政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/155497
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 114393/145446 (79%)
Visitors : 53035844      Online Users : 721
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/155497


    Title: 相依取暖：大學生的政治討論對校園參與之影響
    Aligning Yourself with Like-minded Peers: Effects of Political Discussion on Political Participation among College Students in Taiwan
    Authors: 黃琴棋
    Huang, Chin-Chi
    Contributors: 陳陸輝
    Chen, Lu-Huei
    黃琴棋
    Huang, Chin-Chi
    Keywords: 政治討論
    政治社會化
    同質與異質性環境
    政治資訊使用
    校園參與
    Political Discussion
    Political Socialization
    Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Environments
    Use for Political Information
    Campus Participation
    Date: 2024
    Issue Date: 2025-02-04 16:01:48 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本研究從政治社會化理論的觀點出發，探討影響政治討論的因素及其與政治參與之間的關係。研究資料取自陳陸輝（2022）的《我國大學生政治社會化之研究：新世代與新觀點》，分析台灣八所大學一年級學生的政治行為，關注家庭與同儕間的政黨認同分佈環境和大學生的政治資訊使用對政治討論的影響。此外，本研究將校園參與作為政治參與的延伸，進一步分析其在家庭內部及同儕間政治討論和校園事務參與的相關性。

    本研究有四個主要研究發現：首先，處於家庭政黨認同同質環境的大學生，相較於異質環境者，更傾向與父親討論政治，但與母親之間則無此現象。同樣地，處於同質同儕環境的大學生，更常與同儕進行政治討論。說明成員間若有相同的政治立場時，會更傾向表達和討論政治；反之，處於異質政治環境者則傾向不在該群體討論政治。第二：來自家庭政黨認同分佈異質的學生，相較於同質環境者，同儕間愈高度討論政治。表示當個人在群體內的政治立場得不到支持時，會選擇尋找他群討論政治。第三：在大學生政治資訊使用對其政治討論的影響，發現愈高度觀看電視政治資訊的大學生，相較低度使用者，愈常與父親討論政治，而高度使用網路或YouTube的學生，則更傾向與母親或同儕討論政治。第四：大學生政治討論和其校園參與正相關，本研究發現無論是家庭內部或同儕間的政治互動皆扮演重要角色。換言之，當大學生與父母或同儕間有愈高的政治討論，愈會參與校園事務。說明政治討論可有效預測其校園參與。
    This study, based on the perspective of political socialization theory, explores the factors influencing political discussion and its relationship with political participation. The research utilizes data from Chen (2022) The Study of Political Socialization of University Students in Taiwan: New Generation and New Perspectives, analyzing the political behaviors of first-year students from eight universities in Taiwan. The study focuses on the party identification environment within families and peer groups, as well as students’ use for political information. Additionally, it extends the concept of political participation to include campus involvement. It further examines the correlation between political discussions within families and among peers and students’ engagement in campus affairs.

    The four main findings of this study are as follows: Firstly, students in families with homogeneous party identification are more likely to discuss politics with their fathers compared to those in heterogeneous environments, while this pattern is not observed with mothers. Similarly, students in peer groups with homogeneous party identification engage more frequently in political discussions. Secondly, students from families with heterogeneous party identification engage in more frequent political discussions with peers, compared to the reference group of students from homogeneous families. Thirdly, regarding the influence of the use of political information on political discussions, the study finds that students who frequently watch television for political information are more likely to discuss politics with their fathers, compared to reference group of low television usage. In contrast, students who heavily use the internet or YouTube are more inclined to discuss politics with their mothers or peers. Lastly, the positive correlation between political discussion and campus participation reveals that political interactions within families and among peers both play significant roles. In other words, the more students engage in political discussions with their parents or peers, the more likely they are to participate in campus affairs. This demonstrates that political discussion is an effective predictor of campus participation.
