學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 YouTuber 政治時事節目與青年政治參與：微名人認同與社群心理意識的中介角色
YouTubers` Videos about Political and Current Affairs and Youth Political Participation: The Mediating Roles of Microcelebrity Identification and Psychological Sense of Community作者 王柏文
Wang, Po-Wen貢獻者 林芝璇
Lin, Jhih-Syuan
王柏文
Wang, Po-Wen關鍵詞 YouTube政治時事節目參與
社交媒體影響者
微名人認同
社群心理意識
內在政治效能
政治參與
engagement with YouTubers’ videos about political and current affairs
social media influencers
microcelebrity identification
psychological sense of community
internal political efficacy
political participation日期 2023 上傳時間 1-Sep-2023 15:44:04 (UTC+8) 摘要 「YouTuber 政治時事節目」是近年在臺灣和世界各國中崛起的新興媒體，臺灣有 48.9% 的年輕人有時或經常收看，且在各國都已成為年輕世代接收政治資訊的重要管道。這類由 YouTuber 專門為了網路觀眾製作且主要以政治、時事為主題的節目，已經開始對政治領域產生一定影響。在臺灣，談論政治時事的 YouTuber 已舉辦過破萬人的遊行、採訪總統大選候選人、募資千萬買下紐約時報頭版，甚至曾成功創建政黨。這些現象顯示出YouTuber政治時事節目推動民眾政治行動的潛力，但所造成的實際影響仍有待更多實證研究投入探索。因此，本研究著重探討 YouTuber 政治時事節目是否、如何對青年使用者的政治參與產生關聯，並援引社會心理學理論建構研究模型，釐清傳播過程中的心理機制。首先，為符合 YouTube／社交媒體容許不同參與程度的特性，本研究在自變項部分區分了主動、被動程度的 YouTuber 政治時事節目參與。再者，為有效捕捉年輕世代的新形態政治行為，在依變項的政治參與部分擴大了定義範圍，納入選舉參與、示威行動、公民參與和生活政治等參與模式。為回應近年學界對媒體與政治細部中介過程的重視，本研究在中介變項部分依據不同理論納入三個心理中介因素：第一階中介因素包括由社會認知理論和認同概念引入之「微名人認同」因素，以及由社會認同理論和品牌社群文獻納入的「社群心理意識」概念，第二階加入經過去研究多次驗證的「內在政治效能」變項。本研究對台北市、新北市四間大專院校（涵蓋公立／私立、一般大學／技職院校）之 456 位通識課學生進行問卷調查，研究發現 YouTuber 政治時事節目主動參與程度和政治參與有直接、正向之關聯，但節目的被動參與程度無法直接預測政治參與。分析結果也指出，YouTuber 政治時事節目被動與主動參與程度與微名人認同之間有正向相關性，且微名人認同與政治參與之間亦為正相關。雖然被動參與、主動參與程度，與社群心理意識皆有正相關，但僅被動參與中的社群心理意識和政治參與有顯著的正相關。此外，被動、主動參與程度和內在政治效能為正相關，且內在政治效能亦與政治參與有正向關聯性。然而，微名人認同、社群心理意識與內在政治效能之間無顯著關聯性。此外，無論是被動或主動參與，YouTuber 政治時事節目的參與程度均是透過微名人認同以及內在政治效能的個別中介來與政治參與產生正向關聯，且透過內在政治效能中介的間接關聯性較強；而研究模型中的連續中介路徑均未得到證實。研究結尾進一步討論研究結果的學術與實務性意涵、研究限制與未來研究建議。
In recent years, the popularity of YouTubers’ videos about political and current affairs (YTVPC) has been observed globally, including in Taiwan. To understand the phenomenon, this study builds on social psychology theories to explore the relationship between YTVPC and political participation among young adults and the underlying psychological mechanisms in the communication process. Specifically, this study distinguishes between active and passive engagement with YTVPC. It also expands the definition of political participation to include election involvement, demonstrations, civic engagement, and lifestyle politics, aiming to capture new forms of political behavior among young adults. In response to the recent academic emphasis on intermediary processes between media exposure and political participation, three psychological mediating factors are included in the research model. The first-stage mediating factors include microcelebrity identification and the psychological sense of community. The second stage introduces the well-established variable of internal political efficacy.The survey method was employed to examine the proposed hypotheses and research question. A total of 456 general education students from four higher education institutions in Taipei participated in this study. Findings indicate a direct and positive relationship between active engagement with YTVPC and political participation, while passive engagement does not directly predict political participation. Both active and passive engagement with YTVPC correlates positively with microcelebrity identification, which, in turn, relates positively to political participation.While positive correlations exist between passive and active engagement with YTVPC and the psychological sense of community, a significant positive correlation between the psychological sense of community and political participation is only evident for passive engagement. Additionally, both passive and active