科技部專題研究計畫主持人
MOST-105-2410-H-110-036-SS2
如何反駁負面攻擊?候選人特質之干擾
How to rebut negative attacks? Moderating effects of candidate characteristics
科技部
Ministry of Science and Technology
國立中山大學
National Sun Yat-sen University
周軒逸
Hsuan-Yi Chou
行銷傳播管理研究所
Institute of Marketing Communication
周軒逸
副教授
(07)5252000#4966
hsuanyi@mail.nsysu.edu.tw
計畫執行期間起:2016-08-01
計畫執行期間迄:2018-07-31
2017-03-25,2017-04-29,2018-02-07,2018-03-19,2018-06-21,2018-07-13
2017-04-12,2017-05-15,2018-03-04,2018-04-23,2018-07-03,2018-07-25
具有投票資格的全台灣成年選民
1
007
01
負面攻擊;反駁式競選廣告;政治幽默;候選人形象;性別刻板印象;外貌刻板印象
negative attacks;rebuttal campaign advertising;political humor;candidate image;gender stereotype;physical attractiveness stereotype
幾乎在每一場選舉中,候選人陣營間的相互攻擊,都是主流的選舉文化之一,而當遭到攻擊時,如何回應往往也是影響該次攻擊效果、話題延續性,以及選民對雙方候選人評價的關鍵。過去學界對於如何以競選廣告進行負面攻擊投以相當多的關注,但對於如何回應負面攻擊則較少討論,不但欠缺對於各種回應策略效果的比較,也鮮少論及是否回應策略的效果會被某些因素所干擾。因此,本研究欲深入探討當候選人遭受負面形象攻擊時,反駁 vs. 不反駁,以及如何反駁,對選民候選人反應的影響效果,並檢視候選人特質 (核心形象、外表吸引力) 的可能干擾,以填補過去研究缺口。 本研究在2年內完成了6個正式實驗,實驗1-3聚焦於比較反駁vs.不反駁的效果,以及各式反駁、不反駁策略的相對效果,釐清反駁廣告的作用機制,並透過不同的形象攻擊主題、是否納入政黨資訊等設計差異,來增加研究主張的強健性和概化性。實驗4-6除同樣測試反駁策略的效果外,亦加入候選人特質之干擾,測試對於不同核心形象、外表吸引力的候選人,是否有其更為適合的反駁策略,俾釐清各種反駁策略的適用情境。 總結六個實驗的重要發現包括:(1) 若以自我解嘲和正面回應策略對於能力和正直攻擊進行反駁 (vs. 不反駁─保持沉默),能有效提升選民對於回應方候選人的態度和投票意願,反之,若以負面回應作為反駁手法,則對於回應方候選人的態度將造成不利影響;(2)幽默諷刺的效果較不穩定,若用於反駁能力攻擊時,相較於不反駁─保持沉默,未能提升選民的回應方反應;但若用以反駁正直攻擊,則比不反駁來得有效;(3) 若是針對「能力」攻擊,反駁 (vs.不反駁─保持沉默) 未能順勢降低攻擊方候選人的反應;若是針對「正直」面向的攻擊,則正面回應、負面回應、幽默諷刺具有降低選民對於攻擊方候選人反應的效果;(4) 攻擊方候選人可信度、回應方候選人知覺(可信度、寬容和心虛),為反駁策略的效果提供了可能解釋機制;(5) 就被攻擊方反應而言,不反駁─個人宣傳的效果,優於正面回應、負面回應、幽默諷刺、不反駁─反擊對手;(6) 候選人形象可以透過個人學經歷、過去公職表現的新聞報導來加以操作,又性別刻板印象、外貌刻板印象同樣塑造選民如何知覺候選人;(7) 當核心形象被攻擊時,使用正面回應普遍地可有效改善被攻擊方候選人態度和投票意願,然使用負面回應,相較於正面回應、自我解嘲、幽默諷刺,則較有助於降低攻擊方候選人態度;而當非核心形象被攻擊時,則是自我解嘲對於改善被攻擊方候選人態度和投票意願的效果表現不俗。 本研究結果對於反駁式競選廣告、政治幽默、候選人形象、性別刻板印象、外貌刻板印象等研究領域具理論上的貢獻,並可供不同特質的候選人遭受對手負面形象攻擊時,構思是否回應、如何回應方能產生較佳選民反應之重要參考。
Mutual attacks between candidates have been a prominent aspect of the election culture in recent elections. Previous studies have focused on ways to implement negative attacks through campaign advertisements, but little attention has been paid to the ways that candidates might respond to negative attacks. The current study aims to fill this research gap by exploring the effect of rebutting versus not rebutting and the effect of the method of rebuttal on voters’ responses to the attacked and attacking candidates, when a candidate encounters an opponent’s attack on his/her image. In addition, an attacked candidate’s personal characteristics, such as his or her core image and physical attractiveness, might moderate the effects of rebuttal strategies on voter attitudes and behaviors. This study addressed two research questions and tested five hypotheses. The data were derived from six experiments conducted over a two-year period. Experiments 1 through 3 focused on: (1) assessing the effects of rebutting versus not rebutting, (2) various rebuttal and non-rebuttal strategies, and (3) clarifying the functional mechanisms of rebuttal advertisements. Experiments 4 through 6 retested the effects of the rebuttal strategies and considered the moderation of the attacked candidates’ characteristics. The experiments’ results were as follows. 1. Self-deprecation and positive responses as rebuttal strategies versus non-rebuttal (silence) improved subjects’ attitudes and intentions to vote for the attacked candidate. However, attacked candidates that employed negative response strategies experienced negative effects. 2. The rebuttal effect of other-deprecation was not consistent. When rebutting attacks on competence, other-deprecation did not have more influence than keeping salience on improving subjects’ responses to the attacked candidate. When rebutting attacks on integrity, other-deprecation had a stronger influence. 3. Rebutting or non-rebutting attacks on competence did not influence the subjects’ responses to the attacking candidate; however, when rebutting attacks on integrity, positive responses, negative responses, and other-deprecation (versus non-rebuttal) were more harmful to the subjects’ responses to the attacking candidate. 4. Subjects’ perceptions of attacked candidates’ credibility, magnanimity, and guilt, and attacking candidates’ credibility mediated the effectiveness of rebuttal strategies. 5. Non-rebuttal/self-promotion generated more improvement than rebuttal with positive responses, negative responses, other-deprecation, or non-rebuttal/counterattacks with respect to the subjects’ responses to the attacked candidate. 6. A candidate’s image might be affected by her or his educational background, work experience, and news reports about his or her previous performance as a public official. Gender and physical attractiveness stereotypes also influenced the subjects’ perceptions of the candidates. 7. When a candidate’s core image was attacked, rebuttal with positive responses generally improved the subjects’ attitudes and intentions to vote for the attacked candidate. When a characteristic unaligned with a candidate’s core image was attacked, self-deprecation was good at improving the subjects’ attitudes and intentions to vote for the attacked candidate. This study makes a theoretical contribution to areas of research, such as rebuttal campaign advertising, political humor, candidate images, gender stereotypes, and physical attractiveness stereotypes. The research findings provide important implications regarding the various options, according to personal characteristics, with which candidates might respond to opponents’ attacks to generate positive effects on voters’ responses.
否,無直接識別資料
僅就有無可識別個人身份資料進行檢查及處理,不對變項名稱、變項及選項數值說明與問卷是否一致或有定義進行核對或修改。
追蹤清單
下載(0)
申請(0)
遠距(0)