請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/89761完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 童涵浦 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Hans Hanpu Tung | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 郭兆翊 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Chao-Yi Kuo | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-09-20T16:16:06Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2023-11-09 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2023-09-20 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2023 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2023-08-10 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | Abramowitz, A. (2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. Yale University Press.
Abramowitz, A. I. (2011). The 2008 election: Polarization continues. Controversies in voting behavior, 5. Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth? The Journal of Politics, 70(2), 542–555. Adamic, L. A., & Glance, N. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 US elec- tion: divided they blog. Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery, 36–43. Alford, J. R., Hatemi, P. K., Hibbing, J. R., Martin, N. G., & Eaves, L. J. (2011). The politics of mate choice. The Journal of Politics, 73(2), 362–379. Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. F., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F., & Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216–9221. Barber, B. (2003). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Univ of Cali- fornia Press. Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., & Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psycho- logical science, 26(10), 1531–1542. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173. Bohman, J. (1996). Public Deliberation: Pluralism. Complexity, and Democracy. Cam- bridge: MIT Press, 2000. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1980). The american voter. University of Chicago Press. Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton University Press. Chang, W.-C. (2018). Media use and satisfaction with democracy: Testing the role of po- litical interest. Social Indicators Research, 140, 999–1016. Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic press. Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predict- ing political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of communication, 64(2), 317–332. Connolly, W. E. (2002). Identity, difference: Democratic negotiations of political paradox. U of Minnesota Press. Conover, M. D., Gonçalves, B., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2012). Partisan asymmetries in online political activity. EPJ Data science, 1(1), 1–19. Corrado, A., & Firestone, C. M. (1996). Elections in cyberspace: Promises and perils. Elections in cyberspace: Toward a new era in American politics. Cox, D. R. (1984). Interaction. International Statistical Review/Revue Internationale de Statistique, 1–24. Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political communication, 22(2), 147–162. Dalton, R. J. (2008). The quantity and the quality of party systems: Party system polariza- tion, its measurement, and its consequences. Comparative political studies, 41(7), 899–920. David, C. C. (2009). Learning political information from the news: A closer look at the role of motivation. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 243–261. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of political economy, 65(2), 135–150. Drew, D., & Weaver, D. (2006). Voter learning in the 2004 presidential election: Did the media matter? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(1), 25–42. Dryzek, J. S. (2002). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford University Press on Demand. Evans, J. H., Bryson, B., & DiMaggio, P. (2001). Opinion polarization: Important contri- butions, necessary limitations. American Journal of Sociology, 106(4), 944–959. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., et al. (2008). Political polarization in the American public. ANNUAL REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE-PALO ALTO-, 11, 563. Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2010). Where’s the polarization. Controversies in voting behavior, edited by Niemi, Richard G and Weisberg, Herbert F and Kimball, David C, 309–318. Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2005). Culture war. The myth of a polarized America, 3. Fiorina, M. P., & Levendusky, M. S. (2006). Disconnected: The political class versus the people. Red and blue nation, 1, 49–71. Freedman, J. L., & Sears, D. O. (1965). Selective exposure. In Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 57–97). Elsevier. Gareth, J., Daniela, W., Trevor, H., & Robert, T. (2013). An introduction to statistical learning: with applications in R. Spinger. Gutmann, A., Thompson, D., et al. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton University Press. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. F. (1998). Democracy and disagreement. Harvard University Press. Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT press. Hawang, S.-d., et al. (2016). The Influence of the sunflower movement on the civic movement in Taiwan. Studia z Polityki Publicznej, 12(4), 103–133. Hetherington, M., & Weiler, J. (2018). Prius or pickup?: How the answers to four simple questions explain America’s great divide. Houghton Mifflin. Hetherington, M. J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American political science review, 95(3), 619–631. Hsiao, Y.-c., & Yu, E. C.-h. (2020). Polarization perception and support for democracy: The case of Taiwan. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 55(8), 1143–1162. Huber, G., & Malhotra, N. (2012). Political Sorting in Social Relationships. Annual Meet- ing of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans, LA. Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M., & Osborn, T. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25(1), 65–95. Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 129–146. Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideologya social identity perspec- tive on polarization. Public opinion quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (2017). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Routledge. Kimball, D. C., & Gross, C. A. (2007). The growing polarization of American voters. The state of the parties, 266. Kinder, D. R. (2003). Communication and politics in the age of information. Klapper, J. T. (1960). The effects of mass communication. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Meng, J. (2009). Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Communication Research, 36(3), 426–448. Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., & Horowitz, J. M. (2006). Party polarization in American politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 83–110. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1968). The people’s choice. In The people’s choice. Columbia University Press. Lelkes, Y., Sood, G., & Iyengar, S. (2017). The hostile audience: The effect of access to broadband internet on partisan affect. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 5–20. Levendusky, M. (2013). Partisan media exposure and attitudes toward the opposition. Political communication, 30(4), 565–581. Lewis-Beck, M. S., Nadeau, R., & Elias, A. (2008). Economics, party, and the vote: Causality issues and panel data. American Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 84– 95. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polariza- tion: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of personality and social psychology, 37(11), 2098. McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2016). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. mit Press. Miller, W. E., Shanks, J. M., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1996). The new American voter. Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA. Mutz, D. C. (2006). How the mass media divide us. Red and blue nation? Characteristics and causes of America’s polarized politics, 1, 223–242. Olson, J. (2008). Whiteness and the polarization of American politics. Political Research Quarterly, 61(4), 704–718. Peterson, D. K., & Pitz, G. F. (1988). Confidence, uncertainty, and the use of information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 14(1), 85. Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge University Press. Prior, M. (2013). Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 101–127. Roch, C. H., Scholz, J. T., & McGraw, K. M. (2000). Social networks and citizen response to legal change. American Journal of Political Science, 777–791. Sears, D. O., & Freedman, J. L. (1967). Selective exposure to information: A critical review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 31(2), 194–213. Stroud, N. J. (2007). Media Effects, Selective Exposure, and Fahrenheit 9/11. Political Communication, 24, 415–432. Stroud, N. J. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30(3), 341–366. Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of communication, 60(3), 556–576. Wang, A. H.-E. (2019). The myth of polarization among Taiwanese voters: The missing middle. Journal of East Asian Studies, 19(3), 275–287. Zaller, J. R., et al. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge university press. Zuckerman, A. S. (2005). The social logic of politics: Personal networks as contexts for political behavior. Temple University Press. 劉惠卿. (2009). 電視報導新聞議題之政黨偏差研究-以 TVBS-N 與 SET-N 報導 312 維新館事件為例. 傳播與管理研究, 9(1), 33–64. 吳乃德. (1992). 國家認同和政黨支持: 台灣政黨競爭的社會基礎. 林南華. (2021). 政治興趣與媒體使用對政治極化之影響. 王宏恩. (2011). 資訊提供與立法院政治信任-使用 IVOD 的探索性研究. 臺灣民主季刊, 8(3), 161–197. 盛杏浚. (2002). 統獨議題與台灣選民的投票行為: 一九九 ○ 年代的分析. 盛杏湲. (2008). 政黨的國會領導與凝聚力-2000 年政黨輪替前後的觀察. 臺灣民主季刊, 5(4), 1–46. 蔡佳泓. (2007). 民主深化或政黨競爭? 初探台灣 2004 年公民投票參與. 台灣政治學刊, 11(1), 109–145. 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. 蕭怡靖. (2019). 台灣民衆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的政黨極化. 台灣政治學刊, 18(2), 79–138. 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. | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/89761 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 近年來，政治極化備受學界重視，其中又以對於特定政黨的厭惡而形成的情感極化最常被提及。作為民眾獲取政治資訊的主要管道，媒體是否會因為本身的政黨立場，繼而傳遞特定意識形態的資訊以形塑民眾的政治態度？本研究運用TIGCR 2018年至2021年的資料，試圖探討台灣民眾的媒體使用行為，包含媒體政黨偏差、信任程度等因素，是否會影響其發生情感極化的可能性。本研究也關注異質資訊所扮演的角色，探討被動或主動處於異質資訊是否能夠減緩情感極化的發生，進而實踐審議式民主的理想。應用OLS模型進行估計，本研究發現政黨認同與媒體政黨偏差間存在顯著的交互作用，泛綠且喜歡收看偏綠新聞台者，更容易發生情感極化。此外，本研究也發現被動接觸異質資訊具有減緩情感極化的作用，至於主動接觸異質資訊則會因著背後動機的不同，效果較不明顯。另一方面，在Pooled OLS模型下，也能看見台灣的政治極化隨著時間發展，有越趨嚴重的現象。總上，本研究結合政治極化與政治傳播兩大領域，並為其作出學術上的補充。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | The concept of affective polarization has been widely discussed as the topic of polit- ical polarization draws more and more attention from political scientists in recent years. Being the most common way for people to acquire political information, does the media shapes people’s political attitude by delivering information with specific ideology? Using data from the TIGCR from 2018 to 2021, this study attempts to examine whether Tai- wanese people’s behavior of media use, including factors such as media bias and media trust, would affect their likelihood of affective polarization. This study also focuses on the role of heterogeneous information, and examines whether passive or active exposure can mitigate affective polarization, thus fulfilling the ideal of deliberative democracy. Results from Ordinary Least Square (OLS) shows a significant effect from the interaction between people’s partisanship and media bias, particularly the supporters of pro-Democratic Pro- gressive Party (DPP) who watch the TV news that support DPP. In addition, the study discovers that passive heterogenous information can reduce affective polarization, while active heterogenous information doesn’t show a significant effect due to people’s different motivation. On the other hand, by utilizing Pooled OLS, the study also observed political polarization in Taiwan has becoming more severe as time goes by. To sum up, the study contributes the research of comparative politics by bridging the discipline of political po- larization and political communication. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2023-09-20T16:16:06Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-09-20T16:16:06Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員審定書 I
致謝 II 摘要 III Abstract IV 章節目錄 V 圖目錄 VIII 表目錄 X 第一章 前言 1 1.1 研究背景與動機 1 1.2 問題與問題意識 2 1.3 章節安排 3 第二章 文獻回顧 5 2.1 政黨認同對選民行為的作用 5 2.2 政治極化的探討 7 2.3 政治極化在台灣 10 2.4 選擇性暴露與政治極化 12 2.5 異質資訊接觸與政治極化 16 第三章 研究假設與研究設計 19 3.1 研究假設 19 3.2 資料來源 20 3.3 變項操作化 20 3.4 研究方法與模型設定 29 第四章 實證分析 38 4.1 敘述統計 38 4.2 共線性診斷 45 4.3 相關性檢定 46 4.4 模型分析:普通最小平方法估計 48 4.5 模型分析:交互作用估計 54 4.6 混合模型估計(Pooled OLS) 59 4.7 控制變項探討 61 4.8 小結 61 第五章 穩健度測試 65 5.1 排除追蹤樣本的影響 65 5.2 模型分析:普通最小平方法估計 65 5.3 模型分析:交互作用估計 69 5.4 混合模型估計(PooledOLS) 74 5.5 控制變數探討 77 5.6 調節變項變換測試 78 5.7 小結 80 第六章 結論與研究限制 82 6.1 研究發現 82 6.2 研究限制與延伸方向 83 參考文獻 84 附錄 A — 實證分析:完整模型結果 91 A.1 模型分析:普通最小平方法估計 91 A.2 模型分析:交互作用估計 95 A.3 模型分析:混合模型估計(PooledOLS) 99 附錄 B — 穩健度測試:完整模型結果 102 B.1 模型分析:普通最小平方法估計 102 B.2 模型分析:交互作用估計 106 B.3 模型分析:混合模型估計(PooledOLS) 110 圖目錄 3.1 樣本追蹤期數佔比示意圖 30 4.1 情感極化平均值歷年變化 39 4.2 媒體政黨偏差歷年平均值 42 4.3 情感極化平均值歷年變化(依政黨認同區分) 42 4.4 媒體信任程度歷年平均值(依政黨認同區分) 43 4.5 被動接觸異質資訊程度平均值歷年變化(依政黨認同區分) 44 4.6 主動接觸異質資訊程度平均值歷年變化(依政黨認同區分) 45 4.7 模型1:係數視覺化 49 4.8 模型2:係數視覺化 50 4.9 模型3:係數視覺化 52 4.10模型4:係數視覺化 53 4.11模型5:係數視覺化 56 4.13模型7:係數視覺化 57 4.14模型8:係數視覺化 58 4.15混合模型1:係數視覺化 59 4.16混合模型2:係數視覺化 60 4.17模型8:控制變項係數視覺化 62 4.18混合模型2:控制變項係數視覺化 62 5.1 追蹤樣本排除資料變化示意圖 66 5.2 模型1_robust:係數視覺化 67 5.3 模型2_robust:係數視覺化 68 5.4 模型3_robust:係數視覺化 69 5.5 模型4_robust:係數視覺化 70 5.6 模型5_robust:係數視覺化 71 5.7 模型6_robust:係數視覺化 72 5.8 模型7_robust:係數視覺化 73 5.9 模型8_robust:係數視覺化 74 5.10混合模型1:係數視覺化 75 5.11混合模型2:係數視覺化 76 5.12模型8:控制變項係數視覺化 77 5.13混合模型2:控制變項係數視覺化 78 5.14調節變項變換測試:係數視覺化 79 表目錄 3.1 變項說明 27 3.2 變項說明(續) 28 4.1 情感極化不同年度分佈 38 4.2 政黨認同三分類敘述統計 39 4.3 不同政黨認同的情感極化敘述統計 41 4.4 共線性診斷 46 4.5 Spearman’sCorrelationTest 47 A.1 媒體信任與媒體政黨偏差形成情感極化:不同年度 OLS 估計 91 A.2 被動接觸異質資訊對情感極化形成的影響:不同年度 OLS 估計 92 A.3 主動接觸異質資訊對情感極化形成的影響:不同年度 OLS 估計 93 A.4 接觸異質資訊對情感極化形成的影響:不同年度 OLS 估計 94 A.5 媒體信任與媒體政黨偏差形成情感極化:不同年度 OLS 估計 95 A.6 被動接觸異質資訊對情感極化形成的影響:不同年度 OLS 估計 96 A.7 主動接觸異質資訊對情感極化形成的影響:不同年度 OLS 估計 97 A.8 接觸異質資訊對情感極化形成的影響:不同年度 OLS 估計 98 A.9 接觸異質資訊對情感極化形成的影響:Pooled OLS 估計 100 A.10 接觸異質資訊對情感極化形成的影響:Pooled OLS 估計 (續前頁) 101 B.11 媒體信任與媒體政黨偏差形成情感極化:不同年度 OLS 估計 102 B.12 被動接觸異質資訊對情感極化形成的影響:不同年度 OLS 估計 103 B.13 主動接觸異質資訊對情感極化形成的影響:不同年度 OLS 估計 104 B.14 接觸異質資訊對情感極化形成的影響:不同年度 OLS 估計 105 B.15 媒體信任與媒體政黨偏差形成情感極化:不同年度 OLS 估計 106 B.16 被動接觸異質資訊對情感極化形成的影響:不同年度 OLS 估計 107 B.17 主動接觸異質資訊對情感極化形成的影響:不同年度 OLS 估計 108 B.18 被動與主動接觸異質資訊對情感極化形成的影響:不同年度 OLS 估計 109 B.19 接觸異質資訊對情感極化形成的影響:Pooled OLS 估計 111 B.20 接觸異質資訊對情感極化形成的影響:Pooled OLS 估計 (續前頁) 112 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.subject | 異質資訊 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 選擇性暴露 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 媒體使用 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 政黨認同 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 情感極化 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Partisan | en |
| dc.subject | Selective Exposure | en |
| dc.subject | Affective Polarization | en |
| dc.subject | Heterogenous Information | en |
| dc.subject | Media Use | en |
| dc.title | 政治極化與台灣政治：媒體傳播對政治極化的影響 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Political Polarization in Taiwan: the Effect of Media Communication on Political Polarization | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 111-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 俞振華;江淳芳 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Eric Chen-hua Yu;Chun-Fang Chiang | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 情感極化,政黨認同,媒體使用,選擇性暴露,異質資訊, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Affective Polarization,Partisan,Media Use,Selective Exposure,Heterogenous Information, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 112 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202303692 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2023-08-11 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 政治學系 | - |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2023-09-01 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 政治學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-111-2.pdf | 2.13 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。