跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.200.169.3) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/12/01 02:26
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:張君瑋
研究生(外文):Chun-Wei Chang
論文名稱:政黨立場與政策資訊對民眾政策偏好的影響
論文名稱(外文):How Party Cues and Policy Information Affect Citizens’ Policy Preference
指導教授:江淳芳江淳芳引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chun-Fang Chiang
口試委員:郭銘傑陳儀
口試委員(外文):Jason KuoJosie Chen
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:經濟學研究所
學門:社會及行為科學學門
學類:經濟學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2019
畢業學年度:108
語文別:英文
論文頁數:68
中文關鍵詞:隨機實驗政黨偏好政策偏好政策資訊非政黨政策
外文關鍵詞:Randomized controlled experimentPolitical preferencePolicy preferencePolicy informationNonpartisan policy
DOI:10.6342/NTU201902594
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:125
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
本文探討政黨的政策立場與政策相關資訊對民眾的政策偏好的影響。為了測試過去相關文獻對此問題提出的三個理論,本文以網路問卷的形式詢問民眾對一項政策的支持與否。這項政策是為了增進機車騎士的行車安全而實施,且與政黨的意識形態無關。本實驗中被分配到不同組別的受試者接收到的訊息會在兩項資訊上不同:1.受試者會收到一則資訊提到馬英九或蔡英文為本項政策發布時的執政者,或是沒有提到任何政治人物與此政策相關。2.有一半的受試者會收到本政策在國外的成功實施經驗,另一半則無。在本次實驗中,我們有三個主要的結果:1.當訊息提到馬英九為政策發布者時,馬英九的支持者對政策的支持度會大於當訊息提到蔡英文為政策發布者時,馬英九的支持者對政策的支持度。2.若提供本政策在國外的成功實施經驗,受試者不會受到政策發布者的影響。3.不支持且不反對馬英九或蔡英文的受試者在收到國外成功實施經驗後,提升的政策支持度最大,且會更認同此政策可以提升機車騎士的行車安全。
We studied the influence of partisan cues on citizens’ policy preferences and the effects of policy-relevant information. To test three hypotheses proposed by previous studies, we conducted an online survey experiment that collected respondents’ attitudes toward a nonpartisan policy intended to enhance traffic safety. The experiment followed a two-layer design. In the first layer, respondents received information in which Ma Ying-Jeou, Tsai Ing-wen or no one was the policy maker. In the second layer, half of the respondents received information about a successful foreign implementation experience. We identified three main findings. First, Ma Ying-Jeou supporters were more likely to support the policy if the policy was issued by Ma than by Tsai. Second, party cues had no effect when policy-related information was provided. Third, respondents who were neutral toward Ma Ying-Jeou or Tsai Ing-Wen were more likely to support the policy when they were presented with a successful implementation experience from Japan and the European Union. Furthermore, respondents were more likely to support the policy because they were more likely to agree that the policy could increase scooter riders’ safety.
中文摘要 i
Abstract ii
Content iii
List of Tables iv
List of Figures v
1.Introduction 1
2. Literature Review 5
2.1 Dual-Process 6
2.2 Countervailing Arguments against Dual-Process 7
2.3 Motivated Reasoning 9
3. Background: A nonpartisan policy to enhance traffic safety 10
4. Experimental Design 12
4.1 Experimental Procedure 13
4.2 Posttreatment measurements 15
5. Method 18
5.1 Specifications and subsample 18
5.2 Predictions based on theories 19
6. Results 22
6.1 Party Cue Effects 22
6.2 Policy Information Effects 24
6.3 Party Cues with Information 24
6.4 Potential Mechanism 27
6.5 Heterogeneous Treatment Effect 28
7. Conclusion 31
References 33
Appendix A 48
Appendix B: Questionnaire 51
Anthony Downs, "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy 65, no. 2 (Apr., 1957): 135-150.
Arceneaux, Kevin. 2008. “Can Partisan Cues Diminish Democratic Accountability?” Political Behavior 30: 139–60.
Bargh, John A. (1999). The cognitive monster: the case against the controllability of automatic stereotype effects. In Shelly Chaiken and Yaacov Trope (eds.), Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology, pp. 361–382. New York: Guilford.
Boudreau, C., & MacKenzie, S. A. (n.d.). Informing the electorate? How party cues and policy information affect public opinion about initiatives.American Journal of Political Science. Forthcoming.
Bullock, John. 2011. “Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate.” American Political Science Review 105(3): 496–515.
Cacioppo, John T., and Petty, Richard E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42: 116–131.
Cohen, Geoffrey L. 2003. “Party over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85 (November): 808–22.
Rahn, Wendy M. 1993. “The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (May): 472–96.
Druckman, J., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57-79. doi:10.1017/S0003055412000500
Eagly, Alice H., and Shelly Chaiken. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt.
Eelco Harteveld, Andrej Kokkonen & Stefan Dahlberg (2017) Adapting to party lines: the effect of party affiliation on attitudes to immigration, West European Politics, 40:6, 1177-1197.
Hamilton, Lawrence C. 2008. “Who Cares about Polar Regions?” Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 40:671–8.
Kam, Cindy D. 2005. “Who Toes the Party Line? Cues, Values, and Individual Differences.” Political Behavior 27(2): 163–82.
Lippmann, Walter ([1922]1997). Public Opinion. New York: Free Press.
Nicholson, Stephen P. 2011. “Dominating Cues and the Limits of Elite Influence.” Journal of Politics 73(4): 1165–77.
Popkin, Samuel L. 1994. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Riggle, Ellen D., Victor C. Ottati, Robert S. Wyer, James Kuklinski, and Norbert Schwarz. 1992. “Bases of Political Judgments: The Role of Stereotypic and Non stereotypic Information.” Political Behavior 14 (March): 67–87.
Slothuus, Rune, and Claes H. de Vreese. 2010. “Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Issue Framing Effects.” Journal of Politics 72(3): 630–45.
Taber, Charles S., and Milton Lodge. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 50: 755–69.
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press. 
連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top