    Reference: ㄧ、中文文獻
    王宏恩，2021，〈台灣民眾的政治資訊接收（2004-2020）探索性的分析〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，18(4): 107–28。
    王嵩音，2017，〈社交媒體政治性使用行為與公民參與之研究〉，《資訊社會研究》，(32): 83–111。
    吳重禮、鄭文智、崔曉倩，2006，〈交叉網絡與政治參與：2001年縣市長與立法委員選舉的實證研究〉，《人文及社會科學集刊》，18(4): 599–638。
    林正士、周軒逸，2014，〈總統大選電視辯論對於首投族之政治傳播效果：以2012年台灣總統選舉為例〉，《選舉研究》，21(1): 47–87。
    林淑芳，2018，〈社群媒體與政治公民參與：網路政治討論頻率與政治討論異質性的中介角色〉，《傳播與社會學刊》，(44): 25–48。
    林澤民、蘇彥斌，2015，〈台灣快閃政治—新媒體、政黨與社會運動〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，12(2): 123–159。
    林聰吉，2007，〈社會網絡、政治討論與投票參與〉，《選舉研究》，14(2): 1–24。
    林聰吉，2022，〈網路政治資訊可以提升社會信任和政治參與嗎？〉，《臺灣政治學刊》，26(2): 127–177。
    林聰吉、張一彬、黃妍甄，2020，〈政治興趣、網路政治參與以及傳統政治參與〉，《東吳政治學報》，38(1): 113–61。
    俞蘋，2019，〈有心或無意：社群媒體上的新聞與政治資訊使用〉，《中華傳播學刊》，(36): 39–79。
    張佑宗、趙珮如，2006，〈社會脈絡、個人網絡與臺灣2004年立法委員選舉選民的投票抉擇〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，3(2): 1–38。
    張卿卿，2002a，〈大學生的政治媒介認知、政治媒介行為與其政治效能與政治參與之間的關係〉，《選舉研究》，9(2): 37–63。
    張卿卿，2002b，〈競選媒體使用對選民競選議題知識與政治效能感的影響－以兩千年總統大選為例〉，《選舉研究》，9(1): 1–39。
    張鐙文、莊文忠，2012，〈數位時代媒介使用行為與政治知識成因之析探：網路與非網路使用族群之比較分析〉，《競爭力評論》，(15): 65–90。
    陳陸輝，2022，〈「我國大學生政治社會化之研究： 新世代、新觀點」四年期研究規劃〉，科技部補助專題研究計畫。
    陳陸輝、黃信豪，2007，〈社會化媒介、在學經驗與台灣大學生的政治功效意識和政治參與〉，《東亞研究》，38(1): 1–48。
    彭芸，2000，〈2000年總統大選的媒介使用、選舉參與及投票對象〉，《選舉研究》，7(1): 21–52。
    楊婉瑩，2007，〈政治參與的性別差異〉，《選舉研究》，14(2): 53–94。
    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。
    劉嘉薇、黃紀，2012，〈父母政黨偏好組合對大學生政黨偏好之影響－定群追蹤之研究〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，9(3): 37–84。
    蔡雲卿、王嵩音，2020，〈差異收穫模式與交叉壓力的結合：以2018年嘉義縣市長選舉為例〉，《新聞學研究》，(143): 113–165。

    二、英文文獻
    Bandura, Albert. 1971. Social Learning Theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
    Beck, Paul Allen, and M. Kent Jennings. 1975. “Parents as ‘Middlepersons’ in Political Socialization.” Journal of Politics 37(1):83-107.
    Beck, Paul Allen, and M. Kent Jennings. 1991. “Family Traditions, Political Periods, and the Development of Partisan Orientations.” Journal of Politics 53(3):742-763.
    Berelson, Bernard R, Paul F. Lazarsfeld, and William N. McPhee. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. University of Chicago Press.
    Bond, Robert M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., and Fowler, J. H. 2012. “A 61-Million-Person Experiment in Social Influence and Political Mobilization.” Nature 489(7415): 295-298.
    Borah, Porismita, Matthew Barnidge, and Hernando Rojas. 2022. “The Contexts of Political Participation: The Communication Mediation Model Under Varying Structural Conditions of the Public Sphere.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 27(4): 942-962.
    Campbell, David E. 2008. “Voice in the Classroom: How an Open Classroom Climate Fosters Political Engagement Among Adolescents.” Political Behavior 30(4): 437-454.
    Chen, Hsuan-Ting, Minwei Ai, and Jing Guo. 2022. “The Effect of Cross-Cutting Exposure on Attitude Change: Examining the Mediating Role of Response Behaviors and the Moderating Role of Openness to Diversity and Social Network Homogeneity.” Asian Journal of Communication 32(2): 93-110.
    Crystal, David S., and Matthew DeBell. 2002. “Sources of Civic Orientation Among American Youth: Trust, Religious Valuation, and Attribution of Responsibility.” Political Psychology 23(1): 113-132.
    Dinas, Elias. 2013. “Why Does the Apple Fall Far from the Tree? How Early Political Socialization Prompts Parent-Child Dissimilarity.” British Journal of Political Science 44(4): 827-852.
