Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/147166| 題名: | 遊戲行為設計對於態度極化之影響 —— 以死刑議題為例 The Impact of Game Behavior on Attitude Polarization —— Taking the Death Penalty Issues as an Example |
作者: | 林修廷 Lin, Xiu-Ting |
貢獻者: | 陳宜秀<br>廖峻鋒 林修廷 Lin, Xiu-Ting |
關鍵詞: | 態度變化 遊戲研究 極化 Attitude Change Game Research Polarization |
日期: | 2023 | 上傳時間: | 1-Sep-2023 | 摘要: | 近來的態度極化現象研究多以社群平台上的內容，尤其是各類政治議題為主；然而態度極化的議題絕不止於政治議題，造成極化的傳播方式也不限於社群平台，各領域中的爭議性主題皆可能導致極化的發生。以臺灣社會為例，死刑議題即是一項持續受到社會各方關注與爭辯的議題，支持與反對方立場壁壘分明，明顯地呈現兩極化。\n\n另一方面，近年來的研究指出，遊戲具備的互動性比起靜態的文本，能夠讓參與者有更豐富的感知體驗，進而深刻理解遊戲欲傳達的訊息；和其他媒介相比能帶來更持久的認知變化。因此，本研究便以此為途徑，企圖探究遊戲與態度極化間的相互關係。我們以死刑議題為參考，假設受試者對議題的原始態度（支持／不支持）、其接觸的素材形式（遊戲／文字內容）及其議題立場（支持／不支持）相互作用，希望透過一個 2 × 2 × 2 的組間設計實驗，觀察此三項因素的相互作用是否影響受試者實驗前後的態度產生變化。\n\n在實驗結果之中，我們觀察到受試者的態度變化幅度雖不明顯，但仍可呼應部分的研究假設：遊玩遊戲的受試者確實受到素材形式及其議題立場的影響，其態度的變化趨勢與研究假設大致相符，證實遊戲在其中的確具備一定的影響力。另一方面，受試者對死刑議題的態度並未因實驗的影響而變得更加強烈，事實上也遏止了極化的發生，進而可能降低受試者對於死刑議題的偏見。藉由此研究，我們期望能為日後的相關研究提供不同的思路，以及包含實驗素材設計、問卷量表設計與議題選擇等研究設計面向的建議與參考。 Past research on attitude polarization focused on radicalized political attitudes resulting from interactions over social media platforms, especially various political issues. However, the scope of topics driving attitude polarization extends beyond politics, and the propagation of polarization is not limited to social media. Controversial subjects across different domains have the potential to trigger polarization. Take the example of Taiwanese society where the issue of the death penalty continues to be a subject of ongoing societal concern and debate, with clear-cut positions in favor of and against, vividly demonstrating a dichotomy.\n\nOn the other hand, recent research has indicated that the interactivity inherent in games, compared to static text, allows participants to have richer perceptual experiences, leading to a deeper understanding of the intended message and potentially fostering more enduring cognitive changes. Therefore, this study takes this avenue to investigate the interplay between gaming and attitude polarization. Using the death penalty as a reference point, we hypothesize that the participants` original attitudes towards the issue (for or against the death penalty), the format of material they engage with (game or texts), and the stance on the issue (for or against the death penalty) interact. We propose a 2x2x2 between-subject design experiment, aiming to observe whether the interaction of these three factors influences changes in participants` attitudes before and after the experiment.\n\nIn the results of the experiment, we observed that the extent of participants` attitude changes wasn`t markedly pronounced. However, this still aligns with some of the research hypotheses: participants engaged in gaming did indeed exhibit influences from the format of the material and the stance on the issue. The general trend of their attitude changes roughly corresponds to the research assumptions, confirming that game factor do possess a certain degree of influence within this context. On the other hand, participants` attitudes towards the death penalty did not intensify due to the experimental influence. In fact, it also curbed the occurrence of polarization, potentially mitigating biases concerning the death penalty issue. Through this study, we aspire to provide different avenues for future related research, encompassing recommendations and references for aspects of research design such as experimental material creation, questionnaire scale formulation, and topic selection. |
