Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/125970


Title: 政治人物社群媒體展演與群眾回覆
A study of politician’s online self-presentation and audience’s responses on social media
Authors: 簡娉亭
Chien, Ping-Ting
Contributors: 陳憶寧
Chen, Yi-Ning
簡娉亭
Chien, Ping-Ting
Keywords: Facebook
Instagram
社群媒體展演
柯文哲
理性溝通
網路聲量
Big data
Facebook
Instagram
Ko Wen-Je
Rational communication
Social media performance
Date: 2019
Issue Date: 2019-09-05 17:38:54 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 社群媒體平台如今已成為政治人物重要的展演場所,亦掀起一股研究熱潮。從過去的研究可發現關於社群媒體的競選活動可區分為兩大方向:首先,研究大多針對同一社群媒體平台的不同政治人物作為研究主題,卻缺乏同一政治人物跨平台展演的研究,探討政治人物如何於不同特性的社群媒體平台展演;其次,從社群媒體中觀看政治人物貼文底下群眾的互動程度,研究發現政治人物幾乎很少在自己的社群媒體貼文下以「留言」的方式與群眾對話,但是其宣傳卻往往可以掀起群眾討論,而群眾於不同社群媒體平台底下的討論情形為何值得進一步探究。因此本研究以政治人物柯文哲的Facebook與Instagram為研究對象,擬採取內容分析與文本分析法,檢視不同社群媒體平台的展演內容與風格,以及群眾在不同社群媒體中的網路聲量與理性溝通情形。研究結果顯示,Facebook釋出內容較多屬於公關與媒體訊息,風格上以市長語氣、正式場合及激情訴求居多,Instagram釋出內容則以個人形象呈現為主,風格上以柯P語氣、正式場合及幽默訴求為主;群眾回覆的部分,Facebook以公關與媒體訊息得到較多的回應,風格上以其他語氣發言、非正式場合、悲傷訴求得到較多關注,Instagram以公關與媒體訊息得到較多的回應,風格上則以柯P語氣、正式場合、悲傷訴求得到較多關注,兩平台底下的回覆討論相互參照情形較少,理性溝通仍尚未全面。
Social media platforms were increasingly used as presentation of politicians. From past studies, election campaigns on social media can be divided into two main strands. The first strand is concerned with the comparison of different candidates on the same platforms, while cross-media presentation of politicians has seldom been discussed. The second strand looks at the level of interaction with audience in social media campaigns. It is worth noting that audience usually reply differently to different content. Therefore, this research uses the candidate Ko Wen-Je as the case study, and adapts content analysis and textual analysis methods to discuss the different strategies of impression management on Facebook and Instagram and how audience reply to different posts. Results show that Facebook releases more public promotion content and presents higher percentage of the Mayor’s tone, professional/political context and enthusiasm appeals in the posts. Instagram releases more personal image content, and shows the Internet Influencer’s tone, personal/ private context and humor appeals style. An analysis of the audience’s responses shows that the audience on Facebook reacts more actively to the public promotion content, and the style of election team member’s tone, personal/ private context and sadness appeals respectively. The audience on Instagram also reacts more actively to the public promotion content, but replies more actively to the style of Internet Influencer’s tone, professional/political context and sadness appeals respectively. Besides, audience’s comments under both platforms seldom refer different opinion which shows that rational communication is not fully developed yet.
Reference: GEMarketing(2016年1月21日)。〈從2016總統大選看網路社群經營的必要性〉,《GEMarketing金蛋網路數位行銷》。取自https://www.gemarketing.com.tw/article/