    Easton, David, and Jack Dennis. 1969. Children in the Political System: Origins of Political Legitimacy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
    Eveland, William P, Jr, and Myiah Hutchens Hively. 2009. “Political Discussion Frequency, Network Size, and ‘Heterogeneity’ of Discussion as Predictors of Political Knowledge and Participation.” Journal of Communication 59(2): 205-224.
    Finifter, Ada W. 1974. “The Friendship Group as a Protective Environment for Political Deviants.” American Political Science Review 68(2): 607-625.
    Gil de Zúñiga, Homero, Alberto Ardèvol-Abreu, and Andreu Casero-Ripollés. 2021. “WhatsApp Political Discussion, Conventional Participation and Activism: Exploring Direct, Indirect and Generational Effects.” Information, Communication & Society 24(2): 201-218.
    Granovetter, Mark S. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360-1380.
    Habermas, Jurgen. 1991. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. MIT Press.
    Han, Gang. 2008. “New Media Use, Sociodemographics, and Voter Turnout in the 2000 Presidential Election.” Mass Communication and Society 11(1): 62-81.
    Hardy, Bruce W., and Dietram A. Scheufele. 2005. “Examining Differential Gains From Internet Use: Comparing the Moderating Role of Talk and Online Interactions.” Journal of Communication 55(1): 71-84.
    Hernandez, Yamiemily. 2019. “The Technology Gap Across Generations: How Social Media Affects the Youth Vote.” Political Analysis 20(1): 4-15.
    Huckfeldt, R. Robert. 1983. “Social Contexts, Social Networks, and Urban Neighborhoods: Environmental Constraints on Friendship Choice.” American Journal of Sociology 89(3): 651-69.
    Huckfeldt, Robert, and John Sprague. 1987. “Networks in Context: The Social Flow of Political Information.” American Political Science Review 81(4): 1197-1216.
    Huckfeldt, Robert, and John Sprague. 1991. “Discussant Effects on Vote Choice: Intimacy, Structure, and Interdependence.” The Journal of Politics 53(1): 122-58.
    Huckfeldt, Robert, and John Sprague. 1992. “Political Parties and Electoral Mobilization: Political Structure, Social Structure, and the Party Canvass.” American Political Science Review 86(1): 70-86.
    Huckfeldt, Robert, Paul Allen Beck, Russell J. Dalton, and Jeffrey Levine. 1995. “Political Environments, Cohesive Social Groups, and the Communication of Public Opinion.” American Journal of Political Science 39(4): 1025-1054.
    Jennings, M. Kent. 2007. “Political Socialization.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, eds. Russell J. Dalton and Hans-Dieter Klingemann. Oxford University Press.
    Jennings, M. Kent, and Richard G. Niemi. 1974. The Political Character of Adolescence: The Influence of Families and Schools. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
    Jennings, M. Kent, and Richard G. Niemi. 1981. Generations and Politics: A Panel Study of Youth Adults and Their Parents. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
    Katz, Elihu. 1957. “The Two-Step Flow of Communication: An Up-To-Date Report on An Hypothesis.” Public Opinion Quarterly 21(1): 61-78.
    Kim, Tonghoon, David J. Atkin, and Carolyn A. Lin. 2016. “The Influence of Social Networking Sites on Political Behavior: Modeling Political Involvement via Online and Offline Activity.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 60(1): 23-39.
    Klofstad, Casey. 2010. Civic Talk: Peers, Politics, and the Future of Democracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
    Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Berelson, B., and Gaudet, H. 1948. The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. Columbia University Press.
    Lyons, Jeffrey. 2017. “What Happens When Social Pressures Collide? The Role of Environmental Pressures Throughout Life.” Political Psychology 38(2): 297-312.
    Macnamara, Jim, and Gail Kenning. 2011. “E-Electioneering 2010: Trends in Social Media Use in Australian Political Communication.” Media International Australia 139(1): 7-22.
    McClurg, Scott D. 2006. “Political Disagreement in Context: The Conditional Effect of Neighborhood Context, Disagreement and Political Talk on Electoral Participation.” Political Behavior 28(4): 349-366.
    Minozzi, William, Hyunjin Song, David M. J. Lazer, Michael A. Neblo, and Katherine Ognyanova. 2020. “The Incidental Pundit: Who Talks Politics with Whom, and Why?” American Journal of Political Science 64(1): 135-151.
    Mutz, Diana C. 2002. “Cross-Cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice.” The American Political Science Review 96(1): 111-126.
    Mutz, Diana C., and Jeffery J. Mondak. 2006. The Workplace as a Context for Cross-cutting Political Discourse. The Journal of Politics 68(1): 140-155.
