetter, 1973)
2-2-3
(2009)Weak Ties2009.9.03
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking
Granovetter (Strong Ties)
(Berscheid & Walster, 1969) (Weak Ties)
( Wikipedia,
2009)
(Granovetter, 1973) Frenzen
Nakamoto (1993)
(Absent ties)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking18
(Granovetter, 1973)
Granovetter (1983)AB
A BC BC
( 2-2-4)
2-2-4
(2009)Weak Ties2009.9.03
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking
B C B C
B C (Bridge)
B
C Granovetter
(1973) (Bridge)
(Bridge)
Granovetter (1973)
(Wall)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking19
50
Bott (1957)
Granovetter 1973 The
Strength of Weak Ties 1983 The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network
Theory Revisited
Ellison, N. B.
Steninfield Lampe (2007)The Benefits of Facebook Friends:Social
Capital and College StudnetsUse of Online Social Network Sites
Gilbert
Karahalios (2009)Predicting Tie Strength With Social Media
Granovetter
20
(behaviorist approach)
(cognitive approach)
(hierarchy of effect)
(Lavidge & Gary, 1961)
2-3-1
21
Preference
Conviction
Purchase
Awareness
Comprehension
liking
2-3-1
Lavidge, R., & Gary, S. (1961). A model for predictive
measurement of advertising effectiveness. Journal of
Marketing, 25(6), 59-62.
(1984)
1. (awareness) (knowledge)
2. (liking)(preference)
3. (conviction)(purchase)
(drive)
(2006)/
22
/
/
2-3-1
2-3-1
(2006)
95DOH95-HP-1601
23
2-3-2
H. Joseph. Reitz(1989)
Henry Assael(1998)
Fishbein & Aizen(1975)
Berwoitz & Kerin & Miniard(1987)
Engel & Blackwell &
Miniard(1990)
Philip Kotler(1996)
Fishbein (1963)
(Attitudes Toward Object Model)(Multi-Attributes
Model)
()(effect)
i
24
i
n :
()
()
25
(Wlke, 1934; Cantril & Allport, 1935;
Knower, 1935; Doob, 1948)
(Bristor, 1990)
Brown et al. (1987) (Homophily)
(Ties)
Granovetter (1973)
(redundancy)
(Arndt, 1967Leonard-Barton,
1985)
Frenzen Nakamoto (1993)
Brown et al. (1987)
Granovetter
Granovetter (1985)
Granovetter
Brown et al. (1987)
Wirtz
Chew (2002)
26
Facebook (Real-Time)
(
)
(
)
Granovetter (1972)
(Strength of Ties)
(Lin, 1981)(Wellman & Wortley, 1990)(Burt, 1995)
(Wirtz & Chew, 2002)
27
SPSS
3-1-1
28
3-2-1
3-2-1
Brown Reingen (1987)
Granovetter
(Arndt, 1967Leonard-Barton, 1985) Wirtz Chew
(2002)
H1
H1
H1-1
29
H1-2
H1-3
H1-4
Goldenberg, Libai, Muller (2001)
Bansal Voyer (2000)
H2
H2
H2-1
H2-2
H2-3
H2-4
Granovetter (1973)
Brown Reingen (1987)
Rogers Bhowmiks (1983)
Brown Reingen (1987)
30
(Chaiken, 1979; Kahle & Homer, 1985)
(2006)
(Friedman & Friedman, 1979; Swartz, 1984)
H3
H3
H3-1
H3-2
H3-3
H3-4
H3-5
H3-6
H3-7
H3-8
H3-9
H3-10
H3-11
H3-12
31
Brown Reingen (1987)
H4
H4
H4-1
H4-2
H4-3
H4-4
H4-5
H4-6
H4-7
H4-8
H4-9
H4-10
H4-11
H4-12
32
1.
4
(time of duration) (frequency) (intimacy)
(reciprocity)
2.
5
3.
4.
15
5.
6
6.
