Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/155983
|
| Title: | 在選舉中如何談性？探討性交易議題的選舉效果
How to Talk About Sex in Elections? Exploring the Electoral Impact of the Sex Trade Issue |
| Authors: | 王森玫
Wang, Sen-Mei |
| Contributors: | 楊婉瑩
Yang, Wan-Ying
王森玫
Wang, Sen-Mei |
| Keywords: | 性交易
候選人偏好
議題顯著性
道德政治
聯合列表實驗
Sex Trade
Candidate Preference
Issue Salience
Moral Politics
Conjoint Table Experiment |
| Date: | 2025 |
| Issue Date: | 2025-03-03 14:25:08 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 性與性別議題近年來頻繁出現於選舉政治，我國2022年九合一選舉中，便有候選人提出設立性專區以及推動性文化活動為政見，性議題成為了選舉議題之一。性議題儘管有高度敏感性和爭議性，從選舉結果而論，性議題於當時為候選人帶來了政治紅利。為檢驗性議題是否確實會影響到選民的投票偏好，以及性議題在單一選舉多數決的選制下產生的效果為何，本研究選擇以性交易議題進行分析，探究性交易議題之選舉效果。
初步以世界價值觀調查的資料進行量化分析，檢驗民眾對性交易的態度分歧，以及性交易態度對選舉的影響。再以聯合列表調查實驗模擬選舉公報，設計候選人的性交易政見，以了解候選人提出性交易規範政策，是否會為其帶來加分效果。世界價值觀調查的分析結果發現，女性較男性對性交易持反對態度，年輕世代也較年長世代更反對性交易，而性交易態度也會對投票選擇產生影響。候選人端聯合列表調查實驗進行資料分析後，顯示選民會偏好投給有性交易管制政見的候選人，不過無論是候選人或選民，此偏好不存在性別間的差異。由此可見，在符合性道德秩序下的性交易管制政見，能夠獲得選民的青睞，且其議題性相當強烈，展現出性交易議題在選舉中的效應。
Issues of sex and gender have increasingly appeared in electoral politics in recent years. During Taiwan’s 2022 nine-in-one election, some candidates proposed policies such as establishing red-light districts and promoting sex culture activities, making sexual issues one of the focal points of the election. Despite their sensitivity and controversy, the election results suggest that sexual issues brought political benefits to certain candidates. To examine whether sexual issues indeed influence voter preferences and to understand their effects under a single-member district plurality electoral system, this study focuses on the issue of sex work to analyze its electoral impact.
This paper conducts an initial quantitative analysis using data from the World Values Survey to examine public attitudes toward sex work and the influence of these attitudes on electoral outcomes. A conjoint experiment simulating election bulletins was also conducted, where candidates’ policy proposals on sex work regulation were designed to assess whether such proposals enhance voter support. Results from the World Values Survey reveal that women are more likely than men to oppose sex work, and younger generations exhibit greater opposition compared to older generations. Attitudes toward sex work also significantly influence