    Nah, Seungahn, and Masahiro Yamamoto. 2020. “Citizen Journalism, Political Discussion, and Civic Participation: Testing a Moderating Role of Media Credibility and Collective Efficacy.” International Journal of Communication 14: 5177-5198.
    Neundorf, A., and Kaat, S. 2017. “Political Socialization and the Making of Citizens.” In Oxford Handbook Topics in Politics, ed. Oxford Handbooks Editorial Board. Oxford University Press.
    Nkansah, Godfred Bonnah, and Zsófia Papp. 2023. “Does Cohort Size Matter? Assessing the Effect of Youth Cohort Size and Peer Influence on Young People’s Electoral Participation.” Journal of Youth Studies 26(7): 859-877.
    Quintelier, Ellen, Dietlind Stolle, and Allison Harell. 2012. “Politics in Peer Groups: Exploring the Causal Relationship between Network Diversity and Political Participation.” Political Research Quarterly 65(4):868-881.
    Rolfe, M., and Chan, S. 2017. “Voting and political participation.” in The Oxford Handbook of Political Networks, eds. Victor, Jennifer Nicoll, Alexander H. Montgomery, and Mark Lubell. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Rossteutscher, Sigrid, Thorsten Faas, Arndt Leininger, and Armin Schäfer. 2022. “Lowering the Quality of Democracy by Lowering the Voting Age? Comparing the Impact of School, Classmates, and Parents on 15- to 18-Year-Olds’ Political Interest and Turnout.” German Politics 31(4): 483-510.
    Russo, Silvia, and Erik Amnå. 2016. “When Political Talk Translates into Political Action: The Role of Personality Traits.” Personality and Individual Differences 100: 126-130.
    Santoro, Lauren Ratliff, and Paul A. Beck. 2017. “Social Networks and Vote Choice.” in The Oxford Handbook of Political Networks, eds. Victor, Jennifer Nicoll, Alexander H. Montgomery, and Mark Lubell. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Scheufele, Dietram A. 2002. “Examining Differential Gains from Mass Media and Their Implications for Participatory Behavior.” Communication Research 29(1): 46-65.
    Scheufele, Dietram A., Bruce W. Hardy, Dominique Brossard, Israel S. Waismel-Manor, and Erik Nisbet. 2006. “Democracy Based on Difference: Examining the Links Between Structural Heterogeneity, Heterogeneity of Discussion Networks, and Democratic Citizenship.” Journal of Communication 56(4): 728-753.
    Schmitt-Beck, Rüdiger, and Christiane Grill. 2020. “From the Living Room to the Meeting Hall? Citizens’ Political Talk in the Deliberative System.” Political Communication 37(6): 832-851.
    Schmitt-Beck, Rüdiger, and Manuel Neumann. 2023. “Do People like to Discuss Politics? A Study of Citizens’ Political Talk Culture.” European Political Science Review 15(3): 373-392.
    Smith, Elizabeth. 1999. “The Effects of Investments in the Social Capital of Youth on Political and Civic Behavior in Young Adulthood.” Political Psychology 20(3):553-580.
    Sokhey, Anand E., and Paul A. Djupe. 2011. “Interpersonal Networks and Democratic Politics.” Political Science & Politics 44(1): 55-59.
    Song, Siyu, and Minwei Ai. 2024. “How Citizen Communication Mediation Model Works in Taiwan: The Moderating Roles of Asian Values and Network Homogeneity.” Journal of Asian and African Studies 1-17.
    Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    Westholm, Anders. 1999. “The Perceptual Pathway: Tracing the Mechanisms of Political Value Transfer across Generations.” Political Psychology 20(3):525-552.
    Wyatt, Ro, E. Katz, and J. Kim. 2000. “Bridging the Spheres: Political and Personal Conversation in Public and Private Spaces.” Journal of Communication 50(1): 71-92.
    Yamamoto, Masahiro, and Seungahn Nah. 2018. “Mobile Information Seeking and Political Participation: A Differential Gains Approach with Offline and Online Discussion Attributes.” New Media & Society 20(5): 2070-2090.
    Zainurin, Siti Juwairiah, Wan Norhasniah Wan Husin, N. M. Zainol, and A. Ismail. 2024. “Peers Influence on Youth Political Behavior: A Systematic Review.” International Journal of Social Science Research 12(2): 182-203.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    政治學系
    111252008
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111252008
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[Department of Political Science] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    200801.pdf1636KbAdobe PDF0View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback