第一章緒論 -...

1

Facebook 2004 2 Mark Zuckerberg

Facebook Faceboo k

MySpace

Facebook

Hardy(2008) Facebook 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)

Facebook
http://www.checkfacebook.com/

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/)

Facebook

Facebook

(Social Networking Site SNS)

McQauil(1993)

SNS

Facebook

(reciprocity) (Valenzuela, Park & Kee, 2009)

Facebook

(1) (Information Connection)

Facebook

(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

Facebook

Coca-cola

(2009)

Facebook

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%20World

6

1-2-1

(2009)

2009.9.8

http://financenews.sina.com/sinacn/000-000-107-115/2009-04-06/17

301048804.html

Facebook

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.html

7

(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%

/

/

/

/

8

(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

Facebook Arrix

(Zmuda,

2009)

(Critical Mass)

Facebook

(Profile) (Post Wall)

Facebook

facebook

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)

18

(Granovetter, 1973)

Granovetter (1983)AB

A BC BC

( 2-2-4)

2-2-4

(2009)Weak Ties2009.9.03


B C B C

B C (Bridge)

B

C Granovetter

(1973) (Bridge)

(Bridge)

Granovetter (1973)

Facebook

(Wall)

19

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

Facebook (Real-Time)

(

)

(

)

Granovetter (1972)

(Strength of Ties)

(Lin, 1981)(Wellman & Wortley, 1990)(Burt, 1995)

(Wirtz & Chew, 2002)

27

Facebook

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)


Rogers Bhowmiks (1983)


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


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

Facebook

facebook

1.

4

(time of duration) (frequency) (intimacy)

(reciprocity)

2.

5

3.

4.

15

5.

6

6.

7 Facebook

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)

facebook

Facebook

()

Facebook

Facebook

Facebook

my3q(http://www.my3q.com/)

Facebook

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


www.facebook.com

3-4-3

3-4-3 Facebook


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)


Granovetter

(FIND) TNS and The Conference Board

( 3-4-4) Facebook

38

3-4-4 2009

(FIND) (2009)

2009/10/07


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/Reciprocity

39

Facebook (Wall) (Photo comments)

3-4-2

3-4-2(1)

Q2

/

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Q3

/ facebook

(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

()

Facebook

(

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


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%

/

/

/

/

44

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%

Facebook

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

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)

Facebook

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

Facebook

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

Facebook

410

18-34 ()

41.7% 30.2%

Facebook

Facebook

Facebook Facebook

Facebook Facebook

(66.6%)(58.8%)/(39.5%)

(30.2%)(26.9%)

Facebook

Facebook FIND eMarketer Facebook

ARO N

Tapscott 1978 N

Bergendahl N

(digital native)

(2009)

Facebook FIND Universal McCann

58.8%()30.2%()3

Facebook

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

Facebook

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)

Facebook

(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

Facebook

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 ( )

Facebook

(2009)

4

PEJ(2010)

2010 2010 1 4-8

16%

beautifulpeople.com

5000

Twitter

4 Facebook 11 3

74

( PEJ, 2010)

Web2.0 Pew Research Center

Rosenstiel

(Rosenstiel, 2009)

Beautifulpeople.com

(

)

76

Facebook

410

77

Facebook

Facebook

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%20World

79

(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


(FIND) (2009.8.26)Universal McCann

2009.11.3


(FIND) (2009.8.19)

2009/10/07


(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.aspx

80

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.html

82

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.html

83

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=1592675

84

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.pdf

85

_______

Facebook

Facebook

()

!

!

1. facebook

(1) (2)

/

Facebook

2. /

(1) (2) (3) (4)

3. /

facebook

(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)

()

第一章緒論 -...

Documents

Transcript of 第一章緒論 -...

第一章 緒論 -...

Documents

Transcript of 第一章 緒論 -...

第一章緒論 -...

Transcript of 第一章緒論 -...