Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/119805| 題名: | 氣候變遷公益海報設計策略對中國公眾風險感知研究 The Influence of the Design Strategy of Climate Change Public Poster on Risk Perception of Chinese Public |
作者: | 龍靈 Long, Ling |
貢獻者: | 賴建都 Lai, Chien-Tu 龍靈 Long, Ling |
關鍵詞: | 氣候變遷 風險感知 訴求 框架 說服效果 Climate change Risk perception Appeal Information framework Persuasive effect |
日期: | 2018 | 上傳時間: | 29-Aug-2018 | 摘要: | 本研究之目的主要是探討氣候變遷公益海報採用不同訴求與訊息框架時，對中國公眾風險感知的影響，以及海報對中國公眾的說服效果。根據文獻的研究結果，本研究採用兩個步驟進行了研究：第一部分採用內容分析法，架構了「內容分析編碼表」，對WWF所發佈的關於氣候變遷之公益海報進行內容分析；第二部分採用問卷調查法，架構了「說服效果問卷量表」與「風險感知計量量表」，將問卷分為甲組（「訴求組」）（N=881）與乙組（「訊息框架組」）（N=896），以網路便利抽樣的方式，對中國公眾分別進行問卷調查。\n經由內容分析研究結果顯示：WWF歷年來所發佈之氣候變遷公益海報更多採用了「感性訴求」與「負面訊息框架」。在經由對調查樣本統計分析的研究結果顯示：氣候變遷議題公益海報採用「感性訴求」與「負面訊息框架」時，中國公眾會對氣候變遷風險產生更高的「風險感知」，公眾對海報會產生更積極的「態度」與「行為意圖」；當公眾「風險感知」程度越高，其「態度」與「行為意圖」越積極；當公眾「態度」越積極，其「行為意圖」越積極。總和研究結果，可提供給政府相關機構與非政府組織在氣候變遷議題宣導相關決策之參考，以提升中國公眾氣候變遷風險的參與與行動積極性。 The purpose of this study is mainly to explore the influence of climate change public service posters on the risk perception of Chinese public with different appeals and information frameworks, as well as the persuasive effect on Chinese public which is brought by the posters.\nAccording to the research result of the literature, this study was mainly studied in two steps, the first part is designed to adopt the content analysis method and construct the "content analysis coding table", and the content analysis of public service posters released by WWF on climate change was being conducted; the second part is designed to adopt the questionnaire survey method which aims at constructing the "persuasive effect questionnaire scale" and "risk perception scale". The questionnaire group was designed to be divided into group A ("appeal group") (N=881) and group B ("information framework group") (N=896), and a questionnaire survey was conducted on the Chinese public by the way of the convenience of network sample sampling.\nThrough content analysis, the results showed that: the public service posters on climate change released by WWF over the years adopt more "emotional appeal" and "negative information framework". And the results concluded from a statistical analysis of the survey sample showed that with the adoption of "emotional appeal" and "negative information framework" by the public service posters on climate change issues, the Chinese public will have a higher "risk perception" to climate change risk and also the Chinese public will produce more positive "attitude" and "behavioral intention" to the posters. The higher the degree of risk perception of the public, the more positive the "attitude" and "behavioral intention" will be, the more positive the public`s attitude is, the more positive their intentions will be. Summarizing the result of the study, it could offer references for relating government agencies and NGOs to initiate relevant decisions on climate change issues, thus the participation and initiative of Chinese public climate change risk can be enhanced and improved. |