參考文獻: | 一、中文文獻\n\nGriffin, D., & Meer, A. V. D.（2020）。《遊戲化行銷 打造讓顧客無法自拔的消費體驗》（柯文敏譯）。臺北：商周（原著出版於2019年）。\n\nREI（2020 年 6 月 19 日）。〈【情報】RPG製作大師最新作「RPG Maker MZ」發表！〉。巴哈姆特電玩資訊站。取自：https://forum.gamer.com.tw/C.php?bsn=4918&snA=29652。\n\nRoss, E.（2023）。《電玩遊戲進化史: 從桌遊、RPG、任天堂到VR, 回味玩心設計大躍進的魅力指南（圖解漫畫版）》（劉鈞倫譯）。臺北：原點（原著出版於2020年）。\n\nSchell, J.（2021）。《遊戲設計的藝術》（盧靜譯）。新北：大家（原著出版於2020年）。\n\nWhite, E.（2017 年 9 月 8 日）。〈「驚世媳婦」林于如三起殺人案中，從未被揭露的歷史〉（張郁笛譯）。關鍵評論網。取自：https://www.thenewslens.com/article/78133。\n\n〈「108 年全年度臺灣民眾對司法與犯罪防制滿意度之調查研究」發表會會議新聞稿〉（2020 年 2 月 21 日）。國立中正大學犯罪研究中心。取自：https://www005006.ccu.edu.tw/upload_file/bulletin/15822582689848.pdf。\n\n〈最高法院 102 年度台上字第 2392 號刑事判決〉（2012 年 6 月 13 日）。司法院法學資料檢索系統。取自：https://web.archive.org/web/20220614212856/https://law.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/data.aspx?ty=JD&id=TPSM,102,%E5%8F%B0%E4%B8%8A,2392,20130613（原連結已失效）。\n\n何雍慶、蘇子炘、張永富（2004）。〈消費者體驗與訊息處理路徑對品牌延伸購買態度之影響〉，《行銷評論》，1（1），1–19。\n\n李佳昇（2016）。〈網路使我們隨眾人起舞？以感知匿名性探討社群媒體中的言論極化現象〉，《中華傳播學會 2016 年會論文》。\n\n周宗璋（2012）。〈警察對於廢除死刑之態度—以北部地區某縣市警察局為例〉。 國立臺北大學犯罪學研究所碩士學位論文。\n\n周愫嫻（2017）。〈民意支持死刑的態度可改變嗎？〉，《臺大法學論叢》，46（2）：553–588。\n\n林鶴玲（2011）。〈從玩家到研究者、從研究者到玩家：遊戲經驗與遊戲文化研究〉，《新聞學研究》，108：19–25。\n\n青菜青葉（2018年 9 月 3 日）。〈RPG Maker（RPG製作大師）是什麼？〉。巴哈姆特電玩資訊站。取自：https://home.gamer.com.tw/creationDetail.php?sn=4117511。\n\n洪良德（2018）。〈臺灣廢除死刑政策之研究〉。 南華大學國際事務與企業學系公共政策研究所碩士學位論文。\n\n洪釗雯（2004）。〈瘦身廣告的強弱論點如何透過瘦身的雙歧態度影響廣告效果〉。國立政治大學心理學系碩士學位論文。\n\n紀孫慈、連睿鈞（2013）。〈刑法中心公益實習服務課程報告－林于如殺人案〉，《全國律師》，17（7）：50–69。\n\n唐日新、葉耀仁（2011）。〈應用推敲可能性模型探討部落格行銷效果：以旅遊部落格為例〉，《中山管理評論》，19（3）：517–555。\n\n容邵武（2016 年 5 月 12 日）。〈死刑存廢戰爭能否走出死巷？來自法律人類學的觀察〉。報導者。取自：https://www.twreporter.org/a/opinion-death-penalty-argue。\n\n張又驊、李峻德 （2021）。〈療癒系手機遊戲設計元素對玩家自我接納與療癒感受之研究〉，《感性學報》，8（1）：54–85。\n\n張子午（2021 年 1 月 25 日）。〈生與死的灰色地帶──臺灣死刑量刑基準的質變與張力〉。報導者。取自：https://www.twreporter.org/a/change-of-death-penalty-standards-in-taiwan。\n\n許福生（2017）。〈臺灣死刑制度之回顧與展望〉，《刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集》，20：155–178。\n\n陳明秀、蔡仕廷、張基成（2016）。〈嚴肅遊戲之角色扮演與情境模擬對於學習成效之影響：以國小五年級碳足跡課程為例〉，《中山管理評論》，19（3）：517–555。\n\n陳美如、陳純德（2017）。〈團購網站中信任確保論述經由中央及週邊路徑對消費者信任影響之研究：思考可能性模型與團購價格感受調節效果之分析〉，《中華民國資訊管理學報》，24（2）： 209-243。\n\n陳靜君、陶振超（2018）。〈偏見同化效果：網路新聞不文明留言對態度極化的影響〉，《中華傳播學刊》，33：137–179。\n\n曾淑芬（2020 年 12 月 30 日）。〈社群媒體同溫層之傳播內容對社會建構之和諧與對立之挑戰〉。財團法人臺灣網路資訊中心。取自：https://blog.twnic.tw/2020/12/25/16495/。\n\n黃勢雄（2019）。〈論遊戲的教化功能〉。 東海大學哲學系研究所碩士學位論文。\n\n楊鵑如（2019 年 3 月 19 日）。〈錯殺也要維持死刑？公布臺灣死刑民調與死刑判決瑕疵〉。公民行動影音資料庫。取自：https://www.civilmedia.tw/archives/83319。\n\n廖恒藝、黃郁真（2018 年 6 月 23 日）。〈死刑的替代方案〉。法律白話文運動。取自：https://plainlaw.me/2018/06/23/死刑-3/。\n\n鄭若伶（2021）。〈臺灣死刑制度是否有效嚇阻犯罪？2005-2020年之實證研究〉。 國立清華大學公共政策與管理碩士在職專班碩士學位論文。\n\n蕭怡靖、林聰吉（2013）。〈臺灣政治極化之初探：測量與分析〉，《臺灣選舉與民主化調查（TEDS）方法論之回顧與前瞻》，13（1）：89-133。\n\n賴擁連（2015）。〈大臺北地區民眾對於保留與執行死刑意向與影響因素之初探〉，《刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集》，18：209–238。\n\n瞿海源（2006）。〈遏止犯罪、生命價值與死刑：臺灣民眾對廢除死刑的態度〉，《臺灣社會學刊》，37：133-167。\n\n魏如慧（2010）。〈訊息類型與來源專業度對說服效果之影響〉。 國立政治大學企業管理學系研究所碩士學位論文。\n\n譚光鼎（1998）。《原住民教育研究》。臺北：五南。\n\n龐雲黠、苗偉山（2017）。〈意見領袖的結構極化研究：以新浪微博為例〉，《傳播與社會學刊》，42：59–90。\n\n二、英文文獻\n\nBarr, P. (2008). Video game values: Play as human-computer interaction. PhD Thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.\n\nBem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 1–62.\n\nCacioppo, J. T., Marshall-Goodell, B. S., Tassinary, L. G., and Petty, R. E. “Rudimentary Determinants of Attitudes: Classical Conditioning Is More Effective When Prior Knowledge About the Attitude Stimulus Is Low Than High,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (28), 1992, pp. 207–233.\n\nChaiken, S.,Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (1996). Principles of Persuasion. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Ed.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (pp. 702–742). NewYork: Guilford Publications, Inc.\n\nChen, V. H. H., & Koek, W. J. D. (2020). Understanding Flow, Identification with Game Characters and Players’ Attitudes. In International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, USA, Article 59, 1–4.\n\nChen, Y. H. (1997). Effects of group membership and audience’s attitude on communication. Doctoral Dissertation, Columbia University.\n\nChittaro, L., & Buttussi, F. (2019). Exploring the use of arcade game elements for attitude change: Two studies in the aviation safety domain. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 127, 112–123.\n\nDempsey, J. V., Lucassen, B., Haynes, L., & Casey M. (1996). Instructional applications of computer games. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED394500).\n\nDiMaggio, P., Evans, J., & Bryson, B. (1996). Have American’s social attitudes\nbecome more polarized? American Journal of Sociology, 102(3), 690–755.\n\nDowns, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.\n\nDubois, E. and Blank, G. (2018). “The Echo Chamber is Overstated: The Moderating Effect of Political Interest and Diverse Media,” Information, Communication & Society, 21 (5):729-745.\n\nEagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (2007). The advantages of an inclusive definition of attitude. Social Cognition, 25(5), 582–602.\n\nEvans, J. W. (2003). Have Americans’ attitudes become more polarized?—An\nupdate. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 71–90.\n\nFiorina, Morris P., and Abrams, J.S. (2011). “Where’s the Polarization?” In Controversies in Voting Behavior, 5th eds. Richard G. Niemi, Herbert F. Weisberg and David C. Kimball. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.\n\nGarimella, K., Morales, G. D. F., Gionis, A., & Mathioudakis, M. (2018). Political Discourse on Social Media: Echo Chambers, Gatekeepers, and the Price of Bipartisanship. ArXiv:1801.01665 [Cs].\n\nGreitemeyer, T. (2013). Effects of playing video games on perceptions of one’s humanity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153, 499–514.\n\nGuess, A., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. (2019). Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances 5, 1 (2019), eaau4586.\n\nHetherington, Marc J. 2009. “Review Article: Putting Polarization in Perspective.” British Journal of Political Science 39(2): 413-448.\n\nJanakiraman, S., Watson, S. L., Watson, W. R., & Newby, T. (2021). Effectiveness of digital games in producing environmentally friendly attitudes and behaviors: A mixed methods study. Computers & Education, 160, 104043.\n\nJeon Y., Kim B., Xiong A., LEE D., Han K. (2021). ChamberBreaker: Mitigating the Echo Chamber Effect and Supporting Information Hygiene through a Gamified Inoculation System. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. CSCW2: 1–26.\n\nJuul, J. (2006). Half-Real: Video Games Between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. MIT Press.\n\nKlimmt, C., Hefner, D., Vorderer, P., Roth, R. & Blake, C. (2010) Identification With Video Game Characters as Automatic Shift of Self- Perceptions, Media Psychology, 13:4, 323-338\n\nLevine, J. M. & Thompson, L. (1996). Conflicts in Groups. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Ed.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (pp. 702–742). NewYork: Guilford Publications, Inc.\n\nLord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098 –2109.\n\nMichael, R. S., (2004). Consumer Behavior, 6th, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.\n\nNiemi, Richard G., Herbert F. Weisberg., and David C. Kimball. 2011. “Is the American Electorate Polarized?” In Controversies in Voting Behavior, 5th eds. Richard G. Niemi., Herbert F. Weisberg., and David C. Kimball. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.\n\nPetty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches, Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.\n\nPetty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., and Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 13-46.\n\nPetty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T., (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, New York: Springer-Verlag.\n\nPetty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., Kasmer, J. A., and Haugtvedt, C. P., (1987). A Reply to Stiff and Boster, Communication Monographs, Vol. 54, No. 3, 257-263.\n\nPetty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 19, 123-205.\n\nPetty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., Sedikides, C., and Strathman, A. J., (1988). Affect and Persuasion: A Contemporary Perspective. American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 31, No. 3, 355-371.\n\nPfau, M., Compton, J., Parker, A. K., An, C., Wittenberg, M, E., Ferguson, M., Horton, H., & Malyshev, Y. (2004). The traditional explanation for resistance versus attitude accessibility: Do they trigger distinct or overlapping processes of resistance? Human Communication Research 30, 3 (2004), 329–360.\n\nPfau, M., Compton, J., Parker, A. K., An, C., Wittenberg, M, E., Ferguson, M., Horton, H., & Malyshev, Y. (2006). The conundrum of the timing of counterarguing effects in resistance: Strategies to boost the persistence of counterarguing output. Communication Quarterly 54, 2 (2006), 143–156.\n\nPlous, S. (1991). Biases in the assimilation of technological breakdowns: Do accidents make us safer? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1058-1082.\n\nRagheb, M. G., & Beard, J. G., (1982). Measuring leisure attitude. Journal of Leisure Research, 17(2), 15-67.\n\nRokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. The Free Press.\n\nRosenberg, M. J., & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes. In C. I. Hovland & M. J. Rosenberg (Eds.), Attitude organization and change: An analysis of consistency among attitude compo- nents (pp. 1–14). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press\n\nRuggiero, D. (2013). The Effect of a Persuasive Game on Attitude towards the Homeless, Unpublished thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA.\n\nSicart, M. (2005). Game, player, ethics: a virtue ethics approach to computer games. International Review of Information Ethics, 4, 14–18.\n\nSinghal, A., & Rogers, E. M. (2002). A theoretical agenda for entertainment-education. Communication Theory, 12(2), 117-135.\n\nSuits, B. (1967). What is a game? Philosophy of Science, 34(2), 148–156.\n\nStoner, J. F. (1961). A comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk. Unpublished master’s thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, MA.\n\nSunstein, C. R. (2009). Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. NY: Oxford University Press.\n\nTriandis, H. C. (1967). Toward an analysis of components of interpersonal attitudes. In C. Sherif & M. Sherif (Eds.), Attitude, ego-involvement, and change (pp. 227-270). New York: John Wiley and Sons.\n\nWang JY., Lin W., Yueh HP. (2019). Collaborate or Compete? How Will Multiplayers’ Interaction Affect Their Learning Performance in Serious Games. In: Rau PL. (eds) Cross-Cultural Design. Culture and Society. HCII 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11577. Springer, Cham.\n\nZyda, M. (2005). From visual simulation to virtual reality to games. Computer, 38(9), 25-32. | 描述: | 碩士 國立政治大學 數位內容碩士學位學程 108462007 |
資料來源: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108462007 | 資料類型: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 學位論文 |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 200701.pdf | 2.11 MB | Adobe PDF2 | View/Open |
Google ScholarTM
Check
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.