voting choices. Data analysis from the conjoint experiment shows that voters tend to favor candidates who propose sex work regulatory policies, regardless of gender. These findings suggest that policies regulating sex work, when aligned with sexual moral order, garner voter support and underscore the significant impact of sex work issues in electoral contexts. |
| Reference: | I. 中文部分
中廣新聞網，2022，〈爆乳正妹參選嘉義市議員 名字長達16字！高喊支持性專區〉，https://tw.news.yahoo.com/爆乳正妹參選嘉義市議員-名字長達16字-高喊支持性專區-024851217.html，檢索日期：2024/09/25。
內政部，2010，〈內政部施政措施民意調查「成人間合意性交易議題」摘要表〉。
王柏元、蕭舜心、施宥愷、王之富、廖韋晴、卓鄀葳、郭姵廷、賴禹融，2021，〈為什麼不可以色色：疫情下的性產業困境與政策難題〉，關鍵評論網：https://www.thenewslens.com/article/157295/fullpage，檢索日期：2023年6月11日。
王雅各，1999，《台灣婦女解放運動史》，台北：巨流。
王鼎銘，2003，〈政策認同下的投票效用與選擇：空間投票理論在不同選舉制度間的比較〉，《選舉研究》，10(1): 171-206。
王鼎銘、郭銘峰、黃紀，2008，〈選制轉變過程下杜佛傑心理效應之檢視：從日本眾議院選制變革的經驗來觀察〉，《問題與研究》，47(3): 1-28。
王維邦、張仁瑋、陳美華，2018，〈「反同」逆襲—政黨傾向與婚姻平權態度的關聯〉，巷仔口社會學：https://twstreetcorner.org/2018/12/18/wangweipangjhangrenweichenmeihua/，檢索日期：2024年1月10日。
杜素豪，2008，〈世界價值觀調查推動計畫（C00173）〉，【原始數據】取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。
林芳玫，1998，〈當代台灣婦運的認同政治：以公娼存廢爭議為例〉，《中外文學》，27(1): 56-87。
林飛帆，2017，〈民主與進步的兩難？—社會運動與民進黨不分區立委的提名〉，台北：國立臺灣大學政治學系碩士論文。
林珮婷，2020，〈誰支持婚姻平權？探索台灣婚姻平權的支持基礎〉，《人文及社會科學集刊》，32(2): 207-238。
俞振華，2020，〈網路調查〉，陳陸輝主編，《民意調查》：99-120，台北：五南。
姜貞吟，2009，〈女性作為政治行動者台灣女性參政圖像的反思〉，《台灣社會研究季刊》，76: 277-316。
范雲，2003，〈政治轉型過程中的婦女運動：以運動者及其生命傳記背景為核心的分析取向〉，《台灣社會學》，5:133-193。
翁伊森、莊智勝，2022，〈嘉市議員最狂候選人！「中空現身」挺美乳抽籤 喊話支持性專區〉，https://www.ettoday.net/news/20221021/2362990.htm，檢索日期：2024/09/25。
張卿卿，2010，〈競選廣告與議題/特質所有權認知〉，《傳播與社會學刊》，11(1): 31-70。
盛杏湲，2014，〈選制變革前後立委提案的持續與變遷：一個探索性的研究〉，《台灣政治學刊》，18(1): 73-127。
陳昭如，2012，〈改寫男人的憲法:從平等條款、婦女憲章到釋憲運動的婦 運憲法動員〉，《政治科學論叢》52: 43-88。
陳美華，2008，〈不可告人的秘密？一個關於性工作研究中的性、性別與知識生產的反思〉，《台灣社會研究季刊》，71: 1-39。
陳美華，2014，〈性工作治理及排除政治〉，陳瑤華（主編），《台灣婦女處境白皮書2014 年》，343-379。台北：女書文化。
陳美華，2019，〈性交易的罪與罰—釋字第666 號解釋對性交易案件的法律效果〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，16(1): 45-88。
陳祖傑，2023，〈李正皓宣布退出立委選舉 稱「換取解決民進黨性平爭議的空間」〉https://news.pts.org.tw/article/640766，檢索日期：2024/09/26。
陳素秋，2013，〈邊緣公民的公民主體建構：臺灣妓權運動中性工作者的公民操演〉，《臺灣社會研究季刊》，93: 87-129。
彭渰雯，2005，〈在「宰制」和「需求」之外—性消費者論述的女性主義分析〉，《女學學誌：婦女與性別研究》，20: 131-175。
湯京平，2015，〈2010 世界價值觀調查－台灣（E10034）〉，【原始數據】取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。
黃長玲，2018，〈#MeToo之後？性別權力的濫權與課責〉，《臺灣民主季刊》15(2): 147-156。
黃紀，2023，《臺灣民眾的投票偏好與認同》，計畫編號：NCCU-REC-202304-I022，台北：國立政治大學選舉研究中心研究計畫。
黃紀、王德育，2012，《質變數與受限依變數的迴歸分析》。台北：五南。
黃淑玲，1996 ，〈台灣特種行業婦女：受害者？行動者？偏差者？〉，《台灣社會研究季刊》22:103-152。
黃翊婷，2022，〈田慎節15分鐘猛攻「南投性侵案」 網友聽完淚目：句句打進心裡〉https://www.ettoday.net/news/20221124/2386794.htm，檢索日期：2024/09/25。
楊虔豪，2022，〈選總統的厭男與仇女？南韓大選空前極端「性別惡戰」〉，轉角國際：https://global.udn.com/global_vision/story/8663/6146360，檢索日期：2024年10月27日。
楊婉瑩，2007，〈政治參與的性別差異〉，《選舉研究》，14 (2): 53-94。
楊婉瑩，2008，〈女性主義與後物質主義的關係探究-世界價值變遷的一個側面考察〉，《問題與研究》47(1): 1-27。
楊婉瑩，2011，〈台灣婦運與世代價值差異〉，《政治科學論叢》，49: 161-195。
楊婉瑩，2014，〈鑿洞取光或是拆除高牆？〉，《台灣婦女處境白皮書：2014年》，117-169。台北：女書文化。
楊婉瑩，2020，〈當不穩定的多數遇到公投—試論同婚公投的弔詭〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，17(4): 105-144。
楊婉瑩、林珮婷，2013，〈她們改投給蔡英文嗎？2008-2012年總統大選性別差距的變動〉，《選舉研究》20(2): 37-71。
蔡幸芳，2016，〈趨中或極端？選制改革前後立委候選人在兩岸議題的政治立場〉，台北：國立政治大學政治學系碩士論文。
蔡明璋，2023，〈物質主義、後物質主義與新政治：世界價值觀第七波的台灣調查與亞洲國家的比較（C00344）〉【原始數據】取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。
蕭怡靖，2020，〈議題重要性的認知與對施政評價的影響〉，《選舉研究》，27(1): 1-38。
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。
戴伯芬，2021，〈萬華弱勢者處遇－SARS、新冠疫情的差異〉，《婦研縱橫》，115: 12-22。
瞿海源，2015，〈1995 世界價值研究調查（C00037）〉，【原始數據】取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。
嚴文廷，2023，〈檢視藍綠白三黨性騷擾防治辦法：人治仍重於法治，能扭轉「大局為重」嗎？〉，https://www.twreporter.org/a/sexual-harassment-dpp-kmt-tpp-rules，檢索日期：2024/09/25。
顧燕翎，1997，〈臺灣婦運組織中性慾政治之轉變：受害客體抑或情慾主體〉，《思與言》，35(1):87-118。
II. 英文部分
Abramowitz, Alan I.. 1995. “It's Abortion, Stupid: Policy Voting in the 1992 Presidential Election.” The Journal of Politics 57(1): 176-186.
Adams, Greg D.. 1997. “Abortion: Evidence of an Issue Evolution.” American Journal of Political Science 41(3): 718-737.
Bansak, Kirk, Jens Hainmueller, Daniel J. Hopkins, and Teppei Yamamoto. 2018. “The Number of Choice Tasks and Survey Satisficing in Conjoint Experiments.” Political Analysis 26(1): 112-119.
------. 2021. “Beyond the Breaking Point? Survey Satisficing in Conjoint Experiments.” Political Science Research and Methods 9(1): 53-71.
------. 2022. “Using Conjoint Experiments to Analyze Election Outcomes: The Essential Role of the Average Marginal Component Effect.” Political Analysis 1-19.
Bartle, John, and Samantha Laycock. 2012. “Telling more than they can know? Does the most important issue really reveal what is most important to voters?” Electoral Studies 31(4): 679-688.
Bell, Shannon. 1994. Reading, Writing, and Rewriting the Prostitute Body. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Bock, J., Byrd-Craven, J., and Burkley, M. 2017. The role of sexism in voting in the 2016 presidential election. Personality and Individual Differences 119:189–193.
Campbell, Angus., Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960 The American Voter. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Campbell, David E., J. Quin Monson, 2008. “The Religion Card: Gay Marriage and the 2004 Presidential Election.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72(3): 399–419.
Carmines, Edward G., and James A. Stimson. 1980. “The Two Faces of Issue Voting.” The American Political Science Review 74(1): 78-91.
Carmines, Edward G., and James A. Stimson. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton University Press.
Dennison, J. 2019. “A Review of Public Issue Salience: Concepts, Determinants and Effects on Voting.” Political Studies Review 17(4): 436–446.
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
Enelow, James M., and Melvin J. Hinich. 1989. “A General Probabilistic Spatial Theory of Elections.” Public Choice 61(2): 101–113.
England, Paula. (2010). The Gender Revolution: Uneven and Stalled. Gender & Society, 24(2), 149-166.
Feddersen, Timothy, Sean Gailmard, and Alvaro Sandroni. 2009. “Moral Bias in Large Elections: Theory and Experimental Evidence.” American Political Science Review. 103(2): 175-192.
Fournier, Patrick, Andre Blais, Richard Nadeau, Elisabeth Gidengil, and Neil Nevitte. 2003. “Issue Importance and Performance Voting.” Political Behavior 25(1): 51-67.
Enke, Benjamin. 2020. “Moral Values and Voting.” Journal of Political Economy 28(10): 3679-3729.
Epstein, Lee, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2000. “Measuring Issue Salience” American Journal of Political Science 44(1): 66-83.
Ferguson, Ann. 1984. “Sex war: The debate between radical and libertarian feminists.” Signs: journal of women in culture and society 10(1): 106-112.
Gill, R. 2007. Gender and the media. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hainmueller, Jens, Daniel J. Hopkins, and Teppei Yamamoto. 2014. “Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments.” Political Analysis: 22(1): 1-30.
Hainmueller, Jens, Dominik Hangartner, and Teppei Yamamoto. 2015. “Validating Vignette and Conjoint Survey Experiments Against Real-World Behavior.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(8): 2395-2400.
Ham, Dae Woong, Kosuke Imai, and Lucas Janson. 2024. "Using Machine Learning to Test Causal Hypotheses in Conjoint Analysis." Political Analysis. doi: 10.1017/pan.2023.41.
Hansen, Michael A., and Kathleen Dolan. 2020. “Voter Sex, Party, and Gender-Salient Issues: Attitudes about Sexual Harassment and Brett Kavanaugh in the 2018 Elections.” American Politics Research 48(5): 532-542.
Hausman, Jerry, and Daniel McFadden. 1984. “Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model.” Econometrica 52(5): 1219-1240.
Ho, Ming-sho. 2019. “Taiwan’s Road to Marriage Equality: Politics of Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage.” The China Quarterly 238: 482–503.
Horiuchi, Yusaku, Zachary Markovich, and Teppei Yamamoto. 2022. “Does Conjoint Analysis Mitigate Social Desirability Bias?” Political Analysis, 30(4): 535-549.
Hout, Michael. 1999. “Abortion politics in the United States, 1972–1994: From single issue to ideology.” Gender Issues 17(2): 3-34.
Hutchings, Vincent L.. 1998 “Issue Salience and Support for Civil Rights Legislation among Southern Democrats.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 23(4): 521-544.
Inglehart, R., and P. R Abramson. 1994. Economic security and value change. The American Political Science Review, 88(2): 336-354.
Kaul, Nitasha. 2021.“The Misogyny of Authoritarians in Contemporary Democracies.” International Studies Review 23(4): 1619–1645.