參考文獻: | 王維憶（2010）。《諷刺仿作風格應用在「全球暖化」海報設計的創作與研究》。國立臺灣師範大學設計研究所碩士論文。\n方菁容、衛萬里（2013）。〈世界自然基金會 (WWF) 環保公益廣告創意效果與觀者認知差異〉。《設計學報》，18：71-91。\n伍麟、張璿（2012）。〈風險感知研究中的心理測量典範〉。《 南京師大學報: 社會科學版》。2012(2)：95-102。\n李美華（2013）。〈科學新聞之再現與馴化：當全球暖化遇上在地產製〉，《臺大新聞論壇》。\n李雅雯（2011）。《臺灣財經雜誌論述中的氣候變遷議題建構 （1992-2011 年）》 。國立政治大學新聞研究所學位論文。\n何耀宗（1980）。《平面廣告設計》。臺北：雄獅。\n林宜平、吳亭亭、黎雅如、周桂田、鄭尊仁（2010）。〈臺灣成年民眾對奈米產品與科技的公眾感知〉。《臺灣公共衛生雜誌》，29(5)，431-439。\n周桂田（2014）。《風險社會典範轉移：打造為公眾負責的治理模式》。臺北：遠流。\n周穆謙、林以容(2015)。〈癌症篩檢宣導海報之說服效果探討〉。《資訊傳播研究》，6(1)：1-27。\n周穎（2016）。〈美國公眾收看科技新聞頻率與全球變暖認知關係的實證研究〉。《東南傳播》，2016（8）：65-68。\n祝鳳岡（1995）。〈「廣告感性訴求策略」之策略分析〉。《廣告學研究》，5：85-112。\n柳中明（2007）。〈氣候變遷〉。《科學月刊》，456（12），921。\n徐美苓（1999）。〈關懷在愛滋蔓延的時代裡--閱聽人對宣導廣告的接受度研究〉。。《新聞學研究》，61：31-72。\n徐美苓、楊意菁（2011）。〈臺灣全球暖化風險溝通的常民認知〉，《傳播與社會學刊》，15: 71-104。\n孫秀蕙（1993）。〈公共關係活動效果初探--閱聽人對公益廣告的認知與學習效果研究〉。《廣告學研究》， 1993 (1)：181-209。\n淩儀玲、劉宜芬（2008）。〈廣告訊息之理解與說服效果：捷思式-系統式訊息處理觀點〉。《管理學報》。25(5)，487-503。\n許晃雄（2007）。〈暖化議題下全球化的綠色思維隱然成型-經濟與環保走向大和解〉。《臺灣環境》，144，34。\n陳國裕（2006）。《臺灣企業外匯風險管理之研究》。國立中央大學財務金融學系碩士論文。\n陳憶寧（2014）。〈福島危機中臺灣民眾對核能的風險感知與態度：政黨傾向、核能知識、信任與科學傳播的角色〉。《中華傳播學刊》，26，223-265。\n賈鶴鵬（2007）。〈全球變暖、科學傳播與公眾參與——氣候變化科技在中國的傳播分析〉。《科普研究》，2007（3）：39-45。\n蔡奇睿（2010）。〈環保海報的符號分析與隱喻性研究〉。《藝術研究學報》，3（1）：61-89。\n榮芳、曾少軍、黃靜、藍煜昕、於繪錦（2010）。〈我國餘能利用領域CDM項目活動現狀及對策研究〉。《宏觀經濟研究》。2010（1）：17-22。\n範博淳（2009）。《全球暖化風險感知研究-以北縣國小學生為例》。臺灣大學國家發展研究所學位論文。\n賴建都（2008）。〈政府宣導廣告之文案測試研究--以國民健康局 2004~2006 年 【鼓勵生育】宣導廣告為例〉。《廣告學研究》。2008 (29)：1-28。\n趙延東、林土垚、馮欣譯（2007）。《風險的感知》，（原著：Slovic[2000],The Feeling of Risk,New York:Routledge.），北京：北京。\n賽來西·阿不都拉、季靖主編（2007）。《廣告心理學》。杭州：浙江大學。\n劉濤（2011）。《環境傳播：話語、修辭與政治》。北京：北京大學。\n樊志育（1990）。《廣告效果研究》。臺北：三民書局。\n謝君蔚、徐美苓（2011）。〈媒體在現科技發展與風險的框架與演變〉，《中華傳播學刊》，20：140-176。\n羅逸婷（2009）。《網路公益廣告閱聽人之情緒, 同理心及煩躁感對態度與行為意圖之影響》。中原大學資訊管理研究所學位論文。\n王維芬譯（2009）。《Home--搶救家園計畫》。（原著：Yann Arthus-Bertrand[2009].Home.)， 臺北：行人文化。\nWWF中國（2018）。《WWF中國簡介》。取自：\nhttp://www.wwfchina.org/aboutus.php\n人民網（2018年5月29日）。《十九大：貢獻中國智慧（解碼十九大）》。取自：http://paper.people.com.cn/rmrbhwb/html/2017-10/23/content_1812152.htm\n工業技術研究院編輯（1998）。《聯合國氣候變化框架公約》。取自：http://www.tri.org.tw/unfccc/download/unfccc_c.pdf\n中國科技部（2015）。《第三次氣候變化國家評估報告》。取自：\nhttp://www.ccchina.gov.cn/Detail.aspx?newsId=56949\n中國新聞網（2015年11月24日）。《聯合國減災署報告：氣候災難20年來奪60多萬人命》。取自：\nhttp://yn.people.com.cn/news/world/BIG5/n/2015/1124/c228495-27164133.html\n中國環境保護部（2015）。《環境保護公眾參與辦法》。取自：http://www.zhb.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/bl/201507/t20150720_306928.htm\n百度百科。《蔚藍地圖》。取自：\nhttp://baike.baidu.com/item/%E8%94%9A%E8%93%9D%E5%9C%B0%E5%9B%BE?fr=aladdin\n江瑋（2015年11月）。〈中國人最不擔心氣候變化問題？皮尤民調：只有15%擔心〉。《財經》，2015(11)。\n朱淑慧、李麗玲（1990年9月）。〈「科普工作者對九十年代的展望」座談會紀實〉，《科學月刊》。取自\nhttp://210.60.226.25/science/content/1990/00090249/ 0007.htm\n國際間氣候變化專門委員會（2014）。 取自百度文庫：\nhttp://wenku.baidu.com/link?url=jnnV7AkljUhG3hgG5-RbSWa4EX2S3OtA9_708XSbjflKSZh4SBMM6F9w7FLR2Jjot_F-Z3CX8bvu7AoOuVVRilTDiKdZAlgfnBOBb9FwVMu\n謝汶均（2015）。《氣候惡化危及5億孩童》。《經濟日報》，2015年11月25日。\nAdamB., BeckU., & van Loon, J.(2000). The risk society and beyond: Critical issues for social theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.\nAppel, M., & Richter, T. (2007). Persuasive effects of fictional narratives increase over time. Media Psychology, 10(1), 113-134.\nBagozzi, R. P., & Moore, D. J. (1994). Public Service Advertisements: Emotions and Empathy Guide Prosocial Behavior. The Journal of Marketing , 58 (1), 56-70.\nBeck, U. (1992). Risk Society:Towards a new modernity (Vol. 17). Sage.\nBodemer N., & Gaissmaier W. (2015). Risk perception. In H. Cho, T. Reimer & K. A. McComas (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of risk communication, pp. 10-23. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE\nBoykoff, M. T. (2011). Who speaks for the climate: Making sense of media reporting on climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.\nBurgess, A. (2015). Social construction of risk. In H. Cho, T. Reimer & K. A. McComas (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of risk communication, pp. 56-68. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.\nCacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1984). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11(1), 673-675.\nCantrill, J. G., & Oravec, C. L. (Eds.). (1996). The symbolic earth: Discourse and our creation of the environment. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky.\nCox, R. (2013). Environmental communication and the public sphere. pp.11-37, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.\nD’Angelo, P. (2002). News framing as a multiparadigmatic research program: A response to Entman. Journal of Communication, 52(4), 870-888.\nDoyle, J. (2011). Mediating climate change . pp. 13-30. Surrey, UK: Ashgate.\nDunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2011). Organized climate change denial. In J. S. Dryzek, R. B. Norgaard & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of climate change and society, pp. 144-160. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.\nEkström, M. (2002). Epistemologies of TV journalism: A theoretical framework. Journalism, 3(3), 259-282\n.Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.\nFischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy sciences, 9(2), 127-152.\nFurnham, A. (1988). Lay theories: Everyday understanding of problems in the social sciences. Pergamon Press.\nGardner, R., & Luchtenberg, S. (2000). Reference, image, text in German and Australian advertising posters. Journal of pragmatics, 32(12), 1807-1821.\nGiddens, A. (2009). The Politics of Climate Change.Cambridge:Polity Press Ltd.\nGore (2006). An Inconvenient Truth.New York：Rodale Press.\nGrimsrud, E. P. (2009). Thoughts of a scientist, citizen, and grandpa on climate change: Bridging the gap between scientific and public opinion. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse.\nHansen, A. (1990). The news construction of the environment: A comparison of British and Danish television news. Leicester, Centre for Mass Communication Research. UK: University of Leicester,\nHansen, A. (2010). Environment,media and communication. pp. 75-103. London, UK: Routledge.\nHolsti, O. R. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Science and Humanities. Massachusetts Menlo Park. California: Addison-Westly Publishing Company.\nHovland, C. I., & Janis, I. L. (1959). Personality and persuasibility.\nKasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R.E., Pidgeon, N., & Slovic, P. (2010). The social amplification of risk: Assessing fifteen years of research and theory. In P. Slovic (Ed.), The feeling of risk: New perspectiveson risk perception . pp. 317-344. London, UK: Earthscan Publications Ltd.\nKirstin Dow, Thomas E. (2007). The Atlas of Climate Change: Mapping the World`s Greatest Challenge.UK:Earthscan.\nKotler, P. (1991). Marketing management: analysis, planning, implementation, and control (7 ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.