請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/85685完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 張佑宗(Yu-Tzung Chang) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Liang-Yi Hsu | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 許良亦 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-03-19T23:21:30Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2022-07-05 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2022-06-21 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 中央通訊社，2020，〈政大民調：台灣人認同感67% 創歷年新高〉，https://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/202007030346.aspx，2022/02/15。 ———，2021，〈國民黨四大公投主軸 朱立倫定調：全力對執政黨投不信任票〉，https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/202110300079.aspx，2022/02/15。 ———，2022，〈慶祝世界自由日 世盟：台灣自由度超越英美法〉，https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/202201230066.aspx，2022/02/15。 吳重禮，2008，〈台灣民眾威權懷舊的初探：蔣經國政府施政的比較評價〉，《選舉研究》，15(2): 119-142。 吳重禮、許文賓，2003，〈誰是政黨認同者與獨立選民？─以二○○一年台灣地區選民政黨認同的決定因素為例〉，《政治科學論叢》，18: 101-140 。 李弘繹，2021，〈負面黨性在臺灣：2004-2020年臺灣總統選舉的分析〉，臺北：臺灣大學政治學研究所碩士論文。 林聰吉，2007，〈政治支持與民主鞏固〉，《政治科學論叢》，34: 71-104。 ———，2013，〈換了位置就換了腦袋嗎？—探索台灣總統大選的選舉輸家〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，10(1): 1-34。 胡佛，1998，〈臺灣的選舉競爭與政治民主化〉，《政治學的科學探究（四）—政治變遷與民主化》，臺北：三民，頁69-100。 徐火炎，1992，〈民主轉型過程中政黨的重組：臺灣地區選民的民主價值取向、政黨偏好與黨派投票改變之研究〉，《人文及社會科學集刊》，5(1): 213-263。 張佑宗，2009，〈選舉輸家與民主鞏固—台灣2004年總統選舉落選陣營對民主的態度〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，6(1): 41-72。 ———，2011，〈選舉結果、政治學習與民主支持—兩次政黨輪替後台灣公民在民主態度與價值的變遷〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，8(2): 99-137。 ———，2020，《臺灣社群媒體中的假新聞、同溫層與極化現象：一種人機整合創新的研究途徑》，計畫編號：MOST 108-2410-H-002-174-SS2，台北：科技部補助專題研究計畫。 張佑宗、朱雲漢，2013，〈威權韌性與民主赤字：21世紀初葉民主化研究的趨勢與前瞻〉，吳玉山、林繼文、冷則剛（編），臺北市：五南，頁121-150。 張佑宗、曾煥凱、黃忠偉、林玿弘，2021a，〈民眾因黨派立場影響疫苗廠牌偏好，不利於科學防疫〉，《報導者》，https://www.twreporter.org/a/opinion-covid-19-vaccine-politics-storm，2022/02/15。 張佑宗、李佩軒、林懿平，2021b，〈仇恨漸漸主宰台灣未來的政黨競爭〉，《新新聞》，https://new7.storm.mg/article/3994169 張順全、莊文忠，2017，〈超越藍綠？政治版圖在 2014 年臺北市長選舉的新應用〉，《選舉研究》，24(1): 97-132。 張傳賢，2009，〈民主的脆弱性與鞏固：一個敗者同意的視角〉，《政治科學論叢》，42: 43-84。 莊淑媚、洪永泰，2011，〈特定政黨不認同：台灣地區民意調查中關於政黨認同的新測量工具〉，《選舉研究》，18(2): 1-29。 陳陸輝，2003，〈政治信任、施政表現與民眾對台灣民主的展望〉，《台灣政治學刊》，7(2): 149-188。 ———，2019，〈台灣的民主治理與政治支持〉，《東亞研究》，50(1): 119-152。 陶儀芬，2008，〈全球化、民粹主義與公共知識社群〉，《思想》，9: 223-231。 游清鑫，2002，〈政黨認同與政黨形象：面訪與焦點團體訪談的結合〉，《選舉研究》，9(2): 85-115。 黃秀端，2004，〈政黨輪替前後的立法院內投票結盟〉，《選舉研究》，11(1): 1-32。 黃信豪，2005，〈台灣民眾政治功效意識的持續與變遷：政黨輪替前後的分析〉，《選舉研究》，12(2): 111-147。 ———，2011，〈民主態度的類型：台灣民眾二次政黨輪替後的分析〉，《選舉研究》，18(1): 1-34。 ———，2020，〈再探臺灣的「批判性公民」：2008-2016〉，《選舉研究》，27(1): 39-84。 蔡佳泓，2019，〈政府治理表現、公民文化與民主滿意度〉，《社會科學論叢》，13(2): 43-76。 蔡佳泓、徐永明、黃琇庭，2007，〈兩極化政治：解釋台灣2004總統大選〉，《選舉研究》，14(1): 1-31。 蕭怡靖，2014，〈從政黨情感溫度計解析台灣民眾的政治極化〉，《選舉研究》，21(2): 1-42。 ———，2019，〈台灣民眾的黨性極化及其對民主態度的影響〉，《台灣政治學刊》，23(2): 41-85。 蕭怡靖、鄭夙芬，2014，〈台灣民眾對左右意識型態的認知：以統獨議題取代左右意識型態檢測台灣〉，《台灣政治學刊》，18(2): 79-138。 羅清俊，2004，〈分配政策與預算制定之政治分析〉，《政治科學論叢》，21: 149-188。 蘋果新聞網，2018，〈3萬人到場相挺 侯友宜：討厭民進黨成最大黨〉，https://tw.appledaily.com/politics/20181117/DUTJ2CI4KO3OSA2ZDCXETJVYUQ/，2022/02/15。 Abramowitz, A. I., & J. McCoy. 2019. “United States: Racial Resentment, Negative Partisanship, and Polarization in Trump’s America.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 681(1): 137–156. Abramowitz, A. I., & K. L. Saunders. 2008. “Is Polarization a Myth?” The Journal of Politics 70(2): 542–555. Abramowitz, A. I., & S. Webster. 2016. “The Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of U.S. Elections in the 21st Century.” Electoral Studies 41: 12–22. Abramowitz, A. I., & S. W. Webster. 