7 Facebook
()
33
Facebook Zuckerberg 2009 12 2
1.5 3.5 (Facebook, 2009)
CheckFacebook 1.06%
26.69%
2009 11 3 Facebook 500
9 (Access Rating Online, ARO)
( 650 ) 2009 1
(2009)
()
my3q(http://www.my3q.com/)
98 10 24 10
30 30
1 www.wretch.cc
http://www.my3q.com/http://www.wretch.cc/34
BBS Facebook
98 11 2 11 30
413 410
my3q IP
35
()
(1999)
(Williamson, 1978)
3-4-1 Facebook
3-4-1 Facebook
Facebook (2009)Facebook 2009.10.11
www.facebook.com
3-4-2
http://www.facebook.com/36
3-4-2 Facebook
Facebook (2009)Facebook 2009.10.11
www.facebook.com
3-4-3
3-4-3 Facebook
Facebook (2009)Facebook 2009.10.11
www.facebook.com
1
http://www.facebook.com/http://www.facebook.com/37
()
Granovetter (1973)(Tie Strength)
(duration of time)
(emotional intensity) (intimacy)( )
(reciprocal services)
(intracorrelated) (spectrum)
1. (duration of time)
Holden, Favbrigar MacDonald (2006)
0.72 2.67
8.50
3-4-1
2. (emotional intensity)
Granovetter (1973) (intensity)
Brown Reingen (1987)
Granovetter
(FIND) TNS and The Conference Board
( 3-4-4) Facebook
38
3-4-4 2009
(FIND) (2009)
2009/10/07
http://www.find.org.tw/find/home.aspx?page=news&id=5563
3. (imtimacy)
Granovetter (Gilvert & Karahalios, 2009)
(2001)
4. (reciprocity)
(reciprocity) wikipedia
2 Facebook
Facebook (Wall) (Photo comments)
Facebook (Wilson, Boe, Sala,
Puttaswamy & Zhao, 2009)
Viswanath (2009) Facebook Facebook
(Viswanath, Mislove, Cha & Gummadi, 2009)
2 Reciprocity Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity
http://www.find.org.tw/find/home.aspx?page=news&id=5563http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity39
Facebook (Wall) (Photo comments)
3-4-2
3-4-2(1)
Q2
/
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Q3
(1) 1 (2) 2-6 (3) 1 (4) 2-6 (5)
7
Q4
/
(1) (2)
Q5
/ facebook (
)
(1) (2)
()
(Homophily)
(Rogers, 1983; Brown & Reingen, 1987; McPherson,
Smith-Lovin & Cook, 2001)
(McPherson et al., 2001)
Likert 1=5=
40
()
(Lavidge & Gary, 1961) Philip
Kotler (1991)
Likert 1=5=
3-4-3
3-4-3(2)
vs.
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
vs.
Q11
Q12
vs.
Q13
Q14
41
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
Q21
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26
Q27
vs.
Q28
Q29
Q30
Q31
Q32
Q33
42
()
(
2000) Facebook PEW Internet 2009
()
3-4-5
Pew Research Center (2009). Pew internet & American life project, May
2008 tracking sruvey. Retrieved Nov. 25, from http://www.pewinternet.org/.
Facebook Universal McCann (2009)
14
(1)(2)/(3)(4)(5)
(6)/(7)/(
)(8)/(9)(10)
(11)(12)(13)()(14)(
)
38%
24%
15%
23%
30
http://www.pewinternet.org/43
3-4-62009
(FIND) (2009)Universal McCann
2009.11.3
http://www.find.org.tw/find/home.aspx?page=news&id=5568
3-4-4
3-4-4(3)
Q34
(1) (2)
Q35
(1) 13-17 (2) 18-25 (3) 26-34 (4) 35-44 (5) 45-54
(5) 55-65
Q 36
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
(7) (8) (9)() (10)
14.5%
17%
23.5%
23.7%
24.4%
29.1%
29.9%
33.1%
33.5%
