請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/93067完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 張佑宗 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Yu-tzung Chang | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 魏志展 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Jhih-Jhan Wei | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-07-17T16:14:40Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2024-07-18 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2024-07-17 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2024 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2024-07-04 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | Allcott, H., & M. Gentzkow. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of economic perspectives, 31(2), 211-236.
Amazeen, M. A. (2020). Journalistic interventions: The structural factors affecting the global emergence of fact-checking. Journalism, 21(1): 95–111. Amazeen, M. A., E. Thorson., A. Muddiman. & L. Graves. (2018). Correcting political and consumer misperceptions: The effectiveness and effects of rating scale versus contextual correction formats. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(1), 28-48. Asker, D., & E. Dinas. (2019). Thinking fast and furious: Emotional intensity and opinion polarization in online media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(3): 487-509. Baker, Andy & Lúcio Rennó. (2019). “Nonpartisans as False Negatives: The Mismeasurement of Party Identification in Public Opinion Surveys.” Journal of Politics, 81 (3), 906–22. Bakshy, E., S. Messing., & L. A. Adamic. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130-1132. Bennett, W. L. & S. Livingston. (2018). The disinformation order: Disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication, 33(2): 122–139. Berinsky, A. (2017). Rumors and Health Care Reform: Experiments in Political Misinformation. British Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 241-262. Bolsen, T., J. N. Druckman. & F. L. Cook. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36, 235-262. Brummette, J., M. DiStaso., M. Vafeiadis., & M. Messner. (2018). Read all about it: The politicization of “fake news” on Twitter. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 95(2): 497-517. Bullock, J. G., A. S. Gerber., S. J. Hill & G. A. Huber. (2015). Partisan bias in factual beliefs about politics. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 10, 519–578. Chambers, S.(2021). Truth, Deliberative Democracy, and the Virtues of Accuracy: Is Fake News Destroying the Public Sphere? Political Studies, 69(1): 147–163 Chen, Y., N. K. Conroy. & V. L. Rubin. (2015). News in an online world: The need for an “automatic crap detector”. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 52(1), 1-4. Clayton, K., S. Blair., J. A. Busam., S. Forstner., J. Glance., G. Green., Kawata.A., A. Kovvuri., J. Martin., E. Morgan., M. Sandhu., R. Sang., R. Scholz-Bright., A.T. Welch., A.G. Wolff., A. Zhou & B. Nyhan. (2020). Real solutions for fake news? Measuring the effectiveness of general warnings and fact-check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social media. Political behavior, 42, 1073-1095. Druckman, J. N. (2012). The politics of motivation. Critical Review, 24(2), 199-216. Druckman, J. N., E. Peterson. & R. Slothuus. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American political science review, 107(1), 57-79. Eagly, A. H. & S. Chaiken. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Ecker, U. K., S. Lewandowsky. & J. Apai. (2011). Terrorists brought down the plane!—No, actually it was a technical fault: Processing corrections of emotive information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(2), 283-310. Ecker, U. K., S. Lewandowsky., & D. T. Tang. (2010). Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation. Memory & cognition, 38, 1087-1100. Evans, J. S. B., & K. E. Stanovich. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on psychological science, 8(3), 223-241. Flynn, D. J., B. Nyhan., & J. Reifler. (2017). The nature and origins of misperceptions: Understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology, 38, 127-150. Fridkin, K. L., Courey, J., Hernandez, S., & Spears, J. (2016). Gender differences in reactions to fact checking of negative commercials. Politics & Gender, 12(2), 369-390. Fridkin, K., P. J. Kenney. & A. Wintersieck. (2015). Liar, liar, pants on fire: How fact-checking influences citizens’ reactions to negative advertising. Political Communication, 32(1), 127-151. Gaines, B. J., J. H. Kuklinski., P. J. Quirk., B. Peyton. & J. Verkuilen. (2007). Same facts, different interpretations: Partisan motivation and opinion on Iraq. The Journal of Politics, 69(4), 957-974. Garrett, R. K. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of communication, 59(4), 676-699. Garrett, R. K., & B. E. Weeks. (2013). The promise and peril of real-time corrections to political misperceptions.Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work , 1047-1058. Gervais, W. M., & A. Norenzayan. (2012). Analytic thinking promotes religious disbelief. Science, 336(6080), 493-496. Graves, L. B. Nyhan and J. Reifler. (2016).Understanding Innovations in Journalistic Practice: A Field Experiment Examining Motivations for Fact-checking. Journal of Communication 66 (1): 102–138. Hagen, L., S. Neely., T. E. Keller., R. Scharf. & F. E. Vasquez. (2022). Rise of the Machines? Examining the Influence of Social Bots on a Political Discussion Network. Social Science Computer Review, 40(2): 264–287. Hameleers, M., & T. G. L. A. van der Meer. (2020). “Misinformation and Polarization in a High-Choice Media Environment: How Effective Are Political Fact-Checkers?” Communication Research, 47(2): 227–250. Harman, G. (1986). Change in view: Principles of reasoning. The MIT Press. Hollander, B. A. (2010). Persistence in the perception of Barack Obama as a Muslim in the 2008 presidential campaign. Journal of Media and Religion, 9(2), 55-66. Iyengar, S. & K. S. Hahn. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of communication, 59(1), 19-39. Jamieson, K. H. & D. Taussig. (2017). Disruption, demonization, deliverance, and norm destruction: The rhetorical signature of Donald J. Trump. Political Science Quarterly, 132(4), 619-650. Jarman, J. W. (2016). Influence of political affiliation and criticism on the effectiveness of political fact-checking. Communication Research Reports, 33(1), 9-15 Kahne, J. & B. Bowyer. (2017). Educating for democracy in a partisan age: Confronting the challenges of motivated reasoning and misinformation. American educational research journal, 54(1), 3-34. Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. The American psychologist, 58(9), 697–720. Kim, A., Moravec, P. L. & A. R. Dennis. (2019). Combating fake news on social media with source ratings: The effects of user and expert reputation ratings. Journal of Management Information Systems, 36(3), 931-968. Knobloch-Westerwick, S. & J. Meng. (2009). Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Communication Research, 36(3), 426–448. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., C. Mothes. & N. Polavin. (2020). Confirmation Bias, Ingroup Bias, and Negativity Bias in Selective Exposure to Political Information. Communication Research, 47(1): 104–124 Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. Lazer, D. M., M. A. Baum., Y. Benkler., A. J. Berinsky., K. M. Greenhill., F. Menczer., M.J. Metzger., B. Nyhan., G. Pennycook., D. Rothschild., M. Schudson., S.A. Sloman., C.R. Sunstein., E.A. Thorson., D.J. Watts. & J. L. Zittrain. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094-1096. Lee, E. J. & S. Y. Shin. (2021). Mediated misinformation: Questions answered, more questions to ask. American Behavioral Scientist, 65(2), 259-276. Lewandowsky, S., U. K. H. Ecker., C. M. Seifert., N. Schwarz. & J. Cook. (2012). Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131. Lewandowsky, S., U. K. Ecker. & J. Cook. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of applied research in memory and cognition, 6(4), 353-369. Lombardi, D., E. M. Nussbaum., & G. M. Sinatra. (2016). Plausibility judgments in conceptual change and epistemic cognition. Educational Psychologist, 51(1), 35-56. Lombardi, D., V. Seyranian. & G. M. Sinatra. (2014). Source effects and plausibility judgments when reading about climate change. Discourse Processes, 51(1-2), 75-92. Lowrey, W. (2017). The emergence and development of news fact-checking sites:Institutional logics and population ecology. Journalism Studies, 18(3): 376-394. Margolin, D. B., A. Hannak. & I. Weber. (2018). Political fact-checking on Twitter: When do corrections have an effect?. Political Communication, 35(2), 196-219. McKay, S. & C. Tenove. (2021). Disinformation as a Threat to Deliberative Democracy. Political Research Quarterly, 74(3): 703–717. McNair, B. (2017). Fake news: Falsehood, fabrication and fantasy in journalism. Routledge. Mechkova, V., Pemstein, D., Seim, B. & Wilson, S. (2022). Measuring Internet Politics: Digital Society Project (DSP) Annual Report v4 (Digital Society Project Working Paper Series 2022:1). Retrieved from https://digitalsocietyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/DSP_working_paper_1_v4.pdf. Meraz, S. & Z. Papacharissi. (2013). Networked Gatekeeping and Networked Framing on #Egypt. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(2), 138-166. Mercier, H. & D. Sperber. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and brain sciences, 34(2), 57-74. Merpert, A., M. Furman., M. V. Anauati., L. Zommer. & I. Taylor. (2018). Is that even checkable? An experimental study in identifying checkable statements in political discourse. Communication Research Reports, 35(1), 48-57. Nieminen, S. & L. Rapeli. (2019). Fighting misperceptions and doubting journalists’ objectivity: A review of fact-checking literature. Political studies review, 17(3), 296-309. Nir, L. (2011). Motivated reasoning and public opinion perception. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(3), 504-532. Nyhan, B. & J. Reifler. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330. Nyhan, B. & J. Reifler. (2012). Misinformation and fact-checking: Research findings from social science. New America Foundation. Nyhan, B., J. Reifler. & P. A. Ubel. (2013). The Hazards of Correcting Myths About Health Care Reform. Medical Care, 51(2), 127–132. Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., M. Schmierbach., A. Appelman. & M. P. Boyle. (2023). The Influence of Fact-Checking Is Disputed! The Role of Party Identification in Processing and Sharing Fact-Checked Social Media Posts. American Behavioral Scientist, 0(0), 1-21. Paul, C. & M. Matthews. (2016). The Russian “firehose of falsehood” propaganda model. Rand Corporation, 2(7), 1-10. Pennycook, G. & D. G. Rand. (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39-50. Pennycook, G., J. A. Cheyne., P. Seli., D. J. Koehler. & J. A. Fugelsang. (2012). Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief. Cognition, 123(3), 335-346. Pennycook, G., J. A. Fugelsang. & D. J. Koehler. (2015). Everyday consequences of analytic thinking. Current directions in psychological science, 24(6), 425-432. Pereira, Batista F., N. S. Bueno., F. Nunes. & N. Pavão. (2022). Fake news, fact checking, and partisanship: the resilience of rumors in the 2018 Brazilian elections. The Journal of Politics, 84(4), 2188-2201. Petrocik, J. R. (2009). Measuring party support: Leaners are not independents. Electoral Studies, 28(4), 562-572. Petty, R. E. & J. T. Cacioppo. (1996). Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic And Contemporary Approaches. New York, NY: Avalon Publishing. Pfeffer, J., T. Zorbach. & K. M. Carley. (2014). Understanding online firestorms: Negative word-of-mouth dynamics in social media networks. Journal of Marketing Communications, 20(1-2), 117-128. Primig, F. (2023). The influence of media trust and normative role expectations on the credibility of fact checkers. Journalism Practice, 1-21. Rahn, W. M.(1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 472- 496. Römmele, A.(2003). Political parties, party communication and new information and communication technologies. Party Politics, 9(1), 7-20. Shin, J. & K. Thorson. (2017). Partisan selective sharing: The biased diffusion of fact-checking messages on social media. Journal of Communication, 67(2), 233-255. Singer, J. B. (2014). User-generated visibility: Secondary gatekeeping in a shared media space. New Media & Society, 16(1), 55-73. Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational?: Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Psychology Press. Stanovich, K. E., R. F. West. & M. E. Toplak. (2011). The complexity of developmental predictions from dual process models. Developmental Review, 31(2-3), 103-118. Strickland, A. A., C. S. Taber. & M. Lodge. (2011). Motivated reasoning and public opinion. Journal of health politics, policy and law, 36(6), 935-944. Stroud, N. J. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30, 341-366. Su, C & W.P Li.(2023). Excavating Truth: A Critical Assessment of Citizen-Led Fact-Checking Practices in Taiwan. In Resistance in the Era of Nationalism: (Per)forming Identities in Taiwan and Hong Kong, edited by H. Cheng and H. Yueh. Michigan State University Press. Taber, C. S. & M. Lodge. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American journal of political science, 50(3), 755-769. Tajfel, H. & J. C. Turner. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The social psychology of intergroup relations, 33, 33-47. Thorson, E. (2016). Belief echoes: The persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Communication, 33(3), 460-480. Tong, C., H. Gill., J. Li., S. Valenzuela. & H. Rojas. (2021).“Fake news is anything they say!”—Conceptualization and weaponization of fake news among the American public.Mass Communication and Society, 23(5), 755-778. Turner, J. C., M. A. Hogg., P. J. Oakes., S. D. Reicher. & M. S. Wetherell. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Walter, N., J. Cohen., R. L. Holbert. & Y. Morag. (2020). Fact-checking: A meta-analysis of what works and for whom. Political Communication, 37(3), 350-375. Wason, P. C. & J. S. B. Evans. (1974). Dual processes in reasoning?. Cognition, 3(2), 141-154. Weeks, B. E. (2015). Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: How anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. Journal of communication, 65(4), 699-719. Wood, T. & E. Porter. (2018). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior, 41, 135-163. Young, D. G., K. H. Jamieson., S. Poulsen. & A. Goldring. (2018). Fact-checking effectiveness as a function of format and tone: Evaluating FactCheck. org and FlackCheck. org. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(1), 49-75. Yuan, Y., Yang, S., Jiang, X., Sun, X., Lin, Y., Liu, Z., Zhu, Y. & Zhao, Q. (2023). Trust in government buffers the negative effect of rumor exposure on people’s emotions. Current Psychology, 42(27), 23917-23930. 林東清、傅昶曄、張玲星.(2023).信念回聲︰假新聞與事實查核新聞對於品牌情感認同之影響.資訊管理學報, 30(2), 137-166。 胡元輝. (2018). 造假有效、更正無力？第三方事實查核機制初探. 傳播研究與實踐, 8(2), 43-73. 胡元輝. (2021). COVID-19 疫情下的探戈之舞：事實查核新聞學的臺灣實踐與反思. 中華傳播學刊, 39, 109-127. 張佑宗、 洪貞玲、 謝吉隆.(2023). 假訊息與事實查核調查計畫[補助]. 臺灣事實查核教育基金會 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. | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/93067 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 現代網路與社群媒體的興盛，助長了假新聞廣傳的勢頭，臺灣在這股浪潮中，更是受害國家當中的佼佼者。假新聞於民主社會內部的傳遞，讓民眾對民主體制的信任逐漸崩潰，而為了防範事態愈發嚴重，事實查核組織出現於各國民間，以應對日漸失控的假新聞。不過，事實查核機制的運作，似乎仍難以阻擋假新聞的衝擊，其中的緣故，彷彿與大眾如何看待事實查核機制脫離不了關聯。本研究以Dual-Processing Theory作為理論框架，主張不同議題的假新聞，會觸發個人不同的推論模式，使得不同議題假新聞的查核成效有所差異。本研究以臺灣為探討案例，分析事實查核機制分別於非政治議題與政治議題假新聞的效果，其中以生活議題假新聞代表非政治議題，民進黨議題、 國民黨議題假新聞代表政治議題，依三組議題討論事實查核機制的運作。
本研究發現，事實查核機制於應對生活議題和國民黨議題的假新聞，能夠盡其所長，有效引導個人去拒絕假新聞的論述，只是針對國民黨議題的假新聞，需要民眾有意願去閱讀完整查核資訊才能發揮功能。然而，應對民進黨議題的假新聞，事實查核機制則毫無用武之地。由此，本研究推論臺灣民眾大多能理性找出資訊正確與否，唯獨面對民進黨議題的假新聞時，僅會使用個人的直覺來對假新聞正確性作出判斷。本研究推斷，該現象是基於現行政治環境大量流傳不利政府與執政黨形象的假新聞，致使臺灣民眾在該類型假新聞的耳濡目染下，對政府與執政黨的信任日益降低，應對該類型假新聞的事實查核因而難以大展身手，配合現行假新聞大多會損及政府信任度的特質來看，臺灣事實查核組織在釐清政府和執政黨形象的查核工作上，將會面臨較大的挑戰。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | The rise of modern Internet and social media platforms has fueled the spread of fake news, with Taiwan emerging as one of the most affected nations in this wave. The circulation of fake news within democratic societies is eroding public trust in democratic institutions. To combat the worsening situation, fact-checking organizations have emerged worldwide to address the growing issue of uncontrolled fake news. However, the effectiveness of fact-checking mechanisms seems insufficient to halt the impact of fake news, and the reason for this seems to be closely related to how the public perceives fact-checking mechanisms. This study employs the Dual-Processing Theory as theoretical framework, and suggests that fake news on different topics triggers distinct reasoning modes in individuals, affecting the efficiency of fact-checking efforts across various issues. Focusing on Taiwan, this research analyzes the effectiveness of fact-checking mechanisms on non-political and political fake news, with life issues representing as non-political topics, and fake news related to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Kuomintang (KMT) as political topics.
