認知與傳播專題討論
Seminar in Cognition and Communication
學期
114-2
學分
2
學分
當期課號
534300
永久課號
HSCS30023
開課單位
傳播研究所
授課教師
羅仕宇
校區
光復
類別
選修
上課時間表
| 節 | 週一 |
|---|---|
3 10:10–11:00 | 認知與傳播專題討論 HB109 2 節連堂 |
4 11:10–12:00 |
* 根據陽明交大上課時間表所列
概述
本課程將透過論文閱讀，引導學生逐步建立研究假設，並進一步設計適當的研究方法以檢驗所提出之假設。
先修科目
需經授課教師同意
評分方式
課堂導讀 60% 作業 10%：共兩次，針對特定主題撰寫文獻探討。 研究計畫書 25%：包含文獻探討、研究方法（包含研究刺激與問卷題項，要到可以實際執行的地步），與預期結果，6/19前繳交。 課堂參與 5%
週次計畫
| 週次 | 主題 |
|---|---|
| 第 1 週 | Course Introduction |
| 第 2 週 | Emotion 1. Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of personality and social psychology, 39(6), 1161. 2. Bradley, M. M., Greenwald, M. K., Petry, M. C., & Lang, P. J. (1992). Remembering pictures: pleasure and arousal in memory. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(2), 379. 3. Rubin, D. C., & Talarico, J. M. (2009). A comparison of dimensional models of emotion: Evidence from emotions, prototypical events, autobiographical memories, and words. Memory, 17(8), 802-808. |
| 第 3 週 | Embodied Cognition Readings: 1. Goldinger, S. D., Papesh, M. H., Barnhart, A. S., Hansen, W. A., & Hout, M. C. (2016). The poverty of embodied cognition. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 23(4), 959-978. 2. Lo, S. Y., & Hsu, L. J. (2025). Embodying an avatar with a dissimilar appearance enhances insight problem solving. Scientific Reports. 3. Rahill, K. M., & Sebrechts, M. M. (2021). Effects of Avatar player-similarity and player-construction on gaming performance. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 4, 100131. 4. Lin, H., & Wang, H. (2014). Avatar creation in virtual worlds: Behaviors and motivations. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 213-218. |
| 第 4 週 | Media Richness Theory Readings: 1. Robert, L. P., & Dennis, A. R. (2005). Paradox of richness: A cognitive model of media choice. IEEE transactions on professional communication, 48(1), 10-21. 2. D'ambra, J., Rice, R. E., & O'connor, M. (1998). Computer-mediated communication and media preference: An investigation of the dimensionality of perceived task equivocality and media richness. Behaviour & information technology, 17(3), 164-174. 3. Maity, M., Dass, M., & Kumar, P. (2018). The impact of media richness on consumer information search and choice. Journal of Business Research, 87, 36-45. 4. Lu, Y., Kim, Y., Dou, X. Y., & Kumar, S. (2014). Promote physical activity among college students: Using media richness and interactivity in web design. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 40-50. |
| 第 5 週 | Social Presence Theory Readings: 1. Kreijns, K., Xu, K., & Weidlich, J. (2022). Social presence: Conceptualization and measurement. Educational psychology review, 34(1), 139-170. 2. Cummings, J. J., & Wertz, E. E. (2023). Capturing social presence: concept explication through an empirical analysis of social presence measures. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 28(1), zmac027. 3. Schultze, U., & Brooks, J. A. M. (2019). An interactional view of social presence: Making the virtual other “real”. Information Systems Journal, 29(3), 707-737. 4. Lu, B., Fan, W., & Zhou, M. (2016). Social presence, trust, and social commerce purchase intention: An empirical research. Computers in human behavior, 56, 225-237. |
| 第 6 週 | Perceived Agency 1. Wen, W., & Imamizu, H. (2022). The sense of agency in perception, behaviour and human–machine interactions. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(4), 211-222. 2. Zafari, S., & Koeszegi, S. T. (2021). Attitudes toward attributed agency: role of perceived control. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(8), 2071-2080. 3. Tapal, A., Oren, E., Dar, R., & Eitam, B. (2017). The sense of agency scale: A measure of consciously perceived control over one's mind, body, and the immediate environment. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1552. 4. Moretto, G., Walsh, E., & Haggard, P. (2011). Experience of agency and sense of responsibility. Consciousness and cognition, 20(4), 1847-1854. |
| 第 7 週 | （國定假日） |
| 第 8 週 | Fear Appeal Readings: 1. Nabi, R. L., Roskos-Ewoldsen, D., & Dillman Carpentier, F. (2008). Subjective knowledge and fear appeal effectiveness: Implications for message design. Health Communication, 23(2), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230701808327 2. Rogers, R. W., & Mewborn, C. R. (1976). Fear appeals and attitude change: Effects of a threat’s noxiousness, probability of occurrence, and the efficacy of coping responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(1), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.1.54 3. Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59(4), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276 4. Kim, H., Han, J. Y., So, J., & Seo, Y. (2020). An investigation of cognitive processing of fear appeal messages promoting HPV vaccination: predictors and outcomes of magnitude and valence of cognitive responses. Journal of Health Communication, 25(11), 885-894. Hw1: 在前半學期的主題中擇一進行文獻整理。 |