engagement correlate positively with internal political efficacy, which is also positively related to political participation. However, microcelebrity identification and the psychological sense of community do not significantly associate with internal political efficacy.Moreover, whether through passive or active engagement, YTVPC participation is positively linked to political participation via the single mediation of microcelebrity identification and internal political efficacy, and the indirect association through internal political efficacy is stronger. However, the hypothesized sequential mediation paths in the research model lack empirical support. This study concludes by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of the findings, addressing research limitations, and providing recommendations for future research.參考文獻 【中文部分】BBC（2022年10月29日）。臺灣同志遊行20週年，民眾雨中盛裝慶賀。BBC News中文。https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/chinese-news-63441099Giddens, A.（2016）。現代性與自我認同：晚期現代中自我與社會（夏璐譯）。中國人民大學出版社。（原著出版於 1991年）。Twenge, J（2020）。i 世代報告：更包容、沒有叛逆期，卻也更憂鬱不安，且遲遲無法長大的一代（林哲安譯）。大家出版。（原著出版於2017年）夕岸（2017年4月5日）。夕岸：從反女權到新朋克，另類右翼運動如何發家？。端傳媒。https://theinitium.com/article/20170405-opinion-xian-altright/中央社（2021年4月30日）。經濟學人封面稱臺灣「最危險地區」 憂台海煙硝釀災籲美中避戰。中央社。https://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/202104300011.aspx中央社（2023年2月2日）。2022民主指數 臺灣第10亞洲之首俄羅斯侵烏退步最多。中央社。https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aopl/202302020130.aspx王昱翔、林鳳琪（2020年4月30日）。Podcast大軍上架 廣播另類復活。遠見雜誌。https://www.gvm.com.tw/article/72432王柏文（2021年6 月25-27 日）。用 YouTube 關心社會？政治時事影片使用者的動機、行為與政治參與〔會議發表〕。2021中華傳播學會年會，台北市，臺灣。王柏文（2022年11 月5 日）。融合技術與觀眾參與的「政治時事特映會」 —— YouTube 政治時事網紅初探〔會議發表〕。2022臺灣資訊社會研究學會年會暨論文研討會，台北市，臺灣。王泰俐（2013）。「臉書選舉」？2012年臺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。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=10198636-201303-201304300012-201304300012-1-52王嵩音（2017）。社交媒體政治性使用行為與公民參與之研究，資訊社會研究，(32)，83-111。https://doi.org/10.29843/JCCIS.201701_(32).0004田芳華（1999）。認知訪談在調查研究上的應用－以假設市場評價法為例，國科會人文及社會科學研究彙刊，9(3)，555-574。石濤（2019年5月24日）。“網紅政治”來襲基民盟手忙腳亂。德國之聲。https://www.dw.com/zh/%E7%BD%91%E7%BA%A2%E6%94%BF%E6%B2%BB%E6%9D%A5%E8%A2%AD-%E5%9F%BA%E6%B0%91%E7%9B%9F%E6%89%8B%E5%BF%99%E8%84%9A%E4%B9%B1/a-48865414自由時報（2018年11月26日）。網紅變議員！「呱吉」 謝票坦言只做這一任。自由時報。https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/2625116自由時報（2019年8月10日）。台手搖飲之亂持續延燒 13家手搖飲能不能喝看這裡。自由時報。https://ent.ltn.com.tw/news/breakingnews/2880285吳元熙（2019年11月6日）。YouTube激增逾20萬訂閱！政府+網紅跨界合作揭流量爆炸的社群秘訣。數位時代。https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/55370/government-collaborate-with-internet-celebrity-吳齊殷、陶振超、曾淑芬、吳泰毅、陳靜君、陳貞雅（2022）。2022臺灣網路報告。財團法人臺灣網路資訊中心。李宗憲（2019年7月24日）。台灣總統選舉：蔡英文借勢網紅助連任，但學者稱政績才是關鍵。BBC News中文。https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/chinese-news-49070332李德治、童惠玲（2009）。多變量分析：專題及論文常用的統計方法。雙葉書廊。.沈佩瑤（2018年5月4日）小法典—預算法第62-1條。自由時報。https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/local/paper/1197631旻洲（2019年6月17日）。623反紅媒遊行募款 189萬元1小時達標。大紀元。https://www.epochtimes.com.tw/n284318林育萱（2019年12月27日）。28名YouTuber拍片催投票 蔡英文響應：一起決定臺灣的未來。上報。https://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?Type=24&SerialNo=78372林辰（2014年3月25日）。一場服貿熱雨下的太陽花 [影片]。YouTube。https://youtu.be/IJQwYxm39tI林恩如（2023年3月9日）。公平會出手管網紅 藍委轟：對蔡英文「政治業配」洗腦視而不見。TVBS新聞網。https://news.tvbs.com.tw/politics/2063556林莉琳、蘇蘅（2014）。從公共到娛樂：新聞性談話節目的移界與歧路。廣播與電視，(37)，63-99。https://doi.org/10.30385/JRTS.201412_(37).0003林揚軼（2017年1月28日）。中華民國官媒、央視春晚⋯⋯這個笑話，我們想講給臺灣人聽。端傳媒。https://theinitium.com/article/20170128-taiwan-EYECTV/信傳媒（2020年4月16日）。不到24小時募到近2千萬 紐時廣告「WHO Can help?」 背後的5個年輕人。信傳媒。https://www.cmmedia.com.tw/home/articles/20871柯家媛（2023年5月26日）。