過往研究指出當個體受到社會排斥威脅後，可能產生兩種相反的行為，一者是具攻擊性的行為，而另一者則是希冀與其他人連結之親和傾向。本研究提出社會排斥之兩階段模式，認為當個體受到排斥威脅時，會同時有兩種不同的行為反應，一個是『避免傷害』，當此反應被激發時，被排斥個體會展現出『戰或逃』的行為傾向；而另一個反應則為『尋求歸屬』，在此反應被激發時，被排斥個體則會展現出『親近與示好』的行為傾向。而個體會出現何種反應，端視其之後互動的對象本身的屬性而定。若後續互動對象與先前排斥者間具有高相似性，此拒絕相似線索會引發個體展現出較高的戰或逃行為。相對的，若是後續互動對象所具有的特性與其自身之特性具有高相似性，亦即具有接納相似線索時，個體則會出現較多的示好行為。而這種隨著後續屬性，個體會出現不同反應歷程的假設在已完成的四個實驗中獲得初步的驗證。 實驗一（83名實驗參與者）採取2 (社會排斥：有、無) × 5 (類別相似線索：高拒絕線索vs.中拒絕線索 vs.高接納線索 vs.中接納線索 vs. 中性線索)之混合設計，結果發現受社會排斥威脅者會有較高意願加入帶有高可能接受線索之團體、較不願意加入帶有高拒絕線索之團體。實驗二（47名實驗參與者）採取閾下觸發來操弄社會排斥威脅，顯示社會排斥的確會讓人加速處理那些與拒絕者與可能接受者相關之訊息。而實驗三（74名實驗參與者）重複驗證了實驗一之發現，並且發現受社會排斥威脅之參與者在反應時間上會較快決定拒絕帶有高拒絕線索之團體，也會較快決定加入帶有高接納線索的團體（兩者皆對比於對中性線索團體之決策反應時間）。 實驗四（75名實驗參與者）則採取2 (社會排斥：有、無) × 2 (認知負荷：高、低) × 3 (類別相似線索：高拒絕線索vs.高接納線索vs. 中性線索)之混合設計，並發現當被社會排斥者處於高認知負荷狀態時，他們雖然還是能使用拒絕線索來選擇團體，但卻不會使用接受線索，顯示拒絕相似性線索為較為優先之線索。 實驗五A（67名實驗參與者）則採取2 (社會排斥：有、無) × 2 (性格回饋：有、無) × 4 (類別相似線索：拒絕線索對象vs.接納線索對象vs. 中性線索對象vs.原拒絕者)之混合設計，並發現當被給予性格回饋之後，受社會排斥威脅者會對於帶有接納線索的對象有較高的評價。而實驗五B（31名實驗參與者）採取2 (社會排斥：有、無) × 4 (類別相似線索：拒絕線索對象vs.接納線索對象vs. 中性線索對象vs.原拒絕者)之混合設計，發現受到社會排斥威脅者會對於帶有拒絕線索的對象及原拒絕者都會有較低的評價。 而實驗六與七則認為當個體對於相似性線索的認知被去、再類別化作業改變時，個體的反應也應隨之改變。實驗六採取（51名實驗參與者）則採取3 (社會排斥組別：社會排斥一般作業組、社會排斥再類別化組、控制組) × 4 (類別相似線索：拒絕線索對象vs.接納線索對象vs. 中性線索對象vs.原拒絕者)之混合設計，並發現當受到社會排斥者完成再類別化作業後，比起完成一般作業的參與者，他們對於原先帶有拒絕線索對象的評價會提升，而他們亦會提升對於原拒絕者的評價，顯示再類別化作業可以讓受威脅者感知到互動對象跟自己可以共屬另一個有意義之團體、自己與互動對象是相連結的，因而提升對這些對象之評價。 實驗七採取（46名實驗參與者）則採取3 (社會排斥組別：社會排斥一般作業組、社會排斥去類別化組、控制組) × 4 (類別相似線索：拒絕線索對象vs.接納線索對象vs. 中性線索對象vs.原拒絕者)之混合設計，並發現去類別化作業可以削弱類別相似性線索，因此使得受排斥者降低對原先帶有接納線索之對象的評價，亦會提升原先帶有拒絕線索對象之評價。換言之，由於去類別化作用會降低被威脅個體與互動對象的連結感，亦即他們對於互動對象與自己的相似性知覺會降低，個體因而降低對此類對象之評價；另一方面，去類別化作用也會降低帶有拒絕線索對象以及原拒絕者的相似性知覺，因而提升對於此類對象之評價。 綜合以上所述，本研究以一系列之研究來檢驗：個體受到社會排斥後，後續互動對象身上之類別相似性線索如何影響受威脅者之反應傾向。實驗一至五發現，當個體被社會排斥之後，他們對於那些帶有拒絕線索的個體會展現出戰或逃的行為傾向，並對帶有接納線索的個體展現親近與示好之行為，而拒絕相似性線索較為優先。而實驗六及七分別使用『再類別化』及『去類別化』兩種作業來改變類別相似性線索，來改變受社會排斥威脅者對於接納線索的知覺使其後續行為隨之改變。 / Previous research shows that social exclusion may cause either fight-or-flight behavior toward innocent people or a substantial increase in affiliation behavior. A two-stage model is proposed to explain people’s reactions after experiencing social exclusion. For these threatened individuals, groups that resemble their rejecter would provoke a defensive attitude and hostile behaviors. These individuals also show hospitality to those groups that resemble themselves to gain inclusion. The former process is more primary than the other. Experiment 1 (83 participants) and 3 (74 participants) used a scenario story to manipulate social exclusion. Groups with different categorical cues categorical similarity cues were provided. The results suggested that people after experiencing social exclusion tended to reject groups that resemble to previous rejecter. By contrast, groups that fit the characteristics of the target person were much preferred and received more resources. The second experiment (47 participants) used subliming priming to manipulate social exclusion. Main dependent measure was the decision time of lexical decision task. As predicted, compared to participants in control condition (all priming words in random order), those in social exclusion condition (being primed with rejection-softball and inclusion-enjoy-learning) processed rejection associated words (related to the reject group) and acceptance associated words (related to the perspective group) significantly faster than no association words. Experiment 4 (75 participants) used a 2 (social exclusion vs. control condition) x 2 (cognitive load: heavy vs. light) x 3 (categorical similarity cues: high rejective cue, high perspective cue, irrelevant cue) mixed-design. The results indicated that the excluded participants who had a heavy cognitive load could only avoid groups that resemble the previous rejecter and showed no preference for groups that might be suitable for them. To defend is the primary process. From experiment 5A to experiment 7, cyberostracism was employed to manipulate social exclusion. Experiment 5A (67 participants) used a 2 (social exclusion: social exclusion condition vs. control condition) x 2 (personality feedback: feedback vs. no feedback) x 4 (categorical similarity cues: rejective cue, perspective cue, irrelevant cue, rejecter) mixed-design. It was found that only those who with perspective cue could receive better evaluation from excluded participants. Experiment 5B suggested that excluded participants would evaluate people with rejective cues worse than those who in control group. The experiment 6 and 7 used decategorization and recategorization task to change the perceptions of categorical similarity cues. Experiment 6 (51 participants) showed that recategorization task could weaken the effect of the rejective cue and thus excluded participants would give better evaluation to people with rejective cue than participants in social exclusion only condition. Experiment 7 (46 participants) suggested that decategorization task might weaken the effect of perspective cue and therefore the evaluation tended to decrease for people with perspective cue. Eight experiments provided convergent evidence to this study to suggest that categorical similarity cues of possible affiliated people could elicit different reactions from excluded people.

網路「線上促銷」，以鼓動線上購買，或是提供給網路使用者各式各樣優惠的誘因贈獎訊息來吸引點選，在網路行銷及廣告的運用上，越來越頻繁。而根據網友點選廣告意願的調查，指出約有57-65%的網路使用者願意點選「贈獎、誘因式」的廣告；而包括最吸引網友點選的廣告訊息，以「優惠折扣」居首，佔69%。 誘因贈獎的風行，使得網友上網就往好康去，而有「免費（FREE）」字樣的廣告的點選率也的確算是一枝獨秀。但也有人質疑，這種以「誘因」與「贈獎」做為廣告訴求，是否會使得網路廣告效果落入誘因與贈獎的陷阱中，而無實質的廣告傳播效益？ 因此本研究將以網路橫幅廣告為研究主體，探討利用誘因、贈獎做為主要廣告訴求，從MOA的概念出發，探討該類型網路廣告效果，其中包含討混有告效果研究，涵括目標對象、對廣告整體一般態度、誘因線索與主產品的互補程度等概念。 又因為網路環境與網路行為的多變，使得網路理論的驗證與現象的觀察無法分割，本研究將以線上實驗的設計方法，除了驗證變項之間的因果關係之外，亦詳加記錄了線上實驗法過程中，可能發生的問題點，提供未來相關網路研究、實驗的參考。

本研究的主要目的是檢視倒傳導神經網路是否具有人類在分類學習上所呈現出來的學習效應 — 競爭學習、遮蔽效應與不相關線索的影響。在實驗中，我們採用兩種倒傳導神經網路，來測試激發函數是否會影響倒傳導神經網路的學習。此兩種倒傳導神經網路分別採用sigmoid激發函數與hyperbolic-tangent激發函數。實驗結果顯示，以sigmoid為激發函數與以hyperbolic-tangent為激發函數的倒傳導神經網路都具有這三個學習效應。還有，以sigmoid為激發函數的倒傳導神經網路所呈現出來的學習效應比以hyperbolic-tangent為激發函數的倒傳導神經網路來得顯著。本研究的次要目的在於瞭解有效性（使用性）與敏感度分析的數值是否有對應關係。實驗結果顯示，線索A與線索B的敏感度分析數值差異可以反映出線索A與線索B的有效性差異。然而，敏感度分析數值卻無法準確地顯示線索的有效性數值。 / The main objective of this research is to examine whether back propagation neural networks (BP) have the learning effects found in human category learning — competitive learning, overshadowing and the deleterious of an irrelevant cue. Two kinds of BP, BP with sigmoid activation function and BP with hyperbolic-tangent activation function, are investigated to see if the activation function will make BP behave differently. According to the results of our experiments, these three learning effects are demonstrated both in BP with sigmoid and BP with hyperbolic-tangent, but they seems more significant in BP with sigmoid than in BP with hyperbolic-tangent. The second objective of our research is to see if there is a correspondence between the validity (the utilization) and the value of sensitivity analysis, R. From the results of our experiments, we observe that the difference between values of sensitivity analysis with respect to Cue A and Cue B reflects the difference of the validities between Cue A and Cue B. However, the value of sensitivity analysis does not show exactly what validity a cue is.