行銷人(2018年4月15日)。〈FB社群龍頭地位不保?臺灣網路社群趨勢全分析〉,《行銷人》。取自 https://www.marketersgo.com/marketing/2018/04/15/2017-social-media-analysis-report/
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〉,《東吳政治學報》,31(1):1-52。
王嵩音(2010)。〈台灣選民媒介使用對於候選人形象與評價之影響:傳統媒介 vs. 新媒介〉,《傳播與管理研究》,10:3-36。
江宜樺(2003)。〈公共領域中理性溝通的可能性〉,「公共知識份子與現代中國國際學術研討會」,中國大陸,江蘇。
江建璁(2018)。〈相信我,我是「真」的柯文哲:從「本真性」觀點探討社交媒介的政治人物形象〉,「中華傳播學會 2018年會」,臺北市,玄奘大學。
何佩珊(2017年8月23日)。〈還好還有Instagram,研究顯示Facebook持續流失年輕族群〉。《數位時代》。取自https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/45875/snapchat-beat-facebook-and-instagram-in-young-people-in-the-us
何宥嬅(2014)。《2014年台北市長候選人連勝文與柯文哲粉絲專頁訊息策略分析》。世新大學公共關係暨廣告學系碩士學位論文。
吳彥明(2006)。〈從「大眾商品的迷」到「政治迷」:初探政治迷的生活實踐與意義 〉,「中華傳播學會2006年會」,臺北市,臺灣大學。
金溥聰(1997)。〈報紙的形象設定效果研究:以民國八十三年台北市市長選舉為例〉,《新聞學研究》,55:203-223。
張育寧(2014年12月25日)。〈柯文哲網路競選策略大揭密:官網流程改版,成功募3000萬競選經費〉,《BuzzOrange報橘》。取自https://buzzorange.com/2014/12/25/kps-internet-election-strategies-1/
夏春祥(1997)。〈文本分析與傳播研究〉,《新聞學研究》,54:141-166。
莊伯仲、鄭自隆(1996)。〈競選文宣新媒介-台灣政治性資訊網路現況研究〉,《廣告學研究》,7:85-119。
許禎元(2003)。〈內容分析法的研究步驟與在政治學領域的應用〉,《師大政治論叢》。
陳又瑈(2015)。《 Facebook 與Instagram 之跨訊息綜效比較》。國立政治大學廣告所碩士班論文。
陳世敏(1992)。〈候選人形象與選民投票行為〉,《新聞學研究》,46:151-167。
陳明通、楊喜慧(2016)。〈2014 臺灣地方選舉「柯文哲現象」的外溢效果:民進黨新竹市長候選人林智堅的個案分析〉,《選舉研究》,23(1):107-151。
陳信助(2000)。《候選人形象研究:以兩千年總統大選候選人連戰、宋楚瑜、陳水扁為例》。淡江大學大眾傳播學系碩士班論文。
陳思潔(2018年8月15日)。〈「社群」成為選舉新戰場,剖析六都市長候選人IG大戰!〉,《INSIDE》。取自https://www.inside.com.tw/article/13854-election-fight-on-instagram
陳憶寧(2016)。〈臉書使用者的社會資本及政治參與〉,《傳播與社會學刊》,35:141–183。
彭芸(2007)。〈我國民眾媒體內容偏好與其政治態度之關連性研究〉,《選舉研究》,14(1):85-117。
彭家發(1992)。《新聞論》,台北:三民。
游依庭(2015)。〈在社群網站中來去自如的秘訣?情境崩解下的印象管理與隱私顧慮研究:分群行為〉,「中華傳播學會2015年會」,高雄市,義守大學。
黃厚銘,林意仁(2013)。〈流動的群聚 (mob-ility): 網路起鬨的社會心理基礎〉,《新聞學研究》,115:1-50。
黃瑞祺(1984)。〈溝通與批判——哈伯瑪斯社會溝通理論初探〉,《鵝湖月刊》,103:46-51。
黃瑞祺(1998)。〈理性討論與民主:哈伯碼斯之溝通理論的民主意涵〉,蕭高彥、蘇文流(編)《多元主義》,頁337-377。台北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所。
楊佳穎(2017年7月15日)。〈「真實的柯P在IG!」柯文哲Instagram帳號今正式上線〉。《ETtoday新聞雲》。取自 https://www.ettoday.net/news/20170715/967334.htm
楊意菁(2008)。〈網路民意的公共意涵:公眾、公共領域與溝通審議〉。《中華傳播學刊》,14:115-167.
管婺媛(2018年11月25日)。〈北柯P南國瑜:網紅市長稱霸北高,政治新浪潮來襲〉。《商周》。取自https://www.businessweekly.com.tw/article.aspx?id=25336&type=Blog
劉雨涵(2018)。〈你follow她了嗎?Instagram網紅的人類學觀察〉。《中央研究院民族學研究所資料彙編》,26:1-34。
蔡依桃(2016)。《人/物共構之社群媒體人際監控與抵抗——以 Facebook為例》。國立政治大學新聞學系碩士學位論文。
蔡依霖(2016)。《以鉅量資料取徑分析facebook候選人網路競選行為及群眾討論行為—2014台北市長選舉個案研究》。國立臺灣師範大學大眾傳播研究所碩士論文。
鄭士鈞(2007)。《政治人物部落格的形象研究-以「謝長廷的部落格」為例》。佛光大學傳播學研究所碩士論文。
鄭自隆(2011)。《競選傳播:策略與管理》。台北:華泰文化。
簡憶安(2019)。《幽默不是置入式廣告的萬靈丹:用文字探勘探討幽默與品牌概念對情緒與購買意圖的影響》。中興大學行銷學系所碩士學位論文。
蘇鑰機、李月蓮(2001)。〈新聞網站、公共空間與民主社會〉。《二十一世紀雙月刊》,63:28-35。
Aparaschivei, P. A. (2011). The Use of New Media in Electoral Campaigns: Analysis on the Use of Blogs, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube in the 2009 Romanian Presidential Campaign. Journal of Media Research, 4(2).