\nLeiserowitz, A. (2007). Global public perception, opinion, and understanding of climate change: Current patterns, trends, and limitations. Thematic paper for:Human Development Report 2007: Climate Change and Human Development – Rising to the Challenge. United Nations Development Program. Rerrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008/papers/leiserowitz_anthony.pdf\nLeiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic change, 77(1-2), 45-72.\nLeiserowitz, A. (2005). American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous?. Risk analysis, 25(6), 1433-1442.\nLeiserowitz, A. (2004). Before and After The Day After Tomorrow: A U.S. Study of Climate Change Risk Perception. Environment (Washington DC), 46(9), 24-37.\nLuhmann, N. (1989). Ecological communication(J. Bednarz, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.\nLuhmann, N. (1993). Communication and social order: risk: a sociological theory. Transaction Publishers.\nLynn, J. R. (1973). Perception of Public Service Advertising: Source, message and Receiver Effects. Journalism Quarterly.\nMoyer‐Gusé, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment‐education messages.Communication Theory, 18(3), 407-425.\nNisbet, M. C., & Mooney, C. (2009). Framing science. Science, 316.\nNisbet, M. C. , & Scheufele D. A. (2009). What`s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American journal of botany, 96(10), 1767-1778.\nNunnally, J.C. (1978) Psychometric theory. 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill: New York.\nPettenger, M. E. (Ed.). (2007). The social construction of climate change. Hampshire, UK; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.\nPidgeon, N., Hood, C., Jones, D., Turner, B., & Gibson, R. (1992). Risk perception. Risk: Analysis, perception and management, 89-134.\nReilly, J. (1999). 「Just another food scare?」 Public understanding and the BSE crisis.In G. Philo (Ed.), Message received: Glasgow media group research 1993-1998 (pp. 128-145). Harlow, UK: Addison Wesley Longman\nRenn, O. (2007). The risk handling chain. The tolerability of risk: A new framework for risk management, 21-75.\nRothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3-19.\nRussell, C. K., Gregory, D. M., & Gates, M. F. (1996). Aesthetics and substance in qualitative research posters. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 542-552.\nScheufele, D. A. , & Lewenstein B. V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2005 – Springer 7(6)，659-667.\nSemetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93-110.\nShih, T. (forthcoming). Developing communication strategies for mitigating actions against global warming: Linking framing and a dual processing model. Environmental Communication.\nSlovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1980). Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In Societal risk assessment (pp. 181-216). Springer US.\nTversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.\nWeart, S. (2011). The development of the concept of dangerous anthropogenic climate change. In J. S. Dryzek, R. B. Norgaard & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of climate change and society, pp. 67-81. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. | 描述: | 碩士 國立政治大學 傳播學院傳播碩士學位學程 103464073 |
資料來源: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103464073 | 資料類型: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 407301.pdf | 2.43 MB | Adobe PDF2 | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.