本研究以神經毒素ibotenic acid破壞不同尾核區域以及鋰鹽去價值程序為操弄變項，觀測此兩種實驗操弄對於大鼠之迷津行為之影響，進而探討標誌系統之行為內涵及神經機制。實驗所採用的作業為線索學習作業以及自我中心作業，分別代表標誌系統下的線索導引策略及體位導向策略。實驗一及實驗二在於檢驗尾核功能缺損對於大鼠迷津行為之影響，從探測嘗試發現大鼠在線索學習的行為表現需依賴砂紙線索的導引，而在自我中心作業之行為則不以環境刺激為依據（實驗一A、二A），顯示大鼠在各迷津作業的行為符合標誌系統的運作原則。神經機制之操弄結果顯示在記憶習得階段，尾核破壞之受試在線索學習作業上的表現並沒有顯著變差，尾核功能缺損並未導致學習的延宕或阻斷，其進步的速度仍與控制組相同（實驗一B）。相較於線索學習作業，尾核破壞之受試在自我中心作業上的表現則明顯變差，幾乎沒有進步的趨勢（實驗二B）。而在記憶保持階段，不管是線索學習作業或自我中心作業之表現皆會因尾核破壞而顯著變差（實驗一C、二C）。實驗三及實驗四則利用鋰鹽去價值程序降低食餌之誘因價值，觀測大鼠行為有無相對應改變。結果發現去價值程序的操弄只會影響到大鼠在自我中心作業的行為表現（實驗四），而不影響其在線索學習作業之行為（實驗三）。由此可知，兩種迷津作業所形成的記憶表徵是不同的，自我中心學習歷程會將增強物表徵在聯結單位中，而線索學習之習得歷程則不會。綜合上述實驗結果，標誌系統下確實有兩個不同空間行為機制，一個為線索導引策略，另一個為體位導向策略，雖皆受到尾核的調節，但調節的程度是不同的。不管是記憶習得或保持階段，尾核在體位導向策略的運作中皆扮演重要的角色，而在線索導引策略只參與了記憶保持歷程的運作。另外，兩個空間行為機制在學習內涵上也不盡相同，以線索導引策略為依據之空間行為會形成刺激反應(S-R)的聯結型態，而以體位導向策略為依據之空間行為則會形成反應及增強物(R-S*)聯結。 / This study investigated the neurobehavioral mechanisms of taxon system of spatial memory through manipulating lesions of subareas in the caudate nucleus by ibotenic acid and lithium chloride (LiCl)-induced reward devaluation. With respect to behavioral measurement in an eight-arm radial maze, a cue learning task and an egocentric task were used for testing the guidance and orientation hypotheses of taxon system, respectively. Data from probing procedures showed that the performance of rats in the cue learning task was impaired when the cue was removed, but the performance in the egocentric task was not affected by changing the context (Experiments 1A and 2A). These results indicate that behavior reactions in two tasks are corresponding to those two operational principles of taxon system. In terms of the acquisition, deficits were significantly produced by the lesion of the dorsomedial caudate on egocentric task, while the ibotenate lesions did not affect cue learning task (Experiments 1B and 2B). For retention test, the performances in both cue learning and egocentric tasks were impaired by dorsomedial caudate lesion, no such impairment was observed from dorsolateral and posterolateral caudate lesions (Experiments 1C and 2C). In the third and fourth experiments, LiCl devaluation procedure was employed to lower the reward value of the bait in the maze. This manipulation significantly impaired the performance of egocentric task but not that of the cue learning task. These results indicate that the memory representations in the two tasks used in the present study are different. The memory representation in the egocentric task contains the reinforcer, whereas that in the cue learning task is not necessarily relevant to the reinforcer. In conclusion, the guidance and orientation hypotheses can be differentiated as behavioral mechanisms existing in the taxon system of spatial memory. Although the caudate nucleus is critically important for the operation of both hypotheses, the degrees of this brain site to get involved are different. The caudate nucleus participates in the acquisition and retention of orientation hypothesis, but only in the retention of guidance hypothesis. In addition, behavioral performance of the spatial memory using guidance hypothesis is based on forming the association of stimulus and response (S-R), while that using orientation hypothesis is based on forming the association of response and reinforcer (R-S*).