請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/64905完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 邱玉蟬 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Yen-Te Sung | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 宋彥德 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T23:06:47Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2025-03-03 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2020-03-03 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2020-02-25 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 汪浩（譯）（2004）。《風險社會-通往另一個現代的路上》（原作者：Beck, U.）。臺北市：巨流。
李佳昇（2016）。〈網路使我們隨眾人起舞？以感知匿名性探討社群媒體中的言論極化現象〉。《中華傳播學會2016年會論文》，中正大學。 呂奕欣、鄭佩嵐（譯）（2009）。《面對風險社會》（原作者：Denney, D.）。臺北市：韋伯文化。 邱玉蟬、游絲涵（2016）。〈食品安全事件的風險建構與溝通：新聞媒體 VS. 政府〉。《中華傳播學刊》，（30）：179-220。 邱皓政、林碧芳、許碧純、陳育瑜（2012）。《統計學：原理與應用》。臺北市：五南。 周桂田（2002）。〈在地化風險之實踐與理論缺口－遲滯型高科技風險社會〉。《台灣社會研究季刊》，（45）：69-122。 周桂田（2004）。〈獨大的科學理性與隱沒（默）的社會理性之「對話」在地公眾，科學專家與國家的風險文化探討〉。《台灣社會研究季刊》，（56），1-63。 周桂田（2005）。〈知識、科學與不確定性－專家與科技系統的「無知」如何建構風險〉。《政治與社會哲學評論》，13：131-180。 周桂田（2014）。《風險社會典範轉移：打造為公眾負責的治理模式》。臺北市：遠流出版。 施琮仁（2015）。不同媒體平台對公眾參與科學決策能力之影響：以奈米科技為例。《新聞學研究》，（124）：165-213。 范玫芳、邱智民（2011）。〈英國基因改造作物與食品公共辯論: 公民參與科技政策模式之評估〉。《公共行政學報》，（41）：103-134。 食品藥物管理署（2014）。〈食品所含之基因改造食品原料非經中央主管機關健康風險評估審查，並查驗登記發給許可文件，不得供作食品原料。〉。取自：https://consumer.fda.gov.tw/Law/Detail.aspx?nodeID=518&lawid=683上網日期：2019年10月29日。 食品藥物管理署（2016）。〈食藥署發布「食品中丙烯醯胺指標值參考指引」〉。取自：https://www.fda.gov.tw/Tc/newsContent.aspx?cid=4&id=19447上網日期：2019年10月29日。 食品藥物管理署（2019a）。〈衛生福利部審核通過之基因改造食品原料之查詢〉。取自：https://consumer.fda.gov.tw/Food/GmoInfo.aspx?nodeID=167&p=15#ctl00_content_ListPanel。上網日期：2019年12月24日。 食品藥物管理署（2019b）。〈基因改造食品原料審議中案件清單〉。取自：https://www.fda.gov.tw/tc/site.aspx?sid=1510。上網日期：2019年10月29日。 陳國明（2003）。《文化間傳播學》。臺北市：五南。 陳國明、彭文正、葉銀嬌、安然（2010）。《傳播研究法》。臺北縣：威仕曼文化事業股份有限公司。 陳靜君、陶振超（2018）。〈偏見同化效果：網路新聞不文明留言對態度極化的影響〉。《中華傳播學刊》。（33）：137-179。 陳毓屏（2014年3月）。〈探討媒體的科學報導品質--以《蘋果日報》、《自由時報》、《聯合報》報導「毒澱粉事件」為例〉。2014台灣STS年會，新竹交通大學客家學院。 陳毓屏（2016）。《食品安全事件的媒體再現－以Yahoo!奇摩新聞的「毒澱粉」報導以及其讀者評論為例》。政治大學新聞所碩士論文。 黃臺珠、蔡俊彥（2016）。《2015年臺灣公民科學素養概況》。高雄市：國立中山大學通識教育中心公民素養推動研究中心。 黃俊儒、簡妙如（2010）。〈在科學與媒體的接壤中所開展之科學傳播研究：從科技社會公民的角色及需求出發〉。《新聞學研究》，（105）：127-166。 張卿卿（2012）。〈科學新聞資訊呈現形式及其對閱聽眾資訊接收的影響-以科學知識觀點與認知基模理論來探討〉。《科學教育學刊》，20（3）：193-216。 創市際（2019）。〈新聞篇與新聞資訊類別使用概況〉。取自：https://www.ixresearch.com/reports/%E5%89%B5%E5%B8%82%E9%9A%9B%E9%9B%99%E9%80%B1%E5%88%8A%E7%AC%AC%E4%B8%80%E4%BA%8C%E5%85%AB%E6%9C%9F-20190315上網日期：2019年11月20日。 衛生福利部（2017）。〈基因改造馬鈴薯須通過風險評估始得輸入我國〉。取自：https://www.mohw.gov.tw/fp-2639-33848-1.html。上網日期：2019年10月29日。 謝君蔚、徐美苓（2011）。〈媒體再現科技發展與風險的框架與演變：以基因改造食品新聞為例〉。《中華傳播學刊》，（20），143-179。 羅世宏（2014）。〈緒論：社群媒體與新聞業〉，羅世宏、童靜蓉（編）（2014），《社群媒體與新聞業》（頁1-22）。臺北：優質新聞發展協會。 顧忠華（1999）。〈風險、社會與倫理〉。《國立政治大學哲學學報》，5：19-38。 Abdul-Mageed, M. M. (2008). Online news sites and journalism 2.0: Reader comments on Al Jazeera Arabic. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 6(2), 59-76. Alhakami, A. S., & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk analysis, 14(6), 1085-1096. Allum, N. (2007). An empirical test of competing theories of hazard‐related trust: The case of GM food. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 27(4), 935-946. Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2014). The “nasty effect:” Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 19(3), 373-387. Augoustinos, M., Crabb, S., & Shepherd, R. (2010). Genetically modified food in the news: media representations of the GM debate in the UK. Public Understanding of Science, 19(1), 98-114. Barnett, J., McConnon, A., Kennedy, J., Raats, M., Shepherd, R., Verbeke, W., ... & Wall, P. (2011). Development of strategies for effective communication of food risks and benefits across Europe: Design and conceptual framework of the FoodRisC project. BMC public health, 11(1), 308. Bergström, A., & Wadbring, I. (2015). Beneficial yet crappy: Journalists and audiences on obstacles and opportunities in reader comments. European Journal of Communication, 30(2), 137-151. Bisogni, C. A., Connors, M., Devine, C. M., & Sobal, J. (2002). Who we are and how we eat: a qualitative study of identities in food choice. Journal of nutrition education and behavior, 34(3), 128-139. Bode, L., & Vraga, E. K. (2015). In related news, that was wrong: The correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 619-638. Brossard, D., & Nisbet, M. C. (2007). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding US opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(1), 24-52. Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Science, new media, and the public. Science, 339(6115), 40-41. Bruce Traill, W., Yee, W. M., Lusk, J. L., Jaeger, S. R., House, L. O., Morrow Jr, J. L., ... & Moore, M. (2006). Perceptions of the risks and benefits of genetically-modified foods and their influence on willingness to consume. Acta Agriculturae Scand Section C, 3(1), 12-19. Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of personality and social psychology, 66(3), 460. Chambers, S., Lobb, A., Butler, L. T., & Traill, W. B. (2008). The influence of age and gender on food choice: a focus group exploration. International journal of consumer studies, 32(4), 356-365. Chung, D. S. (2008). Interactive features of online newspapers: Identifying patterns and predicting use of engaged readers. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 13(3), 658-679. Chung, M., Munno, G. J., & Moritz, B. (2015). Triggering participation: Exploring the effects of third-person and hostile media perceptions on online participation. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 452-461. Chyi, H. I., Yang, M. C. J., Lewis, S. C., & Zheng, N. (2010). Use of and satisfaction with newspaper sites in the local market: Exploring differences between hybrid and online-only users. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87, 62-83. Cobb, M. D. (2005). Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Science communication, 27(2), 221-239. Cook, G., Pieri, E., & Robbins, P. T. (2004). “The scientists think and the public feels”: Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse & Society, 15(4), 433-449. Cook, G., Robbins, P. T., & Pieri, E. (2006). “Words of mass destruction”: British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions. Public Understanding of Science, 15(1), 5-29. Covello, V., & Sandman, P. M. (2001). Risk communication: evolution and revolution. Solutions to an Environment in Peril, 164-178. Dake, K. (1991). Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 22(1), 61-82. De Kraker, J., Kuijs, S., Cörvers, R., & Offermans, A. (2014). Internet public opinion on climate change: a world views analysis of online reader comments. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 6(1), 19-33. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. CA: Sage. De Vries, B. J., & Petersen, A. C. (2009). Conceptualizing sustainable development: An assessment methodology connecting values, knowledge, worldviews and scenarios. Ecological Economics, 68(4), 1006-1019. Diakopoulos, N., & Naaman, M. (2011). Towards quality discourse in online news comments. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 133-142). ACM. Dóris de Arruda, C. (2013). Verbal violence in readers' comments published in news' websites. Calidoscópio, 11(3), 241. Douglas, M. (1986). Risk acceptability according to the social sciences (Vol. 11). Russell Sage Foundation. Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley. Cal.: University of California Press. Dudo, A., Dunwoody, S., & Scheufele, D. A. (2011). The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in U.S. newspaper coverage of nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88, 55-75. Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2004). Complementarity in consumption of news types across traditional and new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48, 41-60. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of behavioral decision making, 13(1), 1-17. Finucane, M. L., & Holup, J. L. (2005). Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting the perceived risk of genetically modified food: an overview of the literature. Social science & medicine, 60(7), 1603-1612. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy sciences, 9(2), 127-152. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1993). Decidedly different: Expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Analysis, 13(6), 643-648. Freeman, B. (2011). Tobacco plain packaging legislation: a content analysis of commentary posted on Australian online news. Tobacco control, 20(5), 361-366. Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1998). Understanding public attitudes to technology. Journal of Risk Research, 1(3), 221-235. Frewer, L., Scholderer, J., & Lambert, N. (2003). Consumer acceptance of functional foods: issues for the future. British food journal, 105(10), 714-731. Erjavec, K. (2014). Readers of online news comments: why do they read hate speech comments? In: Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales. 24(3), 451-462. Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American journal of sociology, 95(1), 1-37. Gilovich T (1991) How We Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. New York: Free Press Gruev‐Vintila, A., & Rouquette, M. L. (2007). Social Thinking about Collective Risk: How Do Risk‐related Practice and Personal Involvement Impact Its Social Representations?. Journal of Risk Research, 10(4), 555-581. Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices (Vol. 2). Sage. Henrich, N., & Holmes, B. (2013). Web news readers' comments: Towards developing a methodology for using on-line comments in social inquiry. Journal of Media and Communication Studies, 5(1), 1. Henderson, A., Weaver, C. K., & Cheney, G. (2007). Talking ‘facts’: Identity and rationality in industry perspectives on genetic modification. Discourse Studies, 9(1), 9-41. Hermida, A., & Thurman, N. (2007). Comments please: How the British news media are struggling with user-generated content. In Articulo presentado en el 8th International Symposium on Online Journalism. Hilgartner, S., & Bosk, C. L. (1988). The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American journal of Sociology, 94(1), 53-78. Hille, S., & Bakker, P. (2014). Engaging the Social News User: Comments on News Sites and Facebook. Journalism Practice, 8(5), 563-572. Hinnant, A., Subramanian, R., & Young, R. (2016). User comments on climate stories: impacts of anecdotal vs. scientific evidence. Climatic Change, 138(3-4), 411-424. Horlick-Jones, T., & Prades, A. (2009). On interpretative risk perception research: some reflections on its origins; its nature; and its possible applications in risk communication practice. Health, risk & society, 11(5), 409-430. Hsueh, M., Yogeeswaran, K., & Malinen, S. (2015). “Leave your comment below”: Can biased online comments influence our own prejudicial attitudes and behaviors?. Human Communication Research, 41(4), 557-576. Hughey, M. W., & Daniels, J. (2013). Racist comments at online news sites: a methodological dilemma for discourse analysis. Media, Culture & Society, 35(3), 332-347. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) (2019). GM Crops List: Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) GM Events (49 Events). Available at: http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/cropslist/default.asp (accessed 29 October 2019). Jaspal, R., Nerlich, B., & Koteyko, N. (2013). Contesting science by appealing to its norms: Readers discuss climate science in the Daily Mail. Science Communication, 35(3), 383-410. Jenkins, H. (2004). The cultural logic of media convergence. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 7, 33-43. Kahan, D. M. (2012). Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. Handbook of risk theory: Epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk, 725-759. Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. N. (2009b). Risk and culture: Is synthetic biology different?. Harvard Law School program on risk regulation research paper, (09-2). Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Cohen, G. L., Gastil, J., & Slovic, P. (2010). Who fears the HPV vaccine, who doesn’t, and why? An experimental study of the mechanisms of cultural cognition. Law and human behavior, 34(6), 501-516. Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (2007). Culture and identity‐protective cognition: Explaining the white‐male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(3), 465-505. Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. (2009a). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature nanotechnology, 4(2), 87. Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature climate change, 2(10), 732. Kahan, D. M., Slovic, P., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Cohen, G. L., & Kysar, D. A. (2008). Biased assimilation, polarization, and cultural credibility: An experimental study of nanotechnology risk perceptions. Harvard Law School Program on Risk Regulation Research Paper, (08-25). Kemshall, H. (2001). Risk, social policy and welfare. Buckingham: Open University Press. Kim, H. K., & Kim, Y. (2019). Risk information seeking and processing about particulate air pollution in South Korea: The roles of cultural worldview. Risk Analysis, 39(5), 1071-1087. Knight, T., & Barnett, J. (2010). Perceived efficacy and attitudes towards genetic science and science governance. Public understanding of science, 19(4), 386-402. Koteyko, N., Jaspal, R., & Nerlich, B. (2013). Climate change and ‘climategate’ in online reader comments: a mixed methods study. The Geographical Journal, 179(1), 74-86. Kothari, A., Magdy, W., Darwish, K., Mourad, A., & Taei, A. (2013). Detecting comments on news articles in microblogs. ICWSM, 2013. Kraus, N., Malmfors, T., & Slovic, P. (1992). Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk analysis, 12(2), 215-232. Kuran, T., & Sunstein, C. R. (1998). Availability cascades and risk regulation. Stanford Law Review, 51, 683. Laslo, E., Baram-Tsabari, A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2011). A growth medium for the message: Online science journalism affordances for exploring public discourse of science and ethics. Journalism, 12(7), 847-870. Lang, J. T., & Hallman, W. K. (2005). Who does the public trust? The case of genetically modified food in the United States. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 25(5), 1241-1252. Len-Ríos, M. E., Bhandari, M., & Medvedeva, Y. S. (2014). Deliberation of the scientific evidence for breastfeeding: Online comments as social representations. Science Communication, 36(6), 778-801. Lee, E. J., & Jang, Y. J. (2010). What do others’ reactions to news on Internet portal sites tell us? Effects of presentation format and readers’ need for cognition on reality perception. Communication Research, 37(6), 825-846. Lee, E. J. (2012). That's not the way it is: How user‐generated comments on the news affect perceived media bias. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 18(1), 32-45. Leiss, W., & Powell, D. (2004). Mad cows and mother’s milk: The perils of poor risk communication (Second edition). Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Liu, Q., Zhou, M., & Zhao, X. (2015). Understanding News 2.0: A framework for explaining the number of comments from readers on online news. Information & Management, 52(7), 764-776. Lord CG, Ross L, Lepper MR. (1979) Biased assimilation and attitude polarization – effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol 37(11): 2098–2109. MacCoun, R. J. (1998). Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annual review of psychology, 49(1), 259-287. Macias, W., Hilyard, K., & Freimuth, V. (2009). Blog functions as risk and crisis communication during Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(1), 1-31. Manosevitch, E., & Walker, D. (2009). Reader comments to online opinion journalism: A space of public deliberation. In International Symposium on Online Journalism, 10, 1-30. Millar, R. (1997). Science education for democracy: What can the school curriculum achieve? In R. Levinson & J. Thomas (Eds.), Science today: Problem or crisis? (pp. 87-101). London: Routledge Nan, X., & Madden, K. (2014). The role of cultural worldviews and message framing in shaping public opinions toward the human papillomavirus vaccination mandate. Human Communication Research, 40(1), 30-53. National Research Council (Ed.). (1989). Improving risk communication. National Academies. Neurauter-Kessels, M. (2011). Im/polite reader responses on British online news sites. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 7(2), 187-214. Ng, E. W., & Detenber, B. H. (2005). The impact of synchronicity and civility in online political discussions on perceptions and intentions to participate. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3), JCMC1033. Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American journal of botany, 96(10), 1767-1778. Oltedal, S., Moen, B. E., Klempe, H., & Rundmo, T. (2004). Explaining risk perception: An evaluation of cultural theory. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 85(1-33), 86. Plough, A., & Krimsky, S. (1987). The Emergence of Risk Communication Studies: Social and Political Context. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 12, 4-10. Powell, D., & Leiss, W. (1997). Mad cows and mother's milk: the perils of poor risk communication. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen's University Press-MQUP. Powell, D. A., Jacob, C. J., & Chapman, B. J. (2012). Using blogs and new media in academic practice: Potential roles in research, teaching, learning, and extension. Innovative Higher Education, 37(4), 271-282. Regan, Á., Shan, L., McConnon, Á., Marcu, A., Raats, M., Wall, P., & Barnett, J. (2014). Strategies for dismissing dietary risks: insights from user-generated comments online. Health, risk & society, 16(4), 308-322. Reuters Institute (2019). Digital News Report 2019. Available at: http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/cropslist/default.asp (accessed 20 November 2019). Rösner, L., Winter, S., & Krämer, N. C. (2016). Dangerous minds? Effects of uncivil online comments on aggressive cognitions, emotions, and behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 461-470. Rowe, I. (2015). Civility 2.0: a comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 121-138. Santana, A. D. (2014). Virtuous or vitriolic: The effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journalism Practice, 8(1), 18-33. Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M., & Slovic, P. (2004). Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 24(5), 1289-1299. Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(6), 659-667. Secko, D. M., Tlalka, S., Dunlop, M., Kingdon, A., & Amend, E. (2011). The unfinished science story: Journalist–audience interactions from the Globe and Mail’s online health and science sections. Journalism, 12(7), 814-831. Siegrist, M., Stampfli, N., Kastenholz, H., & Keller, C. (2008). Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite, 51(2), 283-290. Slimak, M. W., & Dietz, T. (2006). Personal values, beliefs, and ecological risk perception. Risk analysis, 26(6), 1689-1705. Slovic, P. (1986). Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk analysis, 6(4), 403-415. Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk analysis, 13(6), 675-682. Slovic, P., Kraus, N., Lappe, H., & Major, M. (1991). Risk perception of prescription drugs: report on a survey in Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health/Revue Canadienne de Sante'e Publique, 82(3), S15-S20. Stallings, R. A. (1990). Media discourse and the social construction of risk. Social problems, 37(1), 80-95. Su, L. Y. F., Akin, H., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Xenos, M. A. (2015). Science news consumption patterns and their implications for public understanding of science. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(3), 597-616. Steinfeld, N., Samuel-Azran, T., & Lev-On, A. (2016). User comments and public opinion: Findings from an eye-tracking experiment. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 63-72. Strydom, P. (2002). Risk, environment, and society: ongoing debates, current issues, and future prospects. Buckingham: Philadelphia. Tampere, P., Tampere, K., & Luoma-Aho, V. (2016). Facebook discussion of a crisis: authority communication and its relationship to citizens. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 21(4), 414-434. Tenenboim, O., & Cohen, A. A. (2015). What prompts users to click and comment: A longitudinal study of online news. Journalism, 16(2), 198-217. Thompson, M., Ellis, R., & Wildavsky, A. (1990). Cultural theory. Westview Press. Torres Da Silva, M. (2013). Online forums, audience participation and modes of political discussion: Readers’ comments on the Brazilian presidential election as a case study. Communication&Society/Comunicación y Sociedad, 26(4), 175-193. Trumbo, C. W., & McComas, K. A. (2003). The function of credibility in information processing for risk perception. Risk Analysis, 23(2), 343-353. Tsagkias, M., Weerkamp, W., & De Rijke, M. (2010, March). News comments: Exploring, modeling, and online prediction. In European Conference on Information Retrieval (pp. 191-203). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Upadhyay, S. R. (2010). Identity and impoliteness in computer-mediated reader responses. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 6(1), 105-127. Van Dijk, H., Houghton, J., Van Kleef, E., Van Der Lans, I., Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. (2008). Consumer responses to communication about food risk management. Appetite, 50(2-3), 340-352. Van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, culture & society, 31(1), 41-58. Verbeke, W., Frewer, L. J., Scholderer, J., & De Brabander, H. F. (2007). Why consumers behave as they do with respect to food safety and risk information. Analytica chimica acta, 586(1-2), 2-7. Verbeke, W., Sioen, I., Pieniak, Z., Van Camp, J., & De Henauw, S. (2005). Consumer perception versus scientific evidence about health benefits and safety risks from fish consumption. Public health nutrition, 8(4), 422-429. Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Frewer, L. J., Sioen, I., De Henauw, S., & Van Camp, J. (2008). Communicating risks and benefits from fish consumption: Impact on Belgian consumers' perception and intention to eat fish. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 28(4), 951-967. Walejko, G., & Ksiazek, T. (2010). Blogging from the niches: The sourcing practices of science bloggers. Journalism Studies, 11, 412-427. Walsh, L. (2015). The double-edged sword of popularization: The role of science communication research in the popsci. com comment shutoff. Science Communication, 37(5), 658-669. Waltz, E. (2015). USDA approves next-generation GM potato. Nature Biotechnology, 33, 12–13. Weber, P. (2013). Discussions in the comments section: Factors influencing participation and interactivity in online newspapers’ reader comments. New Media & Society, 16(6), 941-957. Wildavsky, A., & Dake, K. (1990). Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why?. Daedalus, 41-60. Wilson, C., Evans, G., Leppard, P., & Syrette, J. (2004). Reactions to genetically modified food crops and how perception of risks and benefits influences consumers' information gathering. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 24(5), 1311-1321. Winter, S., Brückner, C., & Krämer, N. C. (2015). They came, they liked, they commented: Social influence on Facebook news channels. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(8), 431-436. Winter, S., & Krämer, N. C. (2016). Who’s right: The author or the audience? Effects of user comments and ratings on the perception of online science articles. Communications The European Journal of Communication Research, 41(3), 339-360. Xue, W., Hine, D. W., Loi, N. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., & Phillips, W. J. (2014). Cultural worldviews and environmental risk perceptions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 249-258. Yuan, E. J. (2011). News consumption across multiple media platforms. Information, Communication & Society, 14, 998-1016. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/64905 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 新聞中的科學傳播一直是受到學術界關注的領域，然而，近年來隨著網路資訊技術的發展，如新聞網站等網路傳播管道逐漸受到各家新聞媒體重視，並被社會大眾廣泛接受，而數位新聞留言群眾參與式的資訊內容，也搭配出現於網路新聞頁面之中。本研究希望了解此種新聞報導結合留言訊息的複合式文本格式，是否會對科學新聞傳播過程造成不同於以往的影響。本研究選擇近年重要的基改食品使用申請案之議題—基改馬鈴薯議題為研究對象，探討包含相關內容的新聞及留言訊息，對實驗受試者之風險及利益感知是否產生影響。
本研究除了探討新聞報導及留言內容對科學議題傳播造成的影響，也以文化風險世界觀概念作為解釋影響差異的理論基礎，採用線上實驗方法，以新聞與留言立場作為操弄變項，文化風險世界觀中階層－平等主義及個人－社群主義兩種變項為調節變項，風險感知、利益感知及消息來源可信度作為依變項的實驗設計，針對有使用過包含新聞報導及留言的新聞網站讀者為研究對象，受試者隨機分配至四組實驗組分別填寫網路問卷，共回收484份問卷，包括有效樣本476份。 研究結果顯示，由新聞與留言立場變項組成的四組實驗組別，造成受試者對基改馬鈴薯議題的風險感知及利益感知產生顯著差異；文化風險世界觀中的兩組變項，亦會對新聞及留言的消息來源可信度，以及對於該議題風險利益感知產生顯著差異；最後，文化風險世界觀在新聞及留言訊息對風險利益感知的影響差異上，只有階層－平等主義變項在風險感知影響關係中會產生調節效果，並凸顯文化風險世界觀特性之影響，即階層主義者更重視新聞報導內容，受新聞立場影響，而平等主義者更容易受留言訊息立場影響。 本研究結果除了能了解網路中新聞及留言內容對科學傳播之影響效果，亦證明文化風險世界觀作為影響因素在傳播過程中產生作用，此結果可作為未來相關研究主題之參考基礎。除了研究領域，也期望提升新聞媒體業者及社會各界，對使用網路管道報導科學新聞議題所產生之影響的了解，並增加往後對於留言功能使用、限制或延伸應用上的討論及重視程度。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Science communication in news reports has always been an area of concern to the academia. The advancement of the Internet and information technology in recent years has rendered the communication method of online news sites to gain increased attention from the news media industry as well as wide acceptance by the public. Comments of online news readers, as a type of information content involving mass participation, also appear on online news site. This study aims to determine whether the composite text format—news reports combined with reader comments—exerts an unprecedented effect on communication of scientific news. Because applications for the use of genetically modified food has remained a heated topic in recent years, online news and comments regarding “genetically modified potatoes” were discussed in this study to explore whether they swayed participants’ risk and benefit perceptions.
In addition to exploring the effect of online news reports and reader comments on the communication of scientific issues, this study adopted the concept of cultural worldview of risk as the theoretical basis to explain the difference in impact. An online experiment was conducted, where discourse features of information source and information position were the manipulated variables; hierarchy–egalitarianism and individualism–communitarianism derived from the cultural worldview of risk served as the two moderator variables; and risk perception, benefit perception, and information source reliability served as the dependent variables. Individuals who have both visited online news sites and left comments were recruited as participants, who were randomly assigned to four experimental groups to complete an online questionnaire. A total of 484 questionnaires were returned, with 476 valid samples. The variable combination of discourse features of information source and information position caused the participants from the four experimental groups to exhibit significant difference in the risk perception and benefit perception of news on genetically modified potatoes. Hierarchy–egalitarianism and individualism–communitarianism also exhibited significant difference in the risk perception and benefit perception of the same topic. Finally, only hierarchy–egalitarianism exerted a moderating effect on the relationship between online news and reader comments and risk/benefit perception. The findings accentuate the influence of cultural worldview of risk. Classism advocates pay more attention to the content of news reports and are affected by the position of the report, whereas egalitarianism advocates are subject to the influence of reader comments. Findings of this study facilitate the understanding of the effect of online news and comment’s content on science communication as well as verifies the effect of cultural worldview of risk serving as an influencing factor in the impact process. These findings may serve as references for relevant research in the future. In addition to the research field, this study aims to assist the news media and all sectors of society in understanding the impact from using the Internet as a means to communicate scientific news, thereby promoting discussion on and drawing attention to the use, restriction, or extended application of online comments. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T23:06:47Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-109-R03630008-1.pdf: 5851788 bytes, checksum: 17d225426cf2ef2d35ad54fddad7725f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝誌 i
中文摘要 ii 英文摘要 iv 第一章、 緒論 1 第二章、 文獻回顧 11 第一節、 科學風險傳播、基改風險議題與支持／反對論述 11 第二節、 新聞與留言中的科學風險傳播與專家／常民的風險論述 21 第三節、 文化風險世界觀與文化認知對科學風險傳播的影響 40 第三章、 研究方法 54 第一節、 研究架構 54 第二節、 實驗設計 55 第三節、 實驗組分組 55 第四節、 受試者招募方式 56 第五節、 實驗流程 57 第六節、 實驗文本的選擇與設計 59 第七節、 變項定義與測量 64 第八節、 資料分析方式 68 第九節、 實驗文本及問卷前測 68 第四章、 研究結果與分析 75 第一節、 受試者樣本結構分析 75 第二節、 操弄檢定 76 第三節、 信度分析 79 第四節、 假設檢定 80 第五節、 研究假設驗證結果 92 第五章、 結論與建議 94 第一節、 研究討論與結論 94 第二節、 研究貢獻、建議與限制 105 參考文獻 110 附錄一：問卷填答捐款收據 123 附錄二：前測實驗文本內容 124 附錄三：正式實驗文本 127 附錄四、正式問卷與實驗流程網頁 131 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 新聞留言 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 議題立場 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 文化風險世界觀 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 基改馬鈴薯 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 利益風險感知 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | genetically modified potato | en |
| dc.subject | issue position | en |
| dc.subject | online news comment | en |
| dc.subject | cultural worldviews of risk | en |
| dc.subject | perception of benefit and risk | en |
| dc.title | 新聞／留言立場與文化世界觀對科技利益風險感知與來源可信度的影響－以基改馬鈴薯為例 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Issue Position of Online News/Comments and Cultural Worldviews on Perceived Risk/Benefit and Source Credibility Concerning Genetically Modified Potatoes | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 108-1 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 徐美苓,楊意菁 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 新聞留言,議題立場,文化風險世界觀,基改馬鈴薯,利益風險感知, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | online news comment,issue position,cultural worldviews of risk,genetically modified potato,perception of benefit and risk, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 142 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202000573 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2020-02-25 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 生物產業傳播暨發展學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 生物產業傳播暨發展學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-109-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 5.71 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。