35.3%
47.9%
56.4%
74.3%
76.3%
81.5%
/
/
/
/
http://www.find.org.tw/find/home.aspx?page=news&id=556844
Q37
(1)() (2)() (3)()
Q38
(1) (2)- (3)- (4)
- (5)- (6)- (7)
- (8)
Q39 Facegook
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(5)
Q40 Facebook
(1) (2)- (3)- (4)
- (5)- (6)- (7)
- (8)
Q41 Facebook
(1) (2)/ (3) (4)
(5) (6)/ (7)
/() (8)/
(9) (10) (11) (12)
(13)() (14)()
45
Cronbachs
0.7 0.35Cronbachs 0.7
0.7 0.6
(2008)
30
30 Cronbachs
3-5-1
3-5-1
Cronbachs
vs. .877 30 5
vs. .510 30 2
vs. .942 30 5
vs. .803 30 5
Cronbachs >.5
4100.6
3-5-2
46
3-5-2
Cronbachs
vs. .920 410 5
vs. .676 410 2
vs. . 905 410 5
vs. . 949 410 5
vs. .939 410 5
vs. .606 410 2
vs. .916 410 2
vs. .910 410 2
47
Cronbachs
SPSS
T
Pearson
(biserial correlation analysis )
48
my3q (http://www.my3q.com)
413
410
206
50.2%20449.8%18~25
22755.4%26~34162
39.5%18~34
13332.4%
()293 71.5%
4-1-1
4-1-1
(%)
206 50.2%
204 49.8%
13-17 3 0.7%
18-25 227 55.4%
26-34 162 39.5%
35-44 16 3.9%
45-54 2 0.5%
29 7.1%
12 2.9%
31 7.6%
22 5.4%
92 22.4%
2 .5%
133 32.4%
http://www.my3q.com/49
4-1-1 ()
() 36 8.8%
53 12.9%
() 20 4.9%
() 293 71.5%
() 9 23.7%
5
171 41.7%Facebook
228 55.6%Facebook
124 30.2%
Facebook5
273 66.6%(
)24158.8%
50%Facebook
/16239.5%
13322.7%(
)12430.2%4-1-2
4-1-2
(%)
3 .7%
-1 9 2.2%
- 20 4.9%
- 24 5.9%
- 65 15.9 %
- 68 16.6%
- 50 12.2%
171 41.7%
Facebook 228 55.6%
124 30.2%
40 9.8%
50
4-1-2 ()
6 1.5%
12 2.9%
124 30.2%
Facebook -1 119 29%
- 40 9.8%
- 36 8.8%
- 35 8.5%
- 17 4.1%
- 11 2.7%
28 6.8%
273 66.6%
/ 86 20.9%
133 22.7%
91 22.2%
110 26.9%
/ 71 17.3%
/ 162 39.5%
()
/ 24 5.7%
34 8.3%
22 5.3%
4 1%
19 4.6%
() 241 58.8%
124 30.2%
()
51
(
)
4-2-1 4-2-2
(F=1.524p>.05df=3)
4-2-1
One-Way ANOVA
166 3.07 .851
114 3.52 .620
99 3.71 .616 F=1.52p>.05
31 4.01 .774 df=3
Total 410 3.42 .796
p
52
p
53
t 4-2-4 3.75 3.02
Levene (F=2.838p>.05)
t
(t=10.432 p
54
4-2-5
(F=1.887p>.05df=3)
4-2-5
One-Way ANOVA
166 1.47 .407
F=1.887p>.05
df=3
114 1.30 .368
99 1.24 .353
31 1.24 .338
Total 410 1.35 .391
p
55
4-2-6
Scheffe
A>B***
A>C***
A>D***
A>E***
p
56
4-2-8
82.1% 17.9%
44.6%
55.4%
X2
(1)=62.980p
57
/ /
4-3-1
1.99 .975 410
2.32 1.289 410
1.32 .469 410
1.45 .498 410
3.74 .659 410
3.89 .708 410
3.23 .792 410
3.37 .775 410
3.42 .752 410
3.5 .789 410
Pearson 4-3-2
.079
(r=.079p>.05N=410)
.134(r=.134p
58
-.189
(r=-.189p
59
Pearson 4-3-4
.231
(r=.231p
60
N=410)
-.042
(r=-.042p >.05N=410)
-.124
(r=-.124p
61
4-3-6
Pearson ()
.126 .017*
.233 .000***
-.110 .026*
-.250 .000***
p
62
()
H3-1H4-1 H4-3 H3-2 H3-12
H4-2H4-4 H4-12
63
my3q(http://www.my3q.com)
410
50%(50.2%49.8%)
18-25 227 55.4% 26-34
162 39.5% 133 32.4%
92 22.4% FIND eMarketer
Facebook Facebook 18-25
26-34 (FIND, 2009)()
293 71.5%
5
171 41.7% 55.4% 18-25
228 55.6%
Facebook 124 30.2%
ARO 14.56
Facebook Facebook
(66.6%)(58.8%)/(39.5%)(30.2%)
(26.9%)
http://www.my3q.com/64
4-4-1
4-4-1 (1)
H1
H1-1
H1-2
H1-3
H1-4
H2
H2-1
H2-2
H2-3
H2-4
()
65
1.