2023新鮮人夢幻工作排行榜出爐！男性最多人想當「YouTuber」、「網站小編」佔女性第3名。風傳媒。https://www.storm.mg/lifestyle/4797151唐筱恬、陳柏樺、呂苡榕（2018年12月12日）。拍進市議會 網紅邱威傑掀起參政實境秀。今周刊。https://www.businesstoday.com.tw/article/category/154769/post/201812120018/徐湘芸（2023年7月12日）。TikTok 上的政治版圖——藍營搶灘、綠營棄守 年輕人只認識柯文哲？。READr。https://www.readr.tw/post/2946張士哲（2021年11月19日）。臺灣手搖飲「人權自由價值」分數曝光 6家遭評絕對不買。TVBS新聞網。https://news.tvbs.com.tw/life/1638961張里歐（2013年12月3日）。臺灣7成用戶多螢體驗YouTube 手機觀看時數年成長3倍。手機王。https://www.sogi.com.tw/articles/臺灣7成用戶多螢體驗YouTube_手機觀看時數年成長3倍/6222484張卿卿（2017）。政黨雙歧不確定的糾結：成因、決策過程、媒體接收與行為意向。中華傳播學刊，(32)，167-202。https://doi.org/10.6195/cjcr.2017.32.05張卿卿、陶振超（2016）。臺灣傳播調查資料庫第一期第四次（2015年）：政治傳播與公民傳播【執行報告】。中央研究院臺灣傳播調查資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-D00161-1。張卿卿、陶振超（2021）。臺灣傳播調查資料庫第二期第四次（2020年）調查：新傳播科技與生活延伸【原始數據】。中央研究院臺灣傳播調查資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-D00216-1。張卿卿、陶振超（2022）。臺灣傳播調查資料庫第二期第五次（2021年）調查：新傳播科技與人際延伸【原始數據、執行報告】。中央研究院臺灣傳播調查資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-D00224_1-1。張卿卿、羅文輝（2007）。追求知識、認同或娛樂？政論性談話節目的內容與閱聽眾收視動機的探討。新聞學研究，(93)，83-139。https://doi.org/10.30386/MCR.200710_(93).0003張卿卿、羅文輝（2009）。政論性談話節目影響之探討。新聞學研究，(91)，47-91。https://doi.org/10.30386/MCR.200901_(98).0002盛治仁（2005）。電視談話性節目研究－來賓、議題結構及閱聽人特質分析。新聞學研究，84: 163-20。https://doi.org/10.30386/MCR.200507_(84).0005陳冠宇（2019年7月2日）。夜夜秀博恩飆罵三字經求判刑 想釋憲卻「無罪收場」。TVBS新聞網。https://news.tvbs.com.tw/local/1159202陳雅慧（2019年10月30日）。中學生媒體素養萬人調查 YouTube成青少年最大資訊來源，親子天下。https://www.parenting.com.tw/article/5080584陳德愉（2019年10月30日）。全台創意腦YouTuber祕密基地 「臺灣吧」創辦人蕭宇辰。上報。https://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?Type=5&SerialNo=31217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。https://doi.org/10.30180/CS.201601_(35).0006傅仰止、章英華、杜素豪、廖培珊（2015）。臺灣社會變遷基本調查計畫2014第六期第五次：公民權組（C00310_1）【原始數據】。中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-C00310_1-1。彭芸（2000）。2000年總統大選的媒介使用、選舉參與及投票對象，選舉研究，7(1)，21-52。https://doi.org/10.6612/tjes.2000.07.01.21-52彭森明（2006）。臺灣弱勢學生的大學教育機會 演講稿，國立東華大學多元文化教育研究所官方網站。http://www.mce.ndhu.edu.tw/~gimewww/epaper/9507/811D.htm換日線（2022年8月5日）。與臺灣 Z 世代對談，以 8 道題目誠實答辯！──他們的觀點，可能顛覆你的想像。換日線Crossing。https://crossing.cw.com.tw/article/16575黃秀端、吳俊德、張一彬、林瓊珠（2020）。政治知識的面向與政治參與的類型。政治科學論叢，(84)，1-38。https://doi.org/10.6166/TJPS.202006_(84).0001黃紀、張卿卿（2021）。臺灣政經傳播研究多年期研究規劃：2020年民眾定群追蹤網路問卷調查資料（TIGCR-W-PPS2020）【調查問卷檔】。臺灣政經傳播研究中心。https://doi.org/10.6923/TW-TIGCR-W-PPS2020。黃淑玲（2019年6月10日）。網紅55分鐘之亂 重傷德執政聯盟。經濟日報。https://paper.udn.com/udnpaper/PID0001/340983/web/index.html#11L-14910924L楊宗興（2013年3月5日）。挺核kuso影片爆紅 田秋堇直指數據有誤，Newtalk新聞。https://newtalk.tw/news/view/2013-03-05/34214楊貴、陳韻暄（2020）。公民意識對臺灣民衆政治參與之影響：2012與2018兩個年度的觀察。人文及社會科學集刊，32(3)，367-410。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=1018189X-202009-202011030004-202011030004-367-410廖淑君（2006）。政府從事電視置入性行銷法律規範之研究。廣告學研究，(26)，83-107。https://doi.org/10.30412/TJAPR.200607_(26).0004端傳媒（2018年10月2日）。知名YouTuber「呱吉」參選台北市議員，你看好這場民主政治的「開箱」嗎？。端傳媒。https://theinitium.com/roundtable/20181002-roundtable-tw-froggychiu/管中祥（2020年7月17日）。拼大選上「博恩夜夜秀」，「娛樂」和「政治行銷」衝撞嗎？。端傳媒。https://theinitium.com/article/20200717-opinion-taiwan-entertainment-politics/遠見雜誌（2020年4月14日）。WHO can help？Taiwan. 紐時廣告上刊，文案藏著哪些洋蔥？。遠見雜誌。https://www.gvm.com.tw/article/72136劉建邦（2021年2月20日）。歡樂無法黨遭廢止備案 呱吉：未打算推參選人。中央社。https://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/202102200167.aspx劉琮琦（2010）。媒介娛樂中的生活政治：以AnthonyGiddens的「現代性自我認同」概念為基礎探討閱聽人的反思活動〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學新聞研究所。鄭思楠（2020年1月10日）。一芳5個月關掉50家店！創辦人柯梓凱「決定閉嘴」：商人最沒有權利說話。ETtoday 新聞雲。https://finance.ettoday.net/news/1622780謝廷昊（2020）。無聲的參與？Twitch 遊戲實況「潛水者」參與行為之初探〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學傳播碩士學位學程。蘇思云（2023年5月19日）。有線電視首季下探462.3萬戶新低 連22季下滑。中央社。https://www.cna.com.tw/news/afe/202305190106.aspx蘋果新聞網（2019年6月24日）。10萬人凱道雨傘花 紅色媒體 滾出臺灣 反滲透 群眾自發上街 沒便當沒動員 不畏風雨相挺。蘋果新聞網。https://web.archive.org/web/20200416004333/https://tw.news.appledaily.com/headline/daily/20190624/38373356/ 【英文部分】Aagre A., & Dizdarevic N. (2020, September 11). Tause om politikk i sosiale medier. Kommunikasjonsforeningen. https://www.kommunikasjon.no/pr-prat/tause-om-politikk-i-sosiale-medierAbid, A., Harrigan, P., Wang, S., Roy, S. K., & Harper, T. (2023). Social media in politics: How to drive engagement and strengthen relationships. Journal of Marketing Management, 39(3–4), 298–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2022.2117235Achen, C. H., & Wang, T. Y. (2019). Declining voter turnout in Taiwan: A generational effect? Electoral Studies, 58, 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2018.12.011Aichner, T., Grünfelder, M., Maurer, O., & Jegeni, D. (2021). Twenty-five years of social media: A review of social media applications and definitions from 1994 to 2019. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(4), 215–222. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0134Albanesi, C., Cicognani, E., & Zani, B. (2007). Sense of community, civic engagement and social well-being in Italian adolescents. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17(5), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.903Allgaier, J. (2020). Rezo and German climate change policy: The influence of networked expertise on YouTube and beyond. Media and Communication, 8(2), 376–386. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.2862Andersen, K., Shehata, A., & Andersson, D. (2021). Alternative news orientation and trust in mainstream media: A longitudinal audience perspective. Digital Journalism, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1986412Anderson, M. R. (2009). Beyond membership: A sense of community and political behavior. Political Behavior, 31, 603–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-009-9089-xAnderson, M. R. (2010). Community psychology, political efficacy, and trust. Political Psychology, 31(1), 59–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00734.xAndreas, B. (2019, December 5). YouTube Rewind: Das sind die erfolgreichsten Videos des Jahres. YouTube official blog. https://blog.youtube/intl/de-de/culture-and-trends/youtube-rewind-das-sind-die/Atkinson, M. D., & DeWitt, D. (2019). Does Celebrity Issue Advocacy Mobilize Issue Publics? Political Studies, 67(1), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321717751294Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(6), 589. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022070Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986(23–28).Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-LBandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265–299. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_03Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3), 575–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045925Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048687Basil, M. D. (1996). Identification as a mediator of celebrity effects. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40(4), 478–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838159609364370Baum, M. A. (2002). Sex, Lies, and War: How Soft News Brings Foreign Policy to the Inattentive Public. The American Political Science Review, 96(1), 91–109. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402004252Baum, M. A. (2003). Soft News and Political Knowledge: Evidence of Absence or Absence of Evidence? Political Communication, 20(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600390211181Baum, M. A. (2011). Soft News Goes to War: Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy in the New Media Age. In Soft News Goes to War. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400841288Baumgartner, J. C., & Lockerbie, B. (2018). Maybe it Is More Than a Joke: Satire, Mobilization, and Political Participation*. Social Science Quarterly, 99(3), 1060–1074. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12501Baumgartner, J., & Morris, J. S. (2006). The Daily Show Effect: Candidate Evaluations, Efficacy, and American Youth. American Politics Research, 34(3), 341–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X05280074Becker, A. B. (2020). Applying mass communication frameworks to study humor’s impact: Advancing the study of political satire. Annals of the International Communication Association, 44(3), 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2020.1794925Becker, A. B., & Bode, L. (2018). Satire as a source for learning? The differential impact of news versus satire exposure on net neutrality knowledge gain. Information, Communication & Society, 21(4), 612–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1301517Bennett, S. E. (2002). Americans’ Exposure to Political Talk Radio and Their Knowledge of Public Affairs. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4601_5Bennett, W. L. (2012). The Personalization of Politics: Political Identity, Social Media, and Changing Patterns of Participation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212451428Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The Logic of Connective Action. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661Berne-Manero, C., & Marzo-Navarro, M. (2020). Exploring How Influencer and Relationship Marketing Serve Corporate Sustainability. Sustainability, 12(11), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114392Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420030103Bivens, T. L. (2006). The influence of sense of community, social norms, linkages and knowledge of opportunities on the civic engagement behaviors of college students [Unpublished master’s thesis, North Carolina State University]. http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/1878Boulianne, S., Oser, J., & Hoffmann, C. P. (2023). Powerless in the digital age? A systematic review and meta-analysis of political efficacy and digital media use. New Media & Society, 25(9), 2512–2536. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231176519Boulianne, S., & Theocharis, Y. (2020). Young People, Digital Media, and Engagement: A Meta-Analysis of Research. Social Science Computer Review, 38(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318814190Bowyer, B. T., Kahne, J. E., & Middaugh, E. (2017). Youth comprehension of political messages in YouTube videos. New Media & Society, 19(4), 522–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815611593Brown, W., & Bocarnea, M. (2006). Celebrity-Persona Identification Scale. In Handbook of Research on Electronic Surveys and Measurements (pp. 302–305). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-792-8.ch037Burgess, J., & Green, J. (2018). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture. John Wiley & Sons.Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. Univ of California Press.Burnasheva, R., & Suh, Y. G. (2020). The moderating role of parasocial relationships in the associations between celebrity endorser’s credibility and emotion-based responses. Journal of Marketing Communications, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2020.1862894Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1971). The Voter Decides. Nachdruck der Originalausgabe [1954, Evanston].Carlson, B. D., Suter, T. A., & Brown, T. J. (2008). Social versus psychological brand community: The role of psychological sense of brand community. Journal of Business Research, 61(4), 284–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.022Carpini, M. D. (2004). Mediating democratic engagement: The impact of communications on citizens’ involvement in political and civic life. Handbook of Political Communication Research, 357–394.Chan, M. (2016). Social Network Sites and Political Engagement: Exploring the Impact of Facebook Connections and Uses on Political Protest and Participation. Mass Communication and Society, 19(4), 430–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.1161803Chan, M., Chen, H. T., & Lee, F. L. (2017). Examining the roles of mobile and social media in political participation: A cross-national analysis of three Asian societies using a communication mediation approach. New Media & Society, 19(12), 2003–2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816653190Chang, C., & Wu, C. (2022). Active vs. Passive Ambivalent Voters: Implications for Interactive Political Communication and Participation. Communication Research, 00936502211066001. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502211066001Cheng, Z., Chen, J., Peng, R. X., & Shoenberger, H. (2023). Social media influencers talk about politics: Investigating the role of source factors and PSR in Gen-Z followers’ perceived information quality, receptivity and sharing intention. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 0(0), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2023.2173700Chmielewski, D. C. (2012, August 28). YouTube gives wacky anchorman Philip DeFranco greater exposure. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/la-xpm-2012-aug-28-la-et-ct-youtube-news-philip-defranco-elections-hub-20120828-story.htmlCho, J., Shah, D. V., McLeod, J. M., McLeod, D. M., Scholl, R. M., & Gotlieb, M. R. (2009). Campaigns, Reflection, and Deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R Model of Communication Effects. Communication Theory, 19(1), 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.01333.xChoi, Y. K., Zhang, R., & Sung, C. (Eunyoung). (2023). Attractiveness or expertise? Which is more effective in beauty product endorsement? Moderating role of social distance. International Journal of Advertising, 0(0), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2023.2192111Citarella, J. (2021, April 24). Are we ready for social media influencers shaping politics? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/24/social-media-influencers-shaping-politicsCormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. First Monday. https://doi.org/2013Craig, S. C., Niemi, R. G., & Silver, G. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12, 289–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992337Dalton, R. J. (2008). Citizenship Norms and the Expansion of Political Participation. Political Studies, 56(1), 76–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00718.xDambeck, H. (2019, June 4). Der Rezo-Effekt—Echt oder nur gefühlt? DER SPIEGEL. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/rezo-effekt-hat-er-der-cdu-geschadet-oder-den-gruenen-genuetzt-a-1270620.htmlDavidson, W. B., & Cotte, P. R. (1989). Sense of community and political participation. Journal of Community Psychology, 17(2), 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198904)17:2<119::AID-JCOP2290170203>3.0.CO;2-CDekoninck, H., & Schmuck, D. (2022). The Mobilizing Power of Influencers for Pro-Environmental Behavior