跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.200.194.255) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/07/20 15:01
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:莊羽旎
研究生(外文):Chuang, Yu-Ni
論文名稱:人格特質與政治興趣對個人側翼粉專喜好的影響
論文名稱(外文):The Influence of Personality Traits and Political Interests on Individual Preferences over Flank Fanpages
指導教授:王靖興王靖興引用關係
指導教授(外文):Wang, Ching-Hsing
口試委員:王奕婷陳光輝
口試委員(外文):Wang, Yi-TingChen, Kuang-Hui
口試日期:2023-06-26
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立成功大學
系所名稱:政治學系
學門:社會及行為科學學門
學類:政治學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2023
畢業學年度:111
語文別:中文
論文頁數:66
中文關鍵詞:人格特質政治興趣側翼粉專中介機制
外文關鍵詞:personality traitsflank fanpagespolitical interestmediation mechanism
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:134
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:24
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
「政治側翼粉專」為社群媒體上針對特定政治立場或政黨觀點而建立的專題頁面, 近幾年在 Facebook 平台上,這些粉專通常由支持特定政治側翼的粉絲或活躍份子管理 與經營,旨在宣傳、討論以及分享相關的政治訊息、觀點和資訊。政治側翼粉專在社群 媒體上扮演著一個集結相同政治立場的人群、宣揚觀點、形塑輿論的角色。然而,由於 政治議題的敏感性與多樣性,這些粉專也可能產生偏見、情緒化的討論,以及與其他政 治側翼之間的衝突對立,故本研究以五大人格特質作為個體差異的出發點,首先討論其 與政治側翼粉專之間的影響,並另外再進一步討論將政治興趣作為中介變數時的途徑影 響效果,試圖釐清個人對政治側翼粉專的喜好是否受到人格特質差異以及政治興趣的影 響。此外,由於側翼粉專往往與時下議題深度相關,因此本研究還同時討論了研究期間 的熱度議題「蛋價制定」。透過網路民調方式,本研究最終成功搜集訪問樣本總計 1,202 份。主要研究發現如下:
1. 在五大人格特質對於側翼粉專喜好的直接影響關係裡,具備越高度親和性人格特質 的人,對於側翼粉專的喜好程度會越低。亦即,親和性人格特質會與個人對於側翼 粉專的喜好呈現顯著的負向關係,因此直接影響成立。
2. 當以政治興趣作為中介因素的間接影響中,親和性人格特質會因為與政治興趣的負 向關係,而影響到其對側翼粉專的喜好。亦即,間接影響成立。
3. 親和性越高的人越傾向支持政府干預蛋價制定。
4. 驗證人格特質具有可以影響個人在社群媒體上的互動方式與行為之重要性。
“Political Flank Fanpages” refer to specialized pages on social media platforms that are created for specific political ideologies or party viewpoints. These fanpages are typically managed and operated by supporters or activists of a particular political flank, aiming to promote, discuss, and share relevant political messages, perspectives, and information. Political flank fanpages play an important role in gathering like-minded individuals, advocating viewpoints, and shaping public opinion on social media. However, due to the sensitivity and diversity of political issues, these fanpages can also generate biased and emotional discussions, as well as conflicts and opposition with other political flanks. Therefore, this study takes the Big Five personality traits as the starting point for individual differences, firstly discussing their influence on individual preferences over political flank fanpages. Furthermore, this study examines whether political interest could mediate the effects of personality traits on individual preferences over political flank fanpages. Additionally, as flank fanpages are often closely related to current in-depth issues, this study also discusses the trending issue during the research period, “regulation on egg prices.” Through the online survey, this study successfully collected a total of 1,202 survey responses. The main findings of this study are (1) in terms of the direct effect, individuals with higher levels of agreeableness show lower levels of preference over flank fanpages; (2) in terms of the indirect effect, political interest plays a mediating role in the relationship between agreeableness and individual preferences over flank fanpages due to its negative relationship with agreeableness; (3) individuals with higher levels of agreeableness tend to support government intervention in egg prices; (4) the findings confirm the significance of personality traits individuals’ interaction styles and behaviors on social media.