(3.743.89)
2.
3.
4-4-2
4-4-2 (2)
H3
H3-1
H3-2
H3-3
H3-4
H3-5
66
H3-6
H3-7
H3-8
H3-9
H3-10
H3-11
H3-12
H4
H4-1
H4-2
H4-3
H4-4
H4-5
H4-6
H4-7
H4-8
H4-9
H4-10
H4-11
67
H4-12
68
410
18-34 ()
41.7% 30.2%
Facebook Facebook
Facebook Facebook
(66.6%)(58.8%)/(39.5%)
(30.2%)(26.9%)
Facebook FIND eMarketer Facebook
ARO N
Tapscott 1978 N
Bergendahl N
(digital native)
(2009)
Facebook FIND Universal McCann
58.8%()30.2%()3
3 Facebook 30 2009 8
69
Granovetter(1973)
Wirtz Chew (2002)
Cartwright(1994)
(Wright, 2000)
(
2001)
Holden
(Holden et al., 2006)
70
Granovetter (1973)
(Friedman & Friedman, 1979; Swartz, 1984)
McPherson et al. (2001)
Facebook 2007 Beacon
Facebook Zuckerberg 2009
Facebook Facebook
71
Facebook Zuckerberg
(2010)
McLuhan (1964)(communication technology is an extension
of the human mind)
eMarketer200989
86%Facebook5-1-1
(eMarketer, 2009)
72
(2009)
(2009)
eMarketer20097Facebook
52%46%
(eMarketer, 2009)
5-1-120098-9
eMarketer (2009). Community/ social media tools that US online retailers
recently use or plan to use, August-September, 2009. 2009.10.27
http://www.emarketer.com
FINDeMarketerFacebook
50
55
55
65
86
0 20 40 60 80 100
Viral videos
Blogs
Customer reviews
Twitter publishing
Facebook fan page ()
http://www.emarketer.com/73
Google Facebook Twitter
------ MIC ( )
(2009)
4
PEJ(2010)
2010 2010 1 4-8
16%
beautifulpeople.com
5000
4 Facebook 11 3
74
( PEJ, 2010)
Web2.0 Pew Research Center
Rosenstiel
(Rosenstiel, 2009)
Beautifulpeople.com
(
)
75
76
410
77
78
(2004)---
(2009.10.23)Facebook A21
(2008)Web2.0
(Goossen, R. J. [2008]. E-Preneur. US: McGraw-Hill
Education.)
(2009.10.21)A8
(2001)
(2009.7.9)A14
(2009.8.9)Facebook30AA1
(2009.07.23)FacebookC6
(1990)
(2001)
(1990)
(2000)(Gladwell, M.
[2000]. The tipping point : How little things can make a big difference. US: Little
Brown.)
(2006)(
95DOH95-HP-1601)
(2010)Facebook188:102-105
(2009)N
(Tapscott, D. [2009]. Grown up digital: How
the net generation is changing your world. US: McGraw-Hill Education.)
http://www.books.com.tw/exep/pub_book.php?pubid=mcgrawhttp://www.books.com.tw/exep/pub_book.php?pubid=mcgrawhttp://www.books.com.tw/exep/pub_book.php?pubid=mcgrawhttp://search.books.com.tw/exep/prod_search_author.php?key=Richard%20J.%20Goossenhttp://search.books.com.tw/exep/prod_search_author.php?key=%BB%F4%AB%E4%BD%E5http://search.books.com.tw/exep/prod_search_author.php?key=Malcolm%20Gladwellhttp://search.books.com.tw/exep/prod_search_author.php?key=%C3%B9%C4%A3%A9v%A1B%B6%C0%A8%A9%AC%C2%A1B%BD%B2%A7%BB%A9%FAhttp://www.books.com.tw/exep/pub_book.php?pubid=mcgrawhttp://search.books.com.tw/exep/prod_search_author.php?key=Don%20Tapscotthttp://search.books.com.tw/exep/prod_search.php?cat=F01&key=Grown%20Up%20Digital%A1GHow%20the%20Net%20Generation%20is%20Changing%20Your%20Worldhttp://search.books.com.tw/exep/prod_search.php?cat=F01&key=Grown%20Up%20Digital%A1GHow%20the%20Net%20Generation%20is%20Changing%20Your%20World79
(2009.4.6)
2009.11.09
http://financenews.sina.com/sinacn/000-000-107-115/2009-04-06/17301048804.
html.
(2009)Facebook
2009/11/20 http://www.bnext.com.tw/article/view/cid/0/id/12892.
(FIND) (2009.10.9)Facebook
2009.11.3
http://www.find.org.tw/find/home.aspx?page=news&id=5610.
(FIND) (2009.7.27)2009/10/30
http://www.find.org.tw/find/home.aspx?page=news&id=5547.
(FIND) (2009.8.26)Universal McCann
2009.11.3
http://www.find.org.tw/find/home.aspx?page=news&id=5568.
(FIND) (2009.8.19)
2009/10/07
http://www.find.org.tw/find/home.aspx?page=news&id=5563.
(2009)Weak Ties2009903
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking.
(2009)Facebook
2009.11.24http://www.bnext.com.tw/article/view/tag/Facebook/id/12767
2009/11/11.
(2009.9.17) Facebook
2009.9.28http://n.yam.com/chinatimes/computer/200909/20090917568046.html.
BBC NEWS (2007). 15 millions Facebook may be worth $15bn. Retrieved Oct. 25,
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7061398.stm.
ComeScore (2009). ComeScore website. Retrieved Nov. 25, from
http://www.comscore.com/.
eMarketer (2009). Community/ social media tools that US online retailers recently use
or plan to use, August-September, 2009. Retrieved Oct. 27, from
http://www.emarketer.com.
eMarketer (2009). Marketing on social networksBranding, buying and beyond.
eMarketer. Retrieved Nov. 3, from
http://www.emarketer.com/Reports/All/Emarketer_2000593.aspx.
Checkfacebook (2009). Facebook taiwan user distribution. Retrieved Nov. 20, from
http://financenews.sina.com/sinacn/000-000-107-115/2009-04-06/17301048804.htmlhttp://financenews.sina.com/sinacn/000-000-107-115/2009-04-06/17301048804.htmlhttp://www.bnext.com.tw/article/view/cid/0/id/12892http://www.find.org.tw/find/home.aspx?page=news&id=5610http://www.find.org.tw/find/home.aspx?page=news&id=5547http://www.find.org.tw/find/home.aspx?page=news&id=5568http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networkinghttp://www.bnext.com.tw/article/view/tag/Facebook/id/12767%202009/11/11http://www.bnext.com.tw/article/view/tag/Facebook/id/12767%202009/11/11http://www.bnext.com.tw/article/view/tag/Facebook/id/12767%202009/11/11http://n.yam.com/chinatimes/computer/200909/20090917568046.htmlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7061398.stmhttp://www.comscore.com/http://www.emarketer.com/http://www.emarketer.com/Reports/All/Emarketer_2000593.aspx80
http://www.checkfacebook.com/.
Facebook (2009). Facebook website. Retrieved Nov. 21, from
http://www.facebook.com.
Hardy (2008). The value of social media for business. Retrieved Oct. 10, from
http://www.slideshare.net/mazphd/the-value-of-social-media-for-business-presen
tation.
InsightXplorer (2009)
15Facebook2009.10.30
http://www.insightxplorer.com/news/news_10_27_09.html.
InsightXplorer (2009)
Facebook2009.10.30
http://www.insightxplorer.com/news/news_10_27_09.html.
Laly (2009.9.7). Social media a new way to market products. The Washington Times,
Retrieved Oct. 10, from
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/07/social-media-a-new-way-to-
market-products/.
Pew Research Center (2009). Pew internet & American life project. Retrieved Nov.
25, from http://www.pewinternet.org/.
PEJ (2010). Social media leads with sex and love: January 4-8, 2010. Retrieved Jan,
19, from
http://www.journalism.org/index_report/social_media_leads_sex_and_love.