2018. “Negative Partisanship: Why Americans Dislike Parties But Behave Like Rabid Partisans: Negative Partisanship and Rabid Partisans.” Political Psychology 39: 119–135. Anderson, C. J., & C. A. Guillory. 1997. “Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems.” The American Political Science Review 91(1): 66–81. Balch, G. I. 1974. “Multiple Indicators in Survey Research: The Concept ‘Sense of Political Efficacy.’” Political Methodology 1(2): 1–43. Bankert, A. 2020. “Negative and Positive Partisanship in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections.” Political Behavior 43: 1467–1485. Banks, A., E. Calvo, D. Karol, & S. Telhami. 2021. “#PolarizedFeeds: Three Experiments on Polarization, Framing, and Social Media.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 26(3): 609–634. Belcastro, L., R. Cantini, F. Marozzo, D. Talia, & P. Trunfio. 2019. “Discovering Political Polarization on Social Media: A Case Study.” In 2019 15th International Conference on Semantics, Knowledge and Grids (SKG), eds. Hai Zhuge & Xiaoping Sun. Guangzhou: IEEE, 182–189. Bermeo, N. 2016. “On Democratic Backsliding.” Journal of Democracy 27(1): 5–19. Canovan, M. 1999. “Trust the People! Populism and the Two Faces of Democracy.” Political Studies 47(1): 2–16. Caruana, N. J., R. M. McGregor, & L. B. Stephenson. 2015. “The Power of the Dark Side: Negative Partisanship and Political Behaviour in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 48(4): 771–789. Chang, Yu-tzung., Yun-han Zhu, & Chong-min Park. 2007. “Authoritarian Nostalgia in Asia.” Journal of Democracy 18(3): 66–80. Chu, Yun-han & Min-hua Huang. 2010. “The Meaning of Democracy: Solving an Asian Puzzle.” Journal of Democracy 21(4): 114–122. Cianetti, L., & S. Hanley. 2021. “The End of the Backsliding Paradigm.” Journal of Democracy 32(1): 66–80. Claassen, C., & P. C. Magalhães. 2022. “Effective Government and Evaluations of Democracy.” Comparative Political Studies: 55(5): 869–894. Cohen, J., P. Cohen, S. West, & L. Aiken. 2013. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd Edition. New York: Routledge. Colleoni, E., A. Rozza, & A. Arvidsson. 2014. “Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data: Political Homophily on Twitter.” Journal of Communication 64(2): 317–332. Dalton, R. J. 2008. “The Quantity and the Quality of Party Systems: Party System Polarization, Its Measurement, and Its Consequences.” Comparative Political Studies 41(7): 899–920. Diamond, L. 2019. Ill Winds: Saving Democracy From Russian Rage, Chinese Ambition, And American Complacency. New York: Penguin Press. ———. 2022. “Democracy’s Arc: From Resurgent to Imperiled.” Journal of Democracy 33(1): 163–179. Downs, A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. Boston: Addison Wesley. Easton, D. 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley. ———. 1975. “A Re-Assessment of the Concept of Political Support.” British Journal of Political Science 5(4): 435–457. Evans, J. H., B. Bryson, & P. DiMaggio. 2001. “Opinion Polarization: Important Contributions, Necessary Limitations.” American Journal of Sociology 106(4): 944–959. Ezrow, L., M. Tavits, & J. Homola. 2014. “Voter Polarization, Strength of Partisanship, and Support for Extremist Parties.” Comparative Political Studies 47(11): 1558–1583. Fiorina, M. P., S. A. Abrams, & J. C. Pope. 2008. “Polarization in the American Public: Misconceptions and Misreadings.” The Journal of Politics 70(2): 556–560. Fiorina, M. P., & S. J. Abrams. 2008. “Political Polarization in the American Public.” Annual Review of Political Science 11(1): 563–588. Fiorina, M. P., S. J. Abrams, & J. Pope. 2006. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York: Pearson Education. Foa, R. S., & Y. Mounk. 2016. “The Danger of Deconsolidation: The Democratic Disconnect.” Journal of Democracy 27(3): 5–17. ———. 2017. “The Signs of Deconsolidation.” Journal of Democracy 28(1): 5–15. Foa, R. S., Y. Mounk, & A. Klassen. 2022. “Why the Future Cannot Be Predicted.” Journal of Democracy 33(1): 147–155. Gareth, J., D. Witten, T. Hastie & R. Tibshirani. 2017. An Introduction to Statistical Learning: With Applications in R. Berlin: Springer. Graham, M. H., & M. W. Svolik. 2020. “Democracy in America? Partisanship, Polarization, and the Robustness of Support for Democracy in the United States.” American Political Science Review 114(2): 392–409. Guedes-Neto, J. V. 2022. “The Effects of Political Attitudes on Affective Polarization: Survey Evidence from 165 Elections.” Political Studies Review January 2022: 1–22. Hair, J, F., R. R. Anderson, R. L. Tatham & W. C. Black. 1992. Multivariate Data Analysis: With Readings. New York: Pearson College Div. Hetherington, M. J., & J. Weiler. 2018. Prius or Pickup? How the Answers to Four Simple Questions Explain America’s Great Divide. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Hobolt, S. B., T. J. Leeper, & J. Tilley. 2021. “Divided by the Vote: Affective Polarization in the Wake of the Brexit Referendum.” British Journal of Political Science 51(4): 1476–1493. Howell, P., & F. Justwan. 2013. “Nail-Biters and No-Contests: The Effect of Electoral Margins on Satisfaction with Democracy in Winners and Losers.” Electoral Studies 32(2): 334–343. Hsiao, Y., & E. C. Yu. 2020. “Polarization Perception and Support for Democracy: The Case of Taiwan.” Journal of Asian and African Studies 55(8): 1143–1162. Huber, G. A., & N. Malhotra. 2017. “Political Homophily in Social Relationships: Evidence from Online Dating Behavior.” The Journal of Politics 79(1): 269–283. Hunter, J. D. 1991. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America; [Making Sense of the Battles over the Family, Art, Education, Law, and Politics]. New York: Basic Books. Huntington, S. P. 1993. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman (Okla.): University of Oklahoma press. Iyengar, S., Y. Lelkes, M. Levendusky, N. Malhotra, & S. J. Westwood. 2019. “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science 22(1): 129–146. Iyengar, S., G. Sood, & Y. Lelkes. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76(3): 405–431. Iyengar, S., & S. J. Westwood. 2015. “Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science 59(3): 690–707. Kim, J. H. 2019. “Multicollinearity and Misleading Statistical Results.” Korean Journal of Anesthesiology 72(6): 558–569. König, P. D., M. B. Siewert, & K. Ackermann. 2022. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Citizens’ Preferences for Democracy: Taking Stock of Three Decades of Research in a Fragmented Field.” Comparative Political Studies January 2022: 1-35. LeBas, A. 2011. From Protest to Parties: Party-Building and Democratization in Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2018. “Can Polarization Be Positive? Conflict and Institutional Development in Africa.” American Behavioral Scientist 62(1): 59–74. Levitsky, S., & D. Ziblatt. 2018. How Democracies Die. New York: Crown. Linz, J. J., & A. C. Stepan. 1996. “Toward Consolidated Democracies.” Journal of Democracy 7(2): 14–33. Lupu, N. 2015. “Party Polarization and Mass Partisanship: A Comparative Perspective.” Political Behavior 37(2): 331–356. Mattes, R., & Bratton, M. 2007. “Learning about democracy in Africa: Awareness, performance, and experience.” American Journal of Political Science 51(1), 192-217. Mayer, S. J. 2017. “How Negative Partisanship Affects Voting Behavior in Europe: Evidence from an Analysis of 17 European Multi-Party Systems with Proportional Voting.” Research & Politics 4(1): 1–7. McConnell, C., Y. Margalit, N. Malhotra, & M. Levendusky. 2018. “The Economic Consequences of Partisanship in a Polarized Era.” American Journal of Political Science 62(1): 5–18. McCoy, J., T. Rahman, & M. Somer. 2018. “Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy: Common Patterns, Dynamics, and Pernicious Consequences for Democratic Polities.” American Behavioral Scientist 62(1): 16–42. McCoy, J., & M. Somer. 2019. “Toward a Theory of Pernicious Polarization and How It Harms Democracies: Comparative Evidence and Possible Remedies.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 681(1): 234–271. Mcgregor, R., N. Caruana, & L. Stephenson. 2015. “Negative Partisanship in a Multi-Party System: The Case of Canada.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 25: 1–17. Meléndez, C., & C. R. Kaltwasser. 2021. “Negative Partisanship towards the Populist Radical Right and Democratic Resilience in Western Europe.” Democratization 28(5): 949–969. Mudde, C. 2004. “The Populist Zeitgeist.” Government and Opposition 39(4): 541–563. Mudde, C., & C. R. Kaltwasser. 2018. “Studying Populism in Comparative Perspective: Reflections on the Contemporary and Future Research Agenda.” Comparative Political Studies 51(13): 1667–1693. Norris, P. 2011. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1999. Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pew Research Center. 2019. “Partisan Antipathy: More Intense, More Personal.” https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/10/partisan-antipathy-more-intense-more-personal/. Latest update 10 May 2022. Przeworski, A. 1991. Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rawnsley, G. D. 2014. “Taiwan’s Soft Power and Public Diplomacy.” Journal of Current Chinese Affairs 43(3): 161–174. Ridge, H. M. 2020. “Enemy Mine: Negative Partisanship and Satisfaction with Democracy.” Political Behavior: Epub ahead of print 12 November 2020. Ridge, H. M. 2022. “Just like the Others: Party Differences, Perception, and Satisfaction with Democracy.” Party Politics 28(3): 419–430. Robison, J., & R. L. Moskowitz. 2019. “The Group Basis of Partisan Affective Polarization.” The Journal of Politics 81(3): 1075–1079. Rose, R., W. Mishler, & C. W. Haerpfer. 1998. Democracy and Its Alternatives: Understanding Post-Communist Societies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Schafferer, C. 2020. “Taiwan’s Defensive Democratization.” Asian Affairs: An American Review 47(1): 41–69. Schedler, A., & R. Sarsfield. 2007. “Democrats with Adjectives: Linking Direct and Indirect Measures of Democratic Support.” European Journal of Political Research 46(5): 637–659. Sheng, S., & H. (Mandy) Liao. 2017. “Issues, Political Cleavages, and Party Competition in Taiwan.” In The Taiwan Voter, eds. Christopher H. Achen and T. Y. Wang. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 98–138. Shin, D. C. 2021. “Democratic Deconsolidation in East Asia: Exploring System Realignments in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.” Democratization 28(1): 142–160. Singer, M. 2016. “Elite Polarization and the Electoral Impact of Left-Right Placements: Evidence from Latin America, 1995–2009.” Latin American Research Review 51(2): 174–194. Somer, M., & J. McCoy. 2018. “Déjà vu? Polarization and Endangered Democracies in the 21st Century.” American Behavioral Scientist 62(1): 3–15. Stavrakakis, Y. 2018. “Paradoxes of Polarization: Democracy’s Inherent Division and the (Anti-) Populist Challenge.” American Behavioral Scientist 62(1): 43–58. Svolik, M. W. 2019. “Polarization versus Democracy.” Journal of Democracy 30(3): 20–32. Webster, S. W. 2018. “It’s Personal: The Big Five Personality Traits and Negative Partisan Affect in Polarized U.S. Politics.” American Behavioral Scientist 62(1): 127–145. Weissberg, R. 1975. “Political Efficacy and Political Illusion.” The Journal of Politics 37(2): 469–487. Welzel, C. 2021. “Why The Future Is Democratic.” Journal of Democracy 32(2): 132–144. Zhong, C. B., K. W. Phillips, G. J. Leonardelli, & A. D. Galinsky. 2008. “Negational Categorization and Intergroup Behavior.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34(6): 793–806. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/85685 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 隨著全球許多國家出現民主倒退、民粹主義抬頭的現象，有學者認為成熟民主國家中開始出現「民主去鞏固化」（democratic deconsolidation）的現象，意即公民對民主制度的偏好下降，同時對威權體制的接受程度上升。其中政治情感極化（affective polarization）及其衍生出的「負面黨性」(negative partisanship)是一重要的原因。 本文以臺灣為例，從政黨情感極化下的負面黨性視角切入，探討負面黨性是否會影響臺灣民眾對民主的支持，以及對不同政黨有負面黨性的公民之間，對民主的支持是否有差異，藉此暸解負面黨性是否會導致臺灣的民主去鞏固化。透過「臺灣選舉與民主化調查」（TEDS）2008至2020年共四屆總統大選後的調查資料，本文發現負面黨性確實降低了臺灣公民對民主運作的滿意度。進一步區分厭惡的對象後，發現對勝選政黨的負面黨性會降低對民主運作的滿意度，但這是否會降低對民主政體本身的支持度，則要視厭惡的對象而定。對國民黨的負面黨性並不會使其轉向非民主政體，然而對民進黨的負面黨性卻始終都讓這類選民更能接受民主以外的選項，即使在國民黨執政的時期依舊如此。換言之，討厭國民黨的選民傾向成為對民主政體有絕對信奉的批判性公民（critical citizens）。討厭民進黨的選民則不僅不滿意民主當下的運作，並且對民主政體較缺乏規範性的絕對支持，因此更具有民主去鞏固的態度。 總結來說，本文發現對不同政黨的負面黨性可能導致完全不同的民主態度。倘若對一黨的厭惡感並不導致民主去鞏固化的心態，那麼我們短期內或許尚不需對這類的極化感到憂心。但若對一黨的厭惡感已經威脅到民主的鞏固，那麼吾人便需謹慎應對政治極化帶來的威脅。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Along with the democratic backsliding and populism in global, some scholars thought that there had been “democratic deconsolidation” in mature democratic countries. It means that citizens’ preference for democratic institutions decreased, while the acceptance of authoritarian regimes increased. Among them, the affective polarization in politics and the negative partisanship derived from the former is the primary cause. This article takes on the case of Taiwan through the perspective of negative partisanship and tries to find out whether negative partisanship affects the support for democracy. Also, this research set out to find whether there is a difference in the support for democracy among citizens who possesses negative partisanship toward the different party. Based on four-wave survey data after the presidential elections by TEDS from 2008 to 2020, we noticed that the negative partisanship decreased the Taiwanese’ satisfaction with the functioning of democracy, but whether this reduces support for democracy itself depends on the object of negativity. When the object was KMT, negative partisanship didn’t make people prefer the undemocratic regimes. However, the negative partisanship toward DPP lead people to consider options other than democracy, even when KMT was in power. Electorates who dislike KMT tend to be critical citizens with a firm belief in democracy. Electorates who dislike DPP are not only dissatisfied with how democracy works but also have less normative support for democracies, therefore showing more attitude toward democratic deconsolidation. In conclusion, this article found that negative partisanship toward different parties may lead to different democratic attitudes. If the disliking to a party won’t lead to a democratic deconsolidation attitude, then we may not need to worry about this kind of polarization in the short term. But if the negative partisanship toward a party had threat the consolidation of democracy, then we have to be cautious about the threat posed by political polarization. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-03-19T23:21:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-1906202216213000.pdf: 2667249 bytes, checksum: b5928aa87c27d5445d6b3aea2ef7ee77 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2022 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員審定書 I 謝辭 III 中文摘要 V 英文摘要 VII 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機與問題意識 1 第二節 研究目的與研究問題 4 第三節 章節安排 5 第二章 文獻檢閱 7 第一節 民主的倒退與去鞏固 7 第二節 政黨情感極化與負面黨性 10 第三節 從極化到民主去鞏固化 14 第四節 臺灣民主與政治極化 17 第五節 小結 19 第三章 研究假設與研究設計 21 第一節 研究假設 21 第二節 資料來源 24 第三節 變項操作化 26 第四章 負面黨性與民主支持分佈 35 第一節 負面黨性的整體分佈 35 第二節 各政黨認同者的負面黨性 37 第四節 交叉分析 40 第五節 小結 45 第五章 負面黨性對民主支持的影響 47 第一節 模型設定 47 第二節 共線性診斷 48 第三節 負面黨性與民主滿意 49 第四節 對勝選政黨的負面黨性與民主滿意 52 第五節 對兩黨的負面黨性與民主去鞏固化 55 第六節 小結 58 第六章 結論與建議 61 第一節 研究發現與結論 61 第二節 研究限制 64 第三節 未來研究方向建議 65 參考文獻 67 附錄一 變項測量與編碼處理 77 附錄二 敘述統計詳細表格 81 附錄三 共線性診斷詳細結果 85 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 民主支持 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 民主去鞏固 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 民主滿意 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 情感極化 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 負面黨性 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Democratic deconsolidation | en |
| dc.subject | Negative partisanship | en |
| dc.subject | Affective polarization | en |
| dc.subject | Satisfaction with democracy | en |
| dc.subject | Support for democracy | en |
| dc.title | 負面黨性與民主去鞏固化: 以 2008-2020 年臺灣為例 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Negative Partisanship and Democratic Deconsolidation: The Case of Taiwan in 2008 - 2020 | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 110-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 黃信豪(Hsin-Hao Huang),蕭怡靖(Yi-Ching Hsiao) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 負面黨性,情感極化,民主滿意,民主支持,民主去鞏固, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Negative partisanship,Affective polarization,Satisfaction with democracy,Support for democracy,Democratic deconsolidation, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 85 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202201001 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2022-06-23 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 政治學研究所 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2022-07-05 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 政治學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| U0001-1906202216213000.pdf | 2.6 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
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。