Krook, Mona Lena. 2018. “Westminster Too: On Sexual Harassment in British Politics.” The Political Quarterly 89(1): 65-72.
Krosnick, Jon A.. 1988. “The Role of Attitude Importance in Social Evaluation: A Study of Policy Preferences, Presidential Candidate Evaluation, and Voting Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55(2): 196-210.
Krosnick, Jon A.. 1990. “Government Policy and Citizen Passion: A Study of Issue Publics in Contemporary America.” Political Behavior 12(1): 59-92.
Lakoff, George. 1996. Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lewis, Gregory B.. 2005. “Same-Sex Marriage and the 2004 Presidential Election.” Political Science and Politics 38(2): 195-199.
Maginn, P. J., and C. Steinmetz. 2014. “Spatial and regulatory contours of the (sub) urban sexscape.” (Sub) Urban Sexscapes, eds. P. J. Maginn, and C. Steinmetz, 1-16. London: Routledge.
Masuoka, N., C. Grose, and J. Junn. “Sexual Harassment and Candidate Evaluation: Gender and Partisanship Interact to Affect Voter Responses to Candidates Accused of Harassment.” Political Behavior 45: 1285–1307.
McElroy, Wendy. 1995. XXX: A Woman’s Right to Pornography. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Moyo, Talent. 2020. “Sexuality as a tool to gain political power: an introspection of Zimbabwean elections of 2013.” African Identities 18(4): 421-434.
Petrocick, J. R. 1996. “Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study.” American Journal of Political Science 40(3):825-850.
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley : University of California Press.
RePass, David E.. 1971. “Issue Salience and Party Choice.” The American Political Science Review, Jun., 1971, 65(2): 389-400.
Rhodebeck, Laurie A.. 2015. “Another Issue Comes Out: Gay Rights Policy Voting in Recent U.S. Presidential Elections.” Journal of Homosexuality 62(6): 701-734.
Rubin, S. G. 1993. “Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality.” The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader, eds. H. Abelove, M. A. Barale, and D. M. Halperin, 3-44. New York and London: Routledge Press.
Savani, Manu M., Sofia Collignon. 2023. “Values and candidate evaluation: How voters respond to allegations of sexual harassment.” Electoral Studies 83.
Sharrow, Elizabeth A., Dara Z. Strolovitch, Michael T. Heaney, Seth E. Masket and Joanne M. Miller. 2016. “Gender Attitudes, Gendered Partisanship: Feminism and Support for Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton among Party Activists.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 37(4): 394–416.
Shrage, L. 1994. Moral Dilemmas of Feminism: Prostitution, Adultery, and Abortion 1st ed. New York: Routledge.
Sigal, Janet, Louis Hsu, Stacey Foodim and Jeffrey Betman. 1988. “Factors Affecting Perceptions of Political Candidates Accused of Sexual and Financial Misconduct.” Political Psychology 9(2): 273-280.
Strolovitch, Dara Z., Janelle S. Wong, and Andrew Proctor. 2017. “A possessive investment in white heteropatriarchy? The 2016 election and the politics of race, gender, and sexuality.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 5(2): 353-363.
Turnbull‐Dugarte, Stuart J.. 2020. “The European lavender vote: Sexuality, ideology and vote choice in Western Europe.” European Journal of Political Research 59(3): 517-537.
Wagenaar, Hendrik, and Sietske Altink. 2012. “Prostitution as Morality Politics or Why It Is Exceedingly Difficult to Design and Sustain Effective Prostitution Policy.” Sexuality Research and Social Policy 9(3): 279-292.
Walgrave, Stefaan, Jonas Lefevere, and Anke Tresch. 2012. “The Associative Dimension of Issue Ownership.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76(4): 771–82.
Witz, A., and Savage, M. 1991. “The Gender of Organizations.” The Sociological Review 39(1_suppl): 3-62. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
政治學系
110252005 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110252005 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [政治學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 200501.pdf | | 3718Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