Bakhshi, S., Shamma, D. A., & Gilbert, E. (2014). Faces engage us: Photos with faces attract more likes and comments on instagram. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Balmas, M., & Sheafer, T. (2010). Candidate image in election campaigns: Attribute agenda setting, affective priming, and voting intentions. International journal of public opinion research, 22(2), 204-229.
Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology; concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior.
Baum, M. A. (2003). Soft news and political knowledge: Evidence of absence or absence of evidence? Political Communication, 20(2), 173-190.
Blumler, J. G., & Kavanagh, D. (1999). The third age of political communication: Influences and features. Political communication, 16(3), 209-230.
Bowes, J. E., & Strentz, H. (1978). Candidate images: Stereotyping and the 1976 debates. Annals of the International Communication Association, 2(1), 391-406.
boyd, d. (2007). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. MacArthur foundation series on digital learning–Youth, identity, and digital media volume, 119, 142.
Diaz, F., Gamon, M., Hofman, J. M., Kıcıman, E., & Rothschild, D. (2016). Online and social media data as an imperfect continuous panel survey. PloS one, 11(1), e0145406.
Enli, G. (2017). Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election. European Journal of Communication, 32(1), 50-61.
Filimonov, K., Russmann, U., & Svensson, J. (2016). Picturing the party: Instagram and party campaigning in the 2014 Swedish elections. Social Media+ Society, 2(3), 2056305116662179.
Goffman, E. (1949). The presentation of self in everyday life. American Journal of Sociology, 55, 6-7.
Habermas, J. (1979). What is universal pragmatics. Communication and the Evolution of Society, 1, 2-4.
Hacker, K. L. (1995). Candidate images in presidential elections: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Hahn, D. F., & Gonchar, R. M. (1972). Political myth: The image and the issue. Communication Quarterly, 20(3), 57-65.
Hewitt, A., & Forte, A. (2006). Crossing boundaries: Identity management and student/faculty relationships on the Facebook. Poster presented at CSCW, Banff, Alberta, 1-2.
Hochman, N., & Schwartz, R. (2012). Visualizing instagram: Tracing cultural visual rhythms. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the workshop on Social Media Visualization (SocMedVis) in conjunction with the sixth international AAAI conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM–12).
Hoffmann, C. P., & Suphan, A. (2017). Stuck with ‘electronic brochures’? How boundary management strategies shape politicians’ social media use. Information, Communication & Society, 20(4), 551-569.
Hu, Y., Manikonda, L., & Kambhampati, S. (2014). What We Instagram: A First Analysis of Instagram Photo Content and User Types. Paper presented at the Icwsm.
Kinder, D. R. (1986). Presidential character revisited. Political cognition, 19, 474.
Nielsen, R. K. (2012). Ground wars: Personalized communication in political campaigns: Princeton University Press.
Nielsen, R. K., & Vaccari, C. (2013). Do people “like” politicians on Facebook? Not really. Large-scale direct candidate-to-voter online communication as an outlier phenomenon. International Journal of Communication, 7, 24.
Nimmo, D. D., & Savage, R. L. (1976). Candidates and their images: Concepts, methods, and findings: Goodyear Publishing Company.
Prior, M. (2003). Any good news in soft news? The impact of soft news preference on political knowledge. Political Communication, 20(2), 149-171.
Rahat, G., & Sheafer, T. (2007). The personalization (s) of politics: Israel, 1949–2003. Political Communication, 24(1), 65-80.
Schramm, W. (1949). The nature of news. Journalism Bulletin, 26(3), 259-269.
Sears, D. O. (1983). The person-positivity bias. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 44(2), 233.
Skinner, B. (1938). The behavior of organisms: an experimental analysis. Appleton-Century. New York.
Stephen, T., Harrison, T. M., Husson, W., & Albert, D. (2004). Political Candidates: Predicting Winning and Losing Candidates in Three US. Presidential Elections. Presidential candidate images, 177.
Stier, S., Bleier, A., Lietz, H., & Strohmaier, M. (2018). Election campaigning on social media: Politicians, audiences, and the mediation of political communication on Facebook and Twitter. Political communication, 35(1), 50-74.
Trent, J. S., & Friedenberg, R. V. (2008). Political campaign communication: Principles and practices: Rowman & Littlefield.
Woolley, J. K., Limperos, A. M., & Oliver, M. B. (2010). The 2008 presidential election, 2.0: A content analysis of user-generated political Facebook groups. Mass Communication and Society, 13(5), 631-652.
Description: 碩士
國立政治大學
傳播學院傳播碩士學位學程
105464055
Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105464055
Data Type: thesis
Appears in Collections:[傳播學院傳播碩士學位學程] 學位論文

Files in This Item:

File SizeFormat
405501.pdf8808KbAdobe PDF1418View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing