Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

Title: 2020年立委候選人臉書封面圖像策略
Candidate's Electoral Strategy of Cover Photo on Facebook in the 2020 Legislative Election
Authors: 陳宇庭
Chen, Yu-Ting
Contributors: 游清鑫
Yu, Ching-Hsin
Chen, Yu-Ting
Keywords: 衣尾效應
Coattail effect
Facebook campaign
Profile photo
Cover photo
Date: 2021
Issue Date: 2021-03-02 14:44:53 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 摘要
本文旨在分析立委候選人競選時期的臉書首頁圖像策略,以2020年立委選舉為例,將其臉書首頁的大頭貼(profile photo)和封面照片(cover photo)作為分析資料,交叉比對政黨和總統候選人選前聲勢,觀察候選人的臉書首頁圖像策略與選舉聲勢之間的關係,討論衣尾效應對於候選人臉書圖像策略的影響。
The aim in this paper is to analyze the candidate's electoral strategy of cover photo on Facebook, including in profile photo and cover photo, in the 2020 legislative election. Taking candidate's cover photo on Facebook as analysis data, comparing with the momentum of parties and presidential candidates, it discusses the relationship between the candidates’ electoral strategy of cover photo on Facebook and their election momentum, and the impact on the Coattail effect on the candidate’s strategies.
Through analyzing the degree of connection between the party and the same party presidential candidate in the cover photo and in-depth interviews to parts of candidates as supplements, the study found that, in general, a candidate’s electoral strategy of cover photo on Facebook will be affected by the momentum of the party and the presidential candidate from the same party. The major parties would adjust the degree of connection based on the level of momentum, while the smaller parties would put them in.
Among them, the SMD candidates from the major party would have different strategies for their personal constituency advantages. Different from those with constituency advantages, candidates without constituency advantages need to rely on the party's and presidential candidate's power to improve the election.
In addition, the candidate's electoral strategy may vary from different election systems. Under PR, since the list is all controlled by parties, the candidates lack incentives to the campaign. The overall connection degree in PR is lower than in SMD. Under SNTV, candidates face competition from the inter-party and the intra-party. At the same time, KMT has a better advantage in the aborigine constituency in Taiwan. As a result, even with a lower momentum, the degree of party connection from KMT’s candidate is still high.
Reference: 一、 中文文獻

二、 外文文獻
Bean, Louis H. 1948. How to Predict Elections. New York: Alfred Knopf.
Born, R. 1984. “Reassessing the Decline of Presidential Coattails: U.S. House Elections from 1952-1980.” Journal of Politics 46: 60-79.
Campbell, A. and Warren E. Miller. 1957. “The Motivational Basis of Straight and Split Ticket Voting.” The American Political Science Review 51(2): 293-312.
Campbell, A., Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Campbell, James E. 1986. “Predicting Seat Gains from Presidential Coattails.” American Journal of Political Science 30(1): 165-183.
Campbell, James E. 1991. “The Presidential Surge and Its Midterm Decline in Congressional Elections, 1868-1988.” Behalf of the Southern Political Science Association 53(2): 477-87.
Chapman, Harry and Hilde Coffé. 2016. “Changing Facebook Profile Pictures as Part of A Campaign: Who Does It and Why?” Journal of Youth Studies 19(4): 483-500.
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
Duverger, Maurice. 1972. “Factors in a Two-Party and Multiparty System.” Party Politics and Pressure Groups. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
Ellison N, Heino R. and Gibbs J. 2006. “Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment.” Journal of Computer mediated Communication 11(2): 415-441.
Ferejohn, John A. and Randall L. Calvert. 1984. “Presidential Coattails in Historical Perspective.” American Journal of Political Science 47: 127-146.
Fiorina, Morris P. 1978. “Economic Retrospective Voting in American National Elections: A Micro-Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 22: 426-43.
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University.
Gerbner, George. 1969. “Toward “Cultural Indicators”: The Analysis of Mass Mediated. Message Systems.” AV Communication Review 17(2): 137-148.
Goodnow, T. 2013. “Facing Off: A Comparative Analysis of Obama and Romney Facebook Timeline Photographs.” American Behavioral Scientist 57(11): 1584-1595.
Grabe, M. Elizabeth and Erik P. Bucy. 2009. Image Bite Politics: News and the Visual Framing of Elections. New York: Oxford University.
Han, Y. J., J. C. Nunes, and X. Drèze, 2010. “Signaling Status with Luxury Goods: The Role of Brand Prominence.” Journal of Marketing 74(4): 15-30.
Hancock, J. T. and C. L. Toma 2009. “Putting Your Best Face Forward: the Accuracy of Online Dating Photographs.” Journal of Communication 59: 367-386.
Holsti, Ole R. 1969. Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, Mass: Addision-Wesley Pub. Co.
Huang, chi and T.Y. Wang. 2014. “Presidential Coattails in Taiwan: an Analysis of Voter- and Candidate-Specific Data.” Electoral Studies 33: 175-185.
Kress, G., and T. Van Leeuwen. 2006. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London/New York: Routledge.
Kramer, Gerald H. 1971. “Short-Term Fluctuations in U.S. Voting Behavior, 1896-1964.” The American Political Science Review 65(1): 131-143.
Lijphart, Arend, Pintor, Rafael Lopez, and Sone, Yasunori. 1986. “The Limited Vote and the Single Nontransferable Vote: Lessons from the Japanese and Spanish Examples.” In Bernard Grofman and Lijphart, Arend eds., Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences. New York: Agathon.
Meredith, Marc. 2013. “Exploiting Friends-and-Neighbors to Estimate Coattail Effects.” The American Political Science Review 107(4): 742-765.
Miller, Warren E. 1955. “Presidential Coattails: A Study in Political Myth and Methodology.” Public Opinion Quarterly 19(4): 353-68.
Metzgar, E. and A. Maruggi. 2009. “Social Media and the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election.” Journal of New Communications Research 4(1): 141-165.
Mondak, Jeffery J. 1990. “Determinants of Coattail Voting.” Political Behavior 12(3): 265-288.
Mondark, Jeffery J. and Carl McCurley. 1994. “Cognitive Efficiency and the Congressional Vote: the Psychology of Coattail Voting.” Political Research Quarterly 47(1): 151-175.
Moos, Malcolm. 1952. Politics, Presidents and Coattails. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins.
Owen, Diana. 2011. “Media: The Complex Interplay of Old and New Forms.” In New Directions in Campaigns and Elections, ed. Stephen K. Medvic. New York: Routledge.
Rich, Timothy S. 2018. “Coattails and Mixed Electoral Systems: Evidence from Taiwan’s 2016 Election.” Journal of East Asian Studies 18: 47-66.
Vilnai-Yavetz, Iris and Sigal Tifferet. 2015. “A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words: Segmenting Consumers by Facebook Profile Images.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 32: 53-69.
Williams, Christine B. and Girsh Jeff Gulati 2009. “Explaining Facebook Support in the 2008 Congressional Election Cycle.” Political Networks Paper Archive: Working Papers.
Turkle, Sherry. 1995. Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Utz, S. 2009. “The (Potential) Benefits of Campaigning via Social Network Sites.” Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 14: 221-243.
Michael Xenos, Ariadne Vromen, and Brian D. Loader. 2014. “The Great Equalizer? Patterns of Social Media Use and Youth Political Engagement in Three Advanced Democracies.” Information, Communication & Society 17(2): 151-167.
Yurchisin, J., K. Watchravesringkan, and D. B. McCabe 2005. “An Exploration of Identity Re-creation in the Context of Internet Dating.” Social Behavior and Personality 33(8): 735-750.
Zhao, Shanyang, Sherri Grasmuck, and Jason Martin. 2008. “Identity Construction on Facebook: Digital Empowerment in Anchored Relationships.” Computers in Human Behavior 24(5): 1816-1836.

三、 網路及民調資料
ETtoday新聞雲,2019,〈蔡英文41%被韓國瑜追到差「個位數」 宋楚瑜出馬只有7.9%〉,ETtoday新聞雲:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
ETtoday新聞雲,2019,〈吳敦義列安全名單不分區少2席 16.4%政黨票不投國民黨〉,ETtoday新聞雲:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
ETtoday新聞雲,2019,〈20至49歲關鍵表態 蔡英文持續領先韓國瑜差距拉大14.1%〉,ETtoday新聞雲:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
ETtoday新聞雲,2019,〈「亡昌感」追打韓國瑜政黨票上升至6.9.% 宋楚瑜終橘之戰慘跌剩2.6%〉,ETtoday新聞雲:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
ETtoday新聞雲,2019,〈民進黨14-16席、柯文哲4-6席 吳敦義、謝龍介恐落榜〉,ETtoday新聞雲:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
TVBS民調中心,2019,〈韓國瑜請假後 2020 總統大選民調〉,TVBS民調中心網站:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
TVBS民調中心,2019,〈選前兩個月 2020 總統大選民調〉,TVBS民調中心網站:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
TVBS民調中心,2019,〈宋楚瑜宣布參選,2020 總統大選民調〉,TVBS民調中心網站:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
TVBS民調中心,2019,〈選前一個半月,2020 總統大選民調〉,TVBS民調中心網站:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
TVBS民調中心,2019,〈選前一個月,2020 總統大選民調〉,TVBS民調中心網站:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
自由時報民調,2019,〈不分區支持度 民進黨32.58% 國民黨 17.23%〉,自由時報:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
自由時報民調,2019,〈國民黨政黨票15.21% 民進黨35.07%〉,自由時報:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
自由時報民調,2019,〈政黨票支持度 民進黨34.02% 國民黨15.79%〉,自由時報:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
蘋果日報,2019,〈吳敦義剉咧等!不分區爭議令政黨支持度跌破3成 首輸民進黨〉,蘋果日報新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
蘋果日報,2019,〈韓國瑜面臨2成保衛戰! 支持度落後蔡英文19.5個百分點差距史上最大〉,蘋果日報新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
蘋果日報,2019,〈兩大黨政黨票狂洩 民進黨29.3%仍勝國民黨19.6%〉,蘋果日報新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
蘋果日報,2019,〈綠委選情看漲!區域支持度36.1%、政黨票32.1% 全面領先國民黨〉,蘋果日報新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
蘋果日報,2019,〈藍政黨票剩19.6% 基進黨升至3.9%〉,蘋果日報新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
綠黨民調,2019,〈蔡英文支持度過半 領先韓國瑜18.3%〉,新頭殼新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
綠黨民調,2019,〈韓國瑜民調新低 大輸蔡英文19.7%〉,新頭殼新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
綠黨民調,2019,〈蔡勝韓約19% 時代力量支持度大減〉,新頭殼新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
綠黨民調,2019,〈蔡領先韓21% 宋楚瑜參選拉抬親民黨不分區選情〉,新頭殼新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
綠黨民調,2019,〈韓國瑜喊「唯一支持蔡英文」後... 雙方差距34%〉,新頭殼新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
綠黨民調,2019,〈政黨支持度:民眾黨、時力下滑 台灣基進、綠黨打平親民黨〉,新頭殼新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
綠黨民調,2019,〈蔡領先韓33.4% 民眾黨不分區不如預期〉,新頭殼新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
聯合報民調,2019,〈不分區政黨票 藍綠均29%〉,聯合新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
聯合報民調,2019,〈不分區政黨票 民進黨30% 國民黨24%〉,聯合新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
ETtoday新聞雲,2019,〈蔡英文41%被韓國瑜追到差「個位數」 宋楚瑜出馬只有7.9%〉,ETtoday新聞雲:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
ETtoday新聞雲,2019,〈「藍綠橘」三腳督 蔡英文領先韓國瑜〉,ETtoday新聞雲:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
ETtoday新聞雲,2019,〈20至49歲關鍵表態 蔡英文持續領先韓國瑜差距拉大14.1%〉,ETtoday新聞雲:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
ETtoday新聞雲,2019,〈蔡英文46.6%領先韓國瑜 這些人上次投給朱立倫、宋楚瑜〉,ETtoday新聞雲:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
ETtoday新聞雲,2019,〈封關前支持度回升 蔡英文、韓國瑜差距11%-16%〉,ETtoday新聞雲:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
TVBS民調中心,2019,〈選前兩個月 2020 總統大選民調〉,TVBS民調中心網站:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
TVBS民調中心,2019,〈宋楚瑜宣布參選,2020 總統大選民調〉,TVBS民調中心網站:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
TVBS民調中心,2019,〈選前一個半月,2020 總統大選民調〉,TVBS民調中心網站:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
TVBS民調中心,2019,〈選前一個月,2020 總統大選民調〉,TVBS民調中心網站:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日
TVBS民調中心,2019,〈電視辯論後,2020 總統大選民調〉,TVBS民調中心網站:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
自由時報民調,2019,〈總統大選本報民調 蔡49.95% 韓19.49%〉,自由時報:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
自由時報民調,2019,〈總統選舉 本報民調 蔡53.12% 韓15.47%〉,自由時報:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
自由時報民調,2019,〈總統大選 本報民調// 蔡54.25% 韓15.59% 宋4.76%〉,自由時報:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
蘋果日報,2019,〈下鄉推政見無效!韓國瑜民調14連敗  25.7% vs. 42.7%慘敗蔡英文〉,蘋果日報新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
蘋果日報,2019,〈國政配成軍!韓國瑜26.9% VS.蔡英文43.7% 連吞15敗〉,蘋果日報新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
蘋果日報,2019,〈賴清德當副手最加分! 英德配42.3%大勝國政配24.0%〉,蘋果日報新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
蘋果日報,2019,〈韓國瑜面臨2成保衛戰! 支持度落後蔡英文19.5個百分點差距史上最大〉,蘋果日報新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
蘋果日報,2019,〈韓國瑜2成保衛戰失守!支持度剩19% 慘敗蔡英文51%〉,蘋果日報新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
蘋果日報,2019,〈韓國瑜烏賊戰術奏效? 蔡英文大勝29.4個百分點〉,蘋果日報新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
蘋果日報,2019,〈選前最後一波今公布 英德配48.6%大勝國政配15.4%〉,蘋果日報新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
綠黨民調,2019,〈韓國瑜請假頻放砲民調反升 蔡韓差距拉近5%〉,新頭殼新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
綠黨民調,2019,〈蔡英文穩定贏韓國瑜15.1% 宋楚瑜選韓仍慘〉,三立新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
綠黨民調,2019,〈蔡勝韓約19% 時代力量支持度大減〉,新頭殼新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
綠黨民調,2019,〈蔡領先韓21% 宋楚瑜參選拉抬親民黨不分區選情〉,新頭殼新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
綠黨民調,2019,〈韓國瑜喊「唯一支持蔡英文」後... 雙方差距34%〉,新頭殼新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
綠黨民調,2019,〈蔡英文滑落至48.9%仍領先29% 47.1%害怕韓國瑜當選〉,ETtoday新聞雲:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
綠黨民調,2019,〈挺韓、罷韓遊行後 綠黨民調:蔡英文贏韓國瑜33.6個百分點〉,新頭殼新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
綠黨民調,2019,〈蔡勝韓33.4個百分點 政黨票民進黨贏國民黨1成〉,自由時報:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
聯合報民調,2019,〈不分區政黨票 藍綠均29%〉,聯合新聞網:,2020年7月31日。
聯合報民調,2019,〈韓蔡支持率差距大 僅29%相信〉,聯合新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
聯合報民調,2019,〈重大政策 可能影響3成投票〉,聯合新聞網:,檢閱日期:2020年7月31日。
Description: 碩士
Source URI:
Data Type: thesis
Appears in Collections:[政治學系] 學位論文

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
200801.pdf4635KbAdobe PDF165View/Open

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

社群 sharing