Razorfish (2009). Social media is helping established brands. But how about everyone
else? Retrieved Nov. 25, from http://econsultancy.com/blog/4952-feed.
TechCrunch (2009). TechCrunch website. Retrieved Nov. 21, from
http://www.techcrunch.com/.
http://www.checkfacebook.com/http://www.facebook.com/http://www.slideshare.net/mazphd/the-value-of-social-media-for-business-presentationhttp://www.slideshare.net/mazphd/the-value-of-social-media-for-business-presentationhttp://www.insightxplorer.com/news/news_10_27_09.htmlhttp://www.insightxplorer.com/news/news_10_27_09.htmlhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/07/social-media-a-new-way-to-market-products/http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/07/social-media-a-new-way-to-market-products/http://www.pewinternet.org/http://econsultancy.com/blog/4952-feedhttp://www.techcrunch.com/81
Arndt, J. (1967). Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new
product. Journal of Marketing Research, 4(8), 291-295.
Assael, H. (1995). Consumer behavior and marketing action (5th
ed.) . New York
University.
Bansal, H., & Voyer, P. (2000). Word-of-mouth processes within a services
purchase decision context. Journal of Service Research, 3(2), 166-177.
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1969). Interpersonal attraction. Mass : Addison
Wseley.
Bettman, J. R., & Whan, P. (1980). Effects of prior knowledge and experience and
phase of the choice process on consumer decision processes: A protocol analysis.
Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), 234-248.
Bristor, J. M. (1990). Enhanced explanations of word of mouth communications: The
power of relationships. Research in Consumer Behavior, 4, 51-83.
Brown, J., & Reingen, P. (1987). Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior.
Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 350-362.
Burt, R. (1995). Structural holes: The social structure of competition.UK: Harvard
University Press.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of
source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39, 752-766.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American
Journal of Sociology, 94 (Supplement), 95-120.
Crane, F. G., & Lynch, J. E. (1988). Consumer selection of physician and dentist: An
examination of choice criteria and cue usage. Journal of Health Care Marketing,
8, 16-19.
Cunningham, W. H., Cunningham, I. C., et al. (1977). The ipsative process to reduce
response set bias. Public Opinion Quaterly, 41(3), 379-384.
Derbaix, C., & Vanhamme, J. (2003). Inducing word-of-mouth by eliciting surprise- a
pilot investigation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(1), 99-116.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook
friends: Social capital and college students use of online social network sites.
[Electronic Version] from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html.
Engel, J. F., Kollat, D. T., & Blackwell, R. D. (1968). Consumer behavior
(pp.387-401). Now York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Engel, J. F., Robert, J., Kegerreis, & Roger, D. B.(1969). Word-of-mouth
communication by the innovator. Journal of Marketing, 33(3), 15-19.
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html82
Engel, J. F., Roger, D.B., & Paul, W. M. (1990). Consumer behavior. New York:
Dryden Press.
Feldman, S. P., & Spencer, M.C. (1965). The effect of personal influence in the
selection of consumer services. In P. D. Benett (Eds.), Proceedings of the fall
conference of the american marketing association (pp. 440-452). Chicago:
American Marketing Association.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Frenzen, J., & Kent N. (1993). Structure, cooperation, and the flow of market
information. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 360-375.
Gelb, B. & Johnson, M. (1995). Word-of-mouth communication: Causes and
consequences. Journal of Health Care Marketing, 15(3), 54-58.
Gilbert, E., & Karahalios, K. (2009). Predicting tie strength with social media.
[Electronic Version] from
http://social.cs.uiuc.edu/papers/pdfs/chi09-tie-gilbert.pdf.
Gilly, M. C., Graham, O. L., Wolfinbarger, M. F., & Laura, J. Y. (1998). A dyadic
study of interpersonal information search. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 26(2), 83-100.
Goldenberg, J., Libai, B., & Muller, E. (2001). Talk of the network: A complex
systems look at the underlying process of word-of-mouth. Marketing Letters,
12(3), 211-223.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology,
78(6), 1360-1380.
Granovetter, M. S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P.
V. Mardsen & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 105-130).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hanson, W. A. (2000). Principles of internet marketing. Ohio: South-Western College
Publishing.
Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social
network sites. [Electronic Version] from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/hargittai.html.