The findings indicate that fact-checking mechanisms effectively guide individuals to reject false narratives concerning life issues and KMT-related fake news. Although, for fake news specific to KMT issues, their effectiveness hinges on the public's willingness to thoroughly read the fact-checking information. However, when dealing with DPP-related fake news, fact-checking efforts prove ineffective. This suggests that Taiwanese people are generally capable of discerning the accuracy of information through reasoning, except when facing DPP-related fake news, where they tend to rely on intuition. The study infers that this phenomenon results from the extensive circulation of fake news detrimental to the government and ruling party's image, leading to decreased trust among Taiwanese people towards these entities. Consequently, fact-checking against such fake news faces significant predicament. Given that most current fake news tends to undermine government credibility, Taiwanese fact-checking organizations will face greater challenges in their efforts to clarify the image of the government and the ruling party through their fact-checking work. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2024-07-17T16:14:40Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2024-07-17T16:14:40Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 i
謝誌 ii 中文摘要 iii 英文摘要 iv 目次 v 圖目次 viii 表目次 ix 第一章 前言 1 1.1 研究背景與動機 1 1.2 問題意識 4 1.3 章節安排 5 第二章 文獻回顧 7 2.1 假新聞的起源與威脅 7 2.2 事實查核組織的成立和成效 9 2.3 大眾的認知模式：Dual-Processing Theory 11 第三章 研究假設與研究設計 17 3.1 研究假設 17 3.2 資料來源 19 3.3 研究設計 20 3.4 變數操作化 25 3.5 估計方法和模型設定 32 第四章 模型分析 36 4.1 敘述統計 36 4.2 WLS模型分析 — Model 1 42 4.3 WLS模型分析 — Model 2 45 4.4 WLS模型分析 — Model 2_1 46 4.5 WLS模型分析 — Model 3 50 4.6 結果討論 58 4.7 小結 70 第五章 結論與建議 72 5.1 研究發現 72 5.2 研究限制 74 5.3 未來研究方向 75 參考文獻 77 附件A、 Q25題目設計 87 A.1生活議題_實驗組 87 A.2民進黨議題_實驗組 89 A.3國民黨議題＿實驗組 91 A.4生活議題_對照組 94 A.5民進黨議題_對照組 95 A.6國民黨議題_對照組 96 附件B：各變項題目設計 97 B.1自變項：政黨認同 97 B.2控制變項：性別 97 B.3控制變項：教育程度 97 B.3控制變項：年齡 98 B.4控制變項：推論分析能力 98 B.5控制變項：對查核機構信任度 99 附錄C、 各模型迴歸分析表 100 表C.1 Model 1分析表 100 表C.2 Model 2分析表 101 表C.3 Model 2_1分析表 102 表C.4 Model 3分析表 103 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.subject | 假新聞 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 事實查核 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 雙重歷程理論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 動機推論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 政黨認同 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 政府信任度 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Dual-Processing Theory | en |
| dc.subject | Fake news | en |
| dc.subject | Trust in government | en |
| dc.subject | Party identification | en |
| dc.subject | Motivated Reasoning | en |
| dc.subject | Fact-checking | en |
| dc.title | 非政治議題、政治議題與事實查核：臺灣事實查核成效之探討 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Non-Political Issue, Political Issue and Fact-Checking : An Examination of the Effectiveness of Fact-Checking in Taiwan | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 112-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 沈智新;謝吉隆 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | GREG CHIH-HSIN SHEEN;Ji-Lung Hsieh | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 假新聞,事實查核,雙重歷程理論,動機推論,政黨認同,政府信任度, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Fake news,Fact-checking,Dual-Processing Theory,Motivated Reasoning,Party identification,Trust in government, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 103 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202401439 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2024-07-05 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 政治學系 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 政治學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-112-2.pdf | 14.7 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。