數以百萬的消費者每天都在從事與「希望」相關的消費行為，這些充滿「希望」的消費行為包羅萬象，包括像購買樂透彩、買股票、嚐試千奇百怪的減肥產品、試用各種醫藥偏方、進行美容手術、或是求助密醫等，許多廠商銷售的已非產品或服務本身，而是在販賣「希望」給消費者。然而就像市場中所有的商品一樣，並非每一個消費者都會消費某一項具有「希望」的商品，只有在某些情況下，市場中這些能幫助人充滿「希望」的商品，才能夠成功地銷售給部分特定的消費者。
因此本研究透過實驗的方式，進行兩次實驗，欲了解上述現象的原因，探討不同的消費者對於產品資訊的判斷為何有所不同，甚至部分消費者對於產品資訊的評估為何產生偏差的原因，並推測造成偏差判斷的原因是否與一個跟「希望」相關的變數-自我效能有關，再進一步觀察個人自我效能程度之增強或減弱是否會造成消費者對於產品資訊產生動機推論的對應機制，以至於消費者會從對個人目標達成有利的觀點進行產品資訊的評估並下達最後有利個人的結論。
本研究之研究目的如下：(1)觀察自我效能減弱之消費者對於產品之廣告內容可靠度、產品效果、以及購買意願是否會明顯高於自我效能增強之消費者。(2)探討具有可信度的廣告訴求是否會令消費者認為廣告內容較具有可靠度、產品較有效果、以及具有較高的購買意願。(3)分析自我效能與廣告訴求對於產品之廣告內容可靠度、產品效果、以及購買意願是否存在交互效果。(4)提供業者與消費者相關的應用與建議。
本研究所得之重要結論分述如下：
(1) 消費者之自我效能一旦減弱，將判斷產品的廣告內容較為可靠、產品較有效，且對產品具有較高之購買意願。
(2) 具有可信度的廣告訴求將使消費者判斷產品的廣告內容較為可靠、產品較有效，且對產品具有較高之購買意願。
(3) 自我效能增強之消費者能分辨出具有可信度的廣告訴求；自我效能減弱之消費者則無法分辨出何種廣告訴求較具有可信度。

Millions of consumers engage in the behaviors that evoke “hope” everyday. Those behaviors include buying lottery tickets, investing in stock market, trying all kinds of losing weight products, taking different medicine, undergoing cosmetic surgery, or seeking renowned physicians. Many merchandisers not simply sell the products or service to consumers but sell “hope” to them. And just like all the other merchandises in the market, a product can be sold only when there is a consumer who needs it.
Therefore, this study wants to investigate the reason why different consumers would make different judgments about the same product and its information. We would like to know why some consumers even form the biased evaluation about the product. We assume that all these phenomena may be connected to a variable, self-efficacy, which is related to the concept of hope. We further observe would different degrees of self-efficacy cause consumers to engage in motivated reasoning. We would like to find out is this the reason why they process the products information in a self-serving way and make the specific conclusion they wish to draw.
The main purposes of this article are: (1) To observe the impact of reduced self-efficacy. To see if consumers whose self-efficacy is reduced will have more positive judgments about advertising, product effectiveness, and purchase intention than consumers whose self-efficacy is enhanced. (2) To examine if higher the reliability of advertising claims, higher the credits that consumers would give to the advertising, product effectiveness, and the purchase intention. (3) To investigate if there is any interaction effect between self-efficacy and advertising claims on advertising, product effectiveness, and purchase intention. (4) To provide implications and suggestions for marketers and consumers. The main results are as follows:
(1)Consumers whose self-efficacy is reduced would judge the advertising is more credible and the product is more effective. Thus, they would have higher purchase intention compare to consumers whose self-efficacy is enhanced.
(2)Compare to unreliable advertising claims, consumers would evaluate the advertising context as more credible, the product as more effective, and they would have higher purchase intention toward the reliable claims.
(3)Compare to consumers whose self-efficacy is reduced, those for whose self-efficacy is enhanced could tell the reliability of the advertising claims.

【中文部分】
洪綾君譯，行銷研究，台灣西書出版社印行，初版，民國88年1月。
黃俊英，企業研究方法，東華書局印行，初版，民國83年10月。

【英文部分】
Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2006). See What You Want to See: Motivational Influences on Visual Perception. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 91(4), 612-625.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social Cognitive Theory of Self-Regulation. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. San Francisco: Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26.

Bates, B. R., Romina, S., Ahmed, R., & Hopson, D. (2006). The Effect of Source Credibility on Consumers' Perceptions of the Quality of Health Information on the Internet. Medical Informatics & the Internet in Medicine, 31(1), 45-52.

Bohner, G., Einwiller, S., Herb, H.-P., & Siebler, F. (2003). When Small Means Comfortable: Relations Between Product Attributes in Two-Sided Advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 454-463.

Chaudhuri, A. (2002). A Study of Emotion and Reason in Products and Services. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 1(3), 267.

Colleen A. , Joseph S. , Susan R. , Wayne F. , James O. (2000). Health Behavior Models. The International Electronic Journal of Health Education, 3 (Special Issue): 180-193.

De Mello, G., Macinnis, D. J., & Stewart, D. W. (2007). Threats to Hope: Effects on Reasoning about Product Information. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 153-161.

Ditto, Peter H. and David F. Lopez (1992). Motivated Skepticism - Use of Differential Decision Criteria for Preferred and Nonpreferred Conclusions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 63 (4), 568-584.

Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated Skepticism: Use of Differential Decision Criteria for Preferred and Nonpreferred Conclusions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 63(4), 568-584.

Dunning, D., & Story, A. L. (1991). Depression, Realism, and the Overconfidence Effect: Are the Sadder Wiser When Predicting Future Actions and Events? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 61(4), 521-532.

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Standford, CA: Standford University Press.

Festinger, L. & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 58, 203-211.

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Social Cognition and Social perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 44(1), 155.

Gollwitzer, P. M., & Moskowitz, G. B.(1996). Goal Effects on Action and Cognition. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 361-399). New York: Guilford.

Hoch, S. J., & Ha, Y. W. (1986). Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 221-233.

Jin, C. H., & Villegas, J. (2007). Consumer Responses to Advertising on the Internet: The Effect of Individual Difference on Ambivalence and Avoidance. CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 10(2), 258-266.

Jisu, H., DeLorme, D. E., & Reid, L. N. (2004). Media Credibility and Informativeness of Direct- to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising. Health Marketing Quarterly,
21(3), 27-61.

Klayman, Joshua, and Young Wan Ha (1987). Confirmation, Disconfirmation, and Information in Hypothesis Testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211-228.

Kongsompong, K. (2006). Cultural Diversities Between Singapore and Australia: An Analysis on Consumption Behavior. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 9(2), 87-92.

Kruglanski, A.W. (1980). Lay Epistemology Process and Content. Psychological Review, 87, 70-87.

Kruglanski, A. W. & Klar, Y. (1987). A View from the Bridge: Synthesizing the Consistency and Attribution Paradigms from A Lay Epistemic Perspective. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 211-241.

Kunda, Z. (1990). The Case for Motivated Reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480.

Kundra, Z., & Sinclair, L. (1999). Motivated Reasoning with Stereotypes: Activation, Application, and Inhibition. Psychological Inquiry, 10(1), 12.

Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer.

Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Hope: An Emotion and A Vital Coping Resource Against Despair. Social Research, 66(2), 653-678.

Lord, C.G., Lee R., & Mark L., (1979). Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109.

MacInnis, D. J., & de Mello, G. E. (2005). The Concept of Hope and Its Relevance to Product Evaluation and Choice. Journal of Marketing, 69(1), 1-14.

Miller, D.T. & Ross, M. (1975). Self-Serving Biases in Attribution of Causality: Fact or Fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213-225.

Nisbett, R. E. & Ross, L. (1980). Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Patch, C. S., Tapsell, L. C., & Williams, P. G. (2005). Attitudes and Intentions toward Purchasing Novel Foods Enriched with Omega-3 Fatty Acids. Journal of Nutrition
Education & Behavior, 37(5), 235-241.

Pornpitakpan, C. (2003). The Effect of Celebrity Endorsers' Perceived Credibility on Product Purchase Intention: The Case of Singaporeans. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 16(2), 55-74.

Pyszczynski, T., Jeff G. & Kathleen H. (1985). Maintaining Consistency Between Self-serving Beliefs and Available Data: A Bias in Information Processing. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 179-190.

Pyszczynski, T. & Greenberg, J. (1987). Toward an Integration of Cognitive and Motivational Perspectives on Social Inference: A Biased Hypothesis-Testing Model. Advances in experimental social psychology, 20, 297-340. New York: Academic Press.

Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Steven S. P., Frank R. K. & Susan P. M. (1998), Selective Hypothesis Testing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(2), 197-220.

Shapiro, J. M. (1993). Compulsive Buying and Self-Gifts: A Motivational Perspective. Advances in Consumer Research, 20(1), 557-557.

Shimanoff, Susan B. (1984). Commonly Named Emotions in Everyday Conversations. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 58 (2), 514.

Suzanne J. P. & Kristin B. (2007). Exploring the Role of Hope in Job Performance: Results from Four Studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Published Online.

Tetlock, P. E. & Levi, A. (1982). Attribution Bias: On the Inconclusiveness of the Cognition- Motivation Debate. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 68-88.

Vancouver, Jeffery B. (2005). The Depth of History and Explanation as Benefit and Bane for Psychological Control Theories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 38-52.

Wansink, B., & Cheney, M. M. (2005). Leveraging FDA Health Claims. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2), 386-398.