Holden, R., Fabrigar, L., & MacDonald, T. (2006). The personal acquaintance
measure: A tool for appraising ones acquaintance with any person. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 833-847.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelly, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion.
CT: Yale University Press.
Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by
people in the flow of mass communications. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
http://social.cs.uiuc.edu/papers/pdfs/chi09-tie-gilbert.pdfhttp://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/hargittai.html83
Kiel, G. C., & Roger, A. L. (1981). Dimensions of consumer information seeking
behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(2), 233-239.
King, K. W., & Haefner, J. E. (1988). An investigation of the external physician
search processes. Journal of Health Care Marketing, 26, 99-115.
Kotler, P. (1994). Marketing management (8th
ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
International, Inc.
Lavidge, R., & Gary, S. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of advertising
effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25, pp.59-62.
Lin, N., & Ensel, W. M., et al. (1981). Social resources and strength of ties: Structural
factors in occupational status attainment. American Sociological Review, 46(4),
393-405.
Marney, J. (1995). Selling in tongues. Marketing Magazine, 100(38), pp. 14.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in
social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
McQuail, D., & Windfall, S. (1993). Communication models: for the study of mass
communication. NY: Longman Publishing.
Mitchell, A. A., & Dacin, P. A. (1996). The assessment of alternative measures of
consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(3), 219-239.
Murray, K. B. (1991). An empirical determination of service products and consumer
perception of their relative risk. College of Business Administration,
Northeastem University.
Roberson, T. S. (1976). Low-commitent consumer behavior. Journal of Advertising
Research, 16,19-24.
Rogers, E., & Bhowmik, D. (1971). Homophily-heterophily: Relational concepts for
communication research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 34(4), 523-538.
Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Silk, A. J. (1966). Overlap among self-designated opinion leaders: A study of selected
dental products and services. Journal of Marketing Research, 3(3), 255-259.
Silverman, G. (1997). How to harness the awesome power of word of mouth. Direct
Marketing-Internet Marketing, 60(7), 32-37.
Uzzi, B. (1999). Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: How social
relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. American Sociological
Review, 64(4), 481-505.
Viswanath, B., Mislove, A., Cha, W., & Gummadi, K. (2009). On the evolution of
user interaction in facebook. [Electronic Version] from
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1592675.
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=159267584
Wellman, B., & Wortley, S. (1990). Different strokes from different folks:
Community ties and social support. The American Journal of Sociology, 96(3),
558-588.
Wilson, C., Boe, B., Sala, A., & Puttaswamy, K. (2009). User interactions in social
networks and their implications. [Electronic Version] from
http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~bowlin/pdf/interaction-eurosys09.pdf .
Wirtz, J., & Chew, P. (2002). The effects of incentives, deal proneness, satisfaction
and tie strength on word-of-mouth behaviour. International Journal of Industry
Management, 13(2), 141-162.
York, E., Zmuda, N., & Mullman, J. (2009). Package-goods players warm up slowly
to the social-media scene. Advertising Age, 80(13), 3-22.
Ziethaml, V. (1981). How consumer evaluation processes differ between goods and
services. In A. J. H. Donnelly & W. R. George (Eds.), Marketing of sciences (pp.
186-190). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~bowlin/pdf/interaction-eurosys09.pdf85
_______
()
!
!
1. facebook
(1) (2)
/
2. /
(1) (2) (3) (4)
3. /
(1) 1 (2) 2-6 (3) 1 (4) 2-6 (5)
7
4. /
(1) (2)
86
5. /
facebook ()
(1) (2)
vs.
/
6.
7.
8.
9
10.
vs.
/
11.
(1) (2)
87
12.
(1) (2)
vs. Facebook
()
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
88
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
89
vs. Facebook
()
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
90
34.
(1) (2)
35.
(1) 13-17 (2) 18-25 (3) 26-34 (4) 35-44
(5) 45-54 (5) 55-65
36.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
(7) (8) (9)() (10)
37.
(1)() (2)() (3)()
38.
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(5) (6) (7)
(8)
39. Facebook
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
40. Facebook
(1) (2)- (3)- (4)
- (5)- (6)- (7)-
(8)
41. Facebook ()
(1) (2)/ (3) (4) (5)
(6)/ (7)/
() (8)/ (9)
(10) (11) (12) (13)() (14)
()