| 第 9 週 | Framing Effect Readings: 1. Lanier, J., Wang, D., & Xie, Y. (2025). The effect of probability and framing on the default effect in decision making under risk. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 33436. 2. Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of communication, 49(1), 103-122. 3. Ghasemi, O., Harris, A. J., & Newell, B. R. (2025). From preference shifts to information leaks: Examining Individuals' sensitivity to information leakage in the framing effect. Cognition, 258, 106087. 4. Rodríguez-Priego, N., Van Bavel, R., Vila, J., & Briggs, P. (2020). Framing effects on online security behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 527886. |
| 第 10 週 | Gamification Readings: 1. Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of human-computer studies, 74, 14-31. 2. dos Santos, L. F., Oliveira, W., Corrêa de Lima, A., de Castro Junior, A. A., & Hamari, J. (2025). The Effects of Gamification on Learners’ Engagement According to Their Gamification User Types: LF dos Santos et al. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1-21. 3. Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020). The gamification of learning: A meta-analysis. Educational psychology review, 32(1), 77-112. 4. Howard-Jones, P. A., Jay, T., Mason, A., & Jones, H. (2016). Gamification of learning deactivates the default mode network. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 1891. |
| 第 11 週 | Proteus Effect Readings: 1. The Hidden Face of the Proteus Effect: Deindividuation, Embodiment and Identification 2. Ratan, R., Boumis, J., McNeill, G., Desrochers, A., Taskas, S., Jang, D., & Makki, T. (2024). Examining the Proteus effect on misogynistic behavior induced by a sports mascot avatar in virtual reality. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 19659. 3. Messinger, P. R., Ge, X., Smirnov, K., Stroulia, E., & Lyons, K. (2019). Reflections of the extended self: Visual self-representation in avatar-mediated environments. Journal of Business Research, 100, 531-546. 4. Sherrick, B., Hoewe, J., & Waddell, T. F. (2014). The role of stereotypical beliefs in gender-based activation of the Proteus effect. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 17-24. |
| 第 12 週 | Stimulus-Organism-Response model 1. Park, J., & Jung, Y. (2024). Unveiling the dynamics of binge-scrolling: A comprehensive analysis of short-form video consumption using a Stimulus-Organism-Response model. Telematics and Informatics, 95, 102200. 2. Jacoby, J. (2002). Stimulus‐organism‐response reconsidered: an evolutionary step in modeling (consumer) behavior. Journal of consumer psychology, 12(1), 51-57. 3. Chen, C. C., & Yao, J. Y. (2018). What drives impulse buying behaviors in a mobile auction? The perspective of the Stimulus-Organism-Response model. Telematics and informatics, 35(5), 1249-1262. 4. Hao, Y., Hasna, M. F., & Abdul Aziz, F. (2024). The role of emotional mediation in visitor experiences in art tourism: based on stimulus-organism-response model. Current Psychology, 43(44), 34018-34034. |
| 第 13 週 | Psychological Reactance Readings: 1. Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication monographs, 72(2), 144-168. 2. Rosenberg, B. D., & Siegel, J. T. (2018). A 50-year review of psychological reactance theory: Do not read this article. Motivation Science, 4(4), 281. 3. Moyer-Gusé, E., & Nabi, R. L. (2010). Explaining the effects of narrative in an entertainment television program: Overcoming resistance to persuasion. Human communication research, 36(1), 26-52. 4. Clayton, R. B., Lang, A., Leshner, G., & Quick, B. L. (2019). Who fights, who flees? An integration of the LC4MP and psychological reactance theory. Media Psychology, 22(4), 545-571. |
| 第 14 週 | Computers Are Social Actors (CASA) Readings: 1. Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of social issues, 56(1), 81-103. 2. Heyselaar, E. (2023). The CASA theory no longer applies to desktop computers. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 19693. 3. Xu, K., & Lombard, M. (2017). Persuasive computing: Feeling peer pressure from multiple computer agents. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 152-162. 4. Wang, W. (2017). Smartphones as social actors? Social dispositional factors in assessing anthropomorphism. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 334-344. |
| 第 15 週 | Algorithm Aversion Readings: 1. Renier, L. A., Mast, M. S., & Bekbergenova, A. (2021). To err is human, not algorithmic–Robust reactions to erring algorithms. Computers in Human Behavior, 124, 106879. 2. Daschner, S., & Obermaier, R. (2022). Algorithm aversion? On the influence of advice accuracy on trust in algorithmic advice. Journal of Decision Systems, 31(sup1), 77-97. 3. Schaap, G., Bosse, T., & Hendriks Vettehen, P. (2024). The ABC of algorithmic aversion: Not agent, but benefits and control determine the acceptance of automated decision-making. AI & society, 39(4), 1947-1960. 4. Filiz, I., Judek, J. R., Lorenz, M., & Spiwoks, M. (2021). Reducing algorithm aversion through experience. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 31, 100524. |
| 第 16 週 | Introduction of Ethics Application and Thesis Writing Hw2: 在後半學期的主題中擇一進行文獻整理。 研究計畫書於6/19前繳交。 |
教科書
教師指定論文
Office Hours
- 時間
- 請與教師直接聯絡
- 聯絡方式
- Email: shihyulo@nycu.edu.tw