企業形象和可信度代表整個品牌及產品的所有資訊，故企業形象高者，其總體評價較高、知覺品質也較高。因為消費者對產品的所有資訊，為知覺品質的來源，而代表整體形象的品牌，也能帶來這樣的無形資訊，所以當某一品牌的整體形象較其它品牌為高時，消費者即使在未使用前，也會有認為此品牌的產品有較好的品質或功效。
根據展望理論指出，當決策情境在邏輯上完全相同，但陳述方式不同時，人們會有不同的決策偏好。當各種選項以「獲得」的敘述方式呈現時，人們會為了確保利益的獲得而成為風險趨避者(risk-averse)，因而會偏向選擇可靠的策略；但當各種選項以「損失」的敘述方式呈現時，人們會轉變為風險喜好者(risk-prone)，因而會偏向選擇有風險的策略。此外，當消費者缺乏產品屬性訊息時，企業可信度高的公司對於購買意願會有顯著正面的影響。本論文擬以保濕產品為例，透過實驗設計法來檢驗此主張，主要擬探討正負面產品訊息框架與企業可信度對消費產品知覺品質與購買意願之影響。
本研究結果顯示1.企業可信度的確會對知覺品質和購買意願有正向影響 2. 知覺品質在企業可信度與購買意願之間存在中介效果 。企業形象通常被消費者作為評價產品品質的外部線索，並藉此推論或維持對產品的知覺品質。塑造品牌形象可幫助建立品牌和消費者間的關係，即品牌關係有效提升消費者對此品牌的知覺品質，進而提升消費者購買意願。

Corporate image and credibility represent the brand and product. The higher corporate image is, the higher overall evaluation is. What consumers concern about products is source of perceived quality and brand image, mostly intangible information. When the overall image of a brand is high, consumers will think the products have better quality even they have no experience before. According to Prospect theory, people often choose different decision options in terms of different scenario descriptions, even though the logics behind the scenarios are the same. The theory indicates that people are risk-averse when a decision problem is formulated in terms of gain and risk-prone when the problem is formulated in terms of loss. In addition, consumers often turn to shop with firms of high corporate credibility when there is no sufficient product-attribute information for them to refer to during shopping. Using moisturizer as an example, this thesis aims to examine whether this claim is true by an experimental framing approach. The purpose is to investigate whether product attribute information and corporate credibility impact on consumers’ perceived quality and purchase intention. This research finds that: 1. Corporate credibility has positive impacts on perceived quality and purchase intention. 2. The relationship between corporate credibility and purchase intention is mediated by perceived quality.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1970). The prediction of behavior from attitudinal and normative variables. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 466–487.

Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D. and Miniard, P. W. (1995). Consumer Behavior. 8th ed. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden.

Fombrum, C.J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image.Cambridge, MA:Harvard Business School Press.

Fomburm, C.J. (1997), The Reputation Landscape.London: Henry Stewart.

Garvin, D. A. (1983). Quality on the Line. Harvard Business Review ,61, 65-75.

Gifford, K., & Bernard, J. C. (2006). Influencing consumer purchase likelihood of
organic food. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30, 155-163.

Goldberg, M. E. and Hartwick, J. (1990). The effects of advertising reputation and extremity of advertising claim on advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 2 , 172-179.

Holbrook, M. B. and Corfman, K. P. (1985). Quality and value in the consumption experience: Phaedrus rides again. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 31-57.

Kahneman,D. and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision underrisk. Econometrica, 47, 263-292.

Kahneman,D. and Tversky, A. (1986). Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions.Journal of Business 59,251-278.

Krishnamurthy, P., Carter, P. and Blair, E. (2001). Attribute Framing and Goal
Framing Effects in Health Decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 85,2, 382-399.

Lafferty, B. A. and Goldsmith, R. E.( 1999). Corporate credibility’s role in consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions when a high versus a low credibility endorser is used in the ad. Journal of Business Research, 44, 109-116.

Levin, P. and Gaeth, G. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 3, 374-378.

Levin, P. and Gaeth, G. (1998). All frames are not created equal:
A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior &
Human Decision Processes, 76, 149-188.

Levin, I. P., S. L. Schneider, & G. J. Gaeth. 1998. “All Frames are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76: 149-188.

Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27,361–367.

Meyerowitz, B. E. and Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on
breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 500-510.

Newell, S. J. and Goldsmith, R. E. (2001). The development of a scale to measure perceived corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 52, 235-247.

Olshavsky, R. W. (1985). Perceived Quality in Consumer Decision Making: An Integrated Theoretical Perspective”, in Perceived Quality, Jacoby, J. Olson, ed., Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 3-29.

Robberson, M., & Rogers, R. (1988). Beyond fear appeals: Negative and positive persuasive appeals to health and self-esteem. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 277-287.

Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 3–19.

Ruth, J. A. and York, A. (2004). Framing information to enhance corporate reputation: The impact of message source, information type, and reference point. Journal of Business Research, 57, 14– 20.

Shamdasani, P. N., Stanaland, A. J. S., & Tan, J. (2001). Location, location, location: Insights for advertising placement on the web. Journal of Advertising Research, 41,4, 7-21.

Smith, G. E. (1996). Framing in Advertising and the Moderating Impact of
Consumer Education. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(5), 49-64.

Steenkamp , J. E. M. (1990). Conceptual model of the quality perception process. Journal of Business Research, 21, 4, 309–333.

V. A. Zeithaml, (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: ameans -end model and synthesis of evidence. The Journal of Marketing, 2-22.

Y. Zhang and R. Buda (1999). Moderating effects of need for cognition on responses to positively versus negatively framed advertising messages. Journal of Advertising, 28, 2, 1-15.