第一章 緒論 1
第二章 文獻檢閱 7
第一節 政治側翼粉專特徵 7
第二節 人格特質對側翼粉專的直接效果 10
第三節 中介效果:政治興趣 14
第四節 人格特質對經濟議題態度的影響 19
第三章 資料、變數測量與研究方法 22
第一節 資料來源 22
第二節 變數測量 23
第三節 研究方法 29
第四章 分析結果 31
第一節 人格特質對於政治側翼態度的影響 31
第二節 人格特質和一般政治側翼粉專喜好的中介機制 35
第三節 人格特質和政客爽側翼粉專喜好的中介機制 37
第四節 穩健性分析 39
第五節 人格特質對於政府干預蛋價政策態度之影響 43
第五章 結論與建議 48
第一節 研究結論 48
第二節 研究限制與後續建議 49
參考文獻 51
附錄、問卷題目 59
中文部分
王泰俐(2013)。「臉書選舉」? 2012年台灣總統大選社群媒體對政治參與行為的影響。東吳政治學刊,31(1),1-52。
王靖興(2021)。臺灣選民的人格特質、政治態度與黨派屬性。臺灣民主季刊,18(4),75-106。
朱映潔(2021)。你的梗圖,紅了嗎?分享網路迷因行為意圖之研究。中原大學資訊管理研究所學位論文。
吳尚達(2012)。Facebook使用者公民參與行為與審議式民主。文化大學新聞研究所學位論文。
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。
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。
吳修銘(2018)。帶你一窺200年前的內容農場:我們的注意力如何變成商品?,獨立評論,網址https://opinion.cw.com.tw/blog/profile/390/article/6813,檢索日期:2022 年 4 月 16 日。
李仲彬、陳敦源、黃東益、蕭乃沂(2008)。網路投票可以提昇投票率嗎?以政治大學學生會網路投票為例。臺灣民主季刊,5(3),1-32。
沈有忠、陳宥辰(2020)。社群媒體中的選舉策略:2018年臺灣縣市長選舉的實證分析。國家發展研究,19(2),129-154。
林聰吉、蕭怡靖(2021)。人格特質與政黨情感好惡差距。選舉研究,28(2),1-46。
俞振華(2013)。〈網路民意調查的理論與實務〉,陳陸輝(主編)《民意調查新論》,頁89-110。台北,五南書局。
思南.艾瑞爾(Sinan Aral)(2021)。宣傳機器:注意力是貨幣,人人都是數位市場商人(許貴運,譯)。台北:天下文化。
洪雅慧(2010)。網路競選傳播。臺北:五南出版社。
張卿卿、陶振超(2020)。臺灣閱聽人樣貌:現象篇(上冊)。台北:台灣。傳播調查資料庫。
張卿卿、羅文輝(2007)。追求知識、認同或娛樂?政論性談話節目內容與樂聽眾收視動機的探討。新聞學研究,93,83-139。
張傳賢、黃紀(2011)。政黨競爭與台灣族群認同與國家認同間的聯結。台灣政治學刊,15(1),3-71。
陳偉翔(2013)。政治人物Facebook粉絲專頁使用動機與行為研究:以馬英九總統為例。中國文化大學新聞學系研所學位論文。
彭芸(2007)。我國民眾媒體內容偏好與其政治態度之關聯性研究。選舉研究,14(1),85-117。
華樹華(2020)。積極政治參與的社會互動效應:社群媒體及意見網絡。社會科學論叢,14(2),1-43。
楊婉瑩、劉嘉薇(2006)。探索性別差距的不同型態-以台灣選民政黨認同爲例。東吳政治學報,23,115-156。
葉子毓(2019)。惡搞與抵抗:政治型網路迷因的內容初探研究。世新大學新聞學研究所學位論文。
廖崇翰、陳陸輝(2011)。人格特質與大學生政治參與。國立政治大學政治學學博士學位論文。
劉自平、吳重禮、戴士展(2012)。交叉壓力、意見表達與政黨認同:2008年立法委員選舉的實證分析。選舉研究,19(2),1-36。
劉致昕(2021)。真相製造:從聖戰士媽媽、極權政府、網軍教練、境外勢力、打假部隊、內容農場主人到政府小編。台北:春山出版。
羅宜敬(2012)。2012年台灣總統選舉之網路政治行銷策略。世新大學行政管理學研究所學位論文。
蘇蘅、郭台達、潘金谷、曹嬿恆、陳棅易(2016)。2016總統大選的社群媒體、政治討論與情緒傳播:以周子瑜事件的大數據分析為例。中華傳播學會研討會。


英文部分
Aidta, T. and Rauh, C. (2018). The Big Five Personality Traits and Partisanship in England. Electoral Studies, 54, 1-21.
Antonioni, D. (1998). Relationship between the Big Five Personality Factors and Conflict Management Styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(4), 336-355.
Arora, S. D., Singh, G. P., Chakraborty, A. and Maity, M. (2022). Polarization and social media: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, 183(C).
Ashton, E. C., Hogarth, P. J. and Ormond, R. (1999). Breakdown of Mangrove Leaf Litter in A Managed Mangrove Forest in Peninsular Malaysia. Hydrobiology, 413, 77-88.
Barbaranelli, C., Fida, R., Paciello, M., Di Gunta, L., and Caprara, G. V. (2008). Assessing Personality in Early Adolescence through Self-Report and Other-Ratings A Multitrait-Multimethod Analysis of the BFQ-C. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(4), 876-886.
Barnes, J. E. and Sanger D. E. (2020). Is TikTok More of a Parenting Problem Than a Security Threat?. The New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/07/us/politics/tiktok-security-threat.html (accessed December 5, 2021).
Beier, M. E. and Ackerman, P. L. (2001). Current-Events Knowledge in Adults: An Investigation of Age, Intelligence, and Notability Determinants. Psychology and Aging, 16(4), 615-628.
Bennett, W. L. and Segerberg, A. (2012). The Logic of Connective Action. Information, Communication and Society, 15(5), 739-76.
Berghel, H. (2017). Lies, Damn Lies, and Fake News. Computer, 50(2), 80-85.
Bhaskaran, H., Mishra, H. and Nair, P. (2017). Contextualizing Fake News on Post-truth Era: Journalism Education in India. Asia Pacific Media Educator, 27(1), 41-50.
Bhatia, K.V. (2019). In Times of Crisis, Followers of One True God Unite: Social Media and the Formation of Online Religious Silos. Media Stud, 10 (19), 119-139.
Bimber, B. (1999). The Internet and Citizen Communication with Government: Does the Medium Matter? Political Communication, 16, 409-429.
Bimber, B. and Copeland, L. (2011). Digital Media and Political Participation Over Time in the US: Contingency and Ubiquity. Annual Meeting of the European Consortium for Political Research, 25, 1-30.
Bimber, B. and Davis, R. J. (2003). Campaigning Online: The Internet in U.S. Elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bolton, D. M. and Yaxley, J. (2017). Fake New and Clickbait: Nature Enemies of Evidence Based Medicine. BJU International, 119(S5), 8-9.
Bonfadelli, H. (2002). The Internet and Knowledge Gaps: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation. European Journal of Communication, 17, 65-84.
Boulianne S. (2009). Does Internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication, 26, 193-211.
Boulianne, S. (2015). Social Media Use and Participation: A Meta-analysis of Current Research. Information, Communication and Society, 18(5), 524-538.
Bradshaw, S., Bailey, H. and Howard, P. N. (2021). Industrialized Disinformation: 2020 Global Inventory of Organized Social Media Manipulation. Oxford, UK: Programmed on Democracy and Technology.
Breiger, R. (2004). The Analysis of Social Networks. Handbook of Data Analysis. M. Hardyand A. Bryman (eds), 505-526. London: Sage.
Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bury, B. (2016). Creative Use of Internet Memes in Advertising. World Scientific News, 57(57), 33-41.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C. and Zimbardo, P. G. (1999). Personality Profiles and Political Parties. Political Psychology, 20(1), 175-197.
Carlisle, J. E. and Patton, R. C. (2013). Is Social Media Changing How We Understand Political Engagement? An Analysis of Facebook and the 2008 Presidential Election. Political Research Quarterly, 66, 883-895.
Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D. and Potter, J. (2008). The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They Leave behind. Political Psychology, 29(6), 807-840.
Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. A., Rosen, L. D., Benitez, S. and Chang, J. (2009). Multitasking across Generations: Multitasking Choices and Difficulty Ratings in Three Generations of Americans. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 483-489.
Chu, S. C. (2011). Viral Advertising in Social Media: Participation in Facebook Groups and Responses among College-Aged Users. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 12(1), 30-43.
Cleverley, Paul H., Burnett, S. and Muir, L. (2017). Exploratory Information Searching in the Enterprise: A Study of User Satisfaction and Task Performance. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(1), 77-96.
Costa, P. T., Jr. and McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four Ways Five Factors are Basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653-665.
Dash, S., Mishra, D., Shekhawat, G. and Pal, J. (2022). Divided We Rule: Influencer Polarization on Twitter During Political Crises in India. Proceedings of the Sixteenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 16, 135-146.
Delli Carpini, M. X. and Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. Yale University Press.
DeYoung, C. G. (2006). Higher-Order Factors of the Big Five in a Multi-Informant Sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1138-1151.
DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic Big Five Theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 33-58.
Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order Factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1246-1256.
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital Inequality: From Unequal Access to Differentiated Use. In K. M. Neckerman (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355-400). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Duckitt, J. and Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, Ideology, Prejudice, and Politics: A Dual-process Motivational Model. Journal of Personality, 75(6), 1861-1894.
Durkheim, E. (1933). The Division of Labor in Society. Transacted by Simpson G.
Eveland, W. P. And Thomson, M. (2006). The Effects of Political Discussion in Producing Informed Citizens: The Roles of Information, Motivation, and Elaboration. Political Communication, 23(4), 411-429.
Eysenck, H. J. and Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (junior and adult). London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Feiler, D. C. and Kleinbaum, A. M. (2015). Popularity, Similarity, and the Network Extraversion Bias. Psychological Science, 26(5), 593-603.
Feldman, S. and Johnston, C. D. (2014). Understanding the Determinants of Political Ideology: Implications of Structural Complexity. Political Psychology, 35(3), 337-358.
Freedom House. (2019). Freedom in the World 2019. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Feb2019_FH_FITW_2019_Report_ForWeb-compressed.pdf (accessed December 5, 2021).
Gallego, A. and Oberski, D. (2012). Personality and Political Participation: The Mediation Hypothesis. Political Behavior, 34(3), 425-451.
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D. and Dowling C. M. (2011). The Big Five Personality Traits in the Political Arena. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 265-287.
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D. and Dowling, C. M. (2012). Personality and the Strength and Direction of Partisan Identification. Political Behavior, 34(4), 653-88.
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling C. M. and Ha, S. E. (2010). Personality and Political Attitudes: Relationships across Issue Domains and Political Contexts. The American Political Science Review, 104(1), 111-133.
Gerber, E. M., Hui, J. S.and Kuo, P. Y. (2012). Crowdfunding: Why People Are Motivated to Post and Fund Projects on Crowdfunding Platforms. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Design, Influence, and Social Technologies: Techniques, Impacts and Ethics, 2(11).
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five Factor Structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229.
Goldhaber, M. H. (1997). The Attention Economy and the Net. First Monday, 2(4).
Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6), 1360-1380.
Guadagno, R. E., Okdie, B. M. and Eno, C. A. (2007). Who Blogs? Personality Predictors of Blogging. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1993-2004.
Hambrick, D. C., Werder, A. V. and Zajac, E. J. (2008). New Directions in Corporate.3 Governance Research. Organization Science, 19(3), 381-385.
Hampton, K. N., Lee, R., Lu, W., Shin, I. and Purcell, K. (2015). Social Media and the Cost of Caring. Retrieved from: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/01/15/appendix-b-method/ (accessed February 5, 2022)
Hardy, B. W. and Scheufele, D. A. (2005). Examining Differential Gains from Internet Use: Comparing the Moderating Role of Talk and Online Interactions. Journal of Communication, 55(1), 71-84.
Hendriks Vettehen, P. G. J., Hagemann, C. P. M., & Van Snippenburg, L. B. (2004). Political Knowledge and Media Use in the Netherlands. European Sociological Review, 20, 415-424.
Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B. and Alford, J. R. (2014). Differences in Negativity Bias Underlie Variations in Political Ideology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(3), 297-307.
Jenkins, H. and Deuze, Mark. (2008). Editorial: Convergence Culture Convergence Culture(eds.). London, Los Angeles, New Delhi and Singapore, 14(1), 5-12.
Johnston, G. and Percy-Smith, J. (2003). In Search of Social Capital. Policy and Politics, 31(3), 151-170.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., Sulloway, F.J. (2003). Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339-375.
Kahne, J., Middaugh, E. and Allen, D. (2021). Youth, New Media, and the Rise of Participatory Politics. University of Chicago Press, From Voice to Influence, 35-56.
Kalmoe, N. P. and Mason, L. (2015). The Curious Relationship between Interest in Politics and Partisan Affect. Electoral Studies, 38, 29-40.
Karamat, A., and Farooq, A. (2016). Emerging Role of Social Media in Political Activism: Perceptions and Practices. South Asian Studies, 31(1), 381.
Katz, D. (1960). The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitude. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24(2), 163-204.
Kaufman, E. A., Xia, M., Fosco, G., Yaptangco, M., Skidmore, C. R. and Crowell, S. E. (2016). The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale Short Form (DERS-SF): Validation and Replication in Adolesce.
Kim, Y. H., Choi, J. W. (2013). Sound Visualization and Manipulation.Wiley Telecom.
Klingemann, H. D. (1979). Ideological Conceprualization and Politiacal Action. In Samuel, H. B. and Marx, K. (ed.). Pokitical Action-Mass Participation in five Western Democracies, 215-254. Beverly Hills and London: Sage Publiction.
Krueger, B. S. (2002). Assessing the Potential of Internet Political Participation in the United States: A Resource Approach. American Politics Research, 30, 476-498.
Masiha, S., Habiba, U., Abbas, Z., Saud, M. and Ariadi, S. (2018). Exploring the Link between the Use of Facebook and Political Participation among Youth in Pakistan.Journal of Political Sciences and Public Affairs, 6(01).
Mondak, J. J. (2010). Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior. Cambridge Studies in Public Opinion and Political Psychology. Cambridge University Press.
Mondak, J. J. and Halperin, K. D. (2008). A Framework for the Study of Personality and Political Behavior. British Journal of Political Science, 38(02), 335-362.
Norris, P. (2000). A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Polat, R. K. (2005). The Internet and Political Participation: Exploring the Explanatory Links. European Journal of Communication, 20, 435-459.
Prior, M. (2007). Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge University Press.
Riemann R., Grubich C., Hempel S., Mergl S. and Richter M. (1993). Personality and Attitudes towards Current Political Topics. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 313-21.
Van Hiel, A. and Mervielde, I. (2004). Openness to Experience and Boundaries in the Mind: Relationships with Cultural and Economic Conservative Beliefs. Journal of Personality, 72(4), 659-686.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L. and Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press.
Weber, L. M., Loumakis, A. and Bergman, J. (2003). Who Participates and Why? An Analysis of Citizens on the Internet and the Mass Public. Social Science Computer Review, 21, 26-42.
Weinschenk, A. C. and Dawes, C. T. (2017). The Relationship between Genes, Personality Traits, and Political Interest. Political Research Quarterly, 70(3), 467-479.
Xenos, M. And Moy, P. (2007). Direct and Differential Effects of the Internet on Political and civic engagement. Journal of Communication, 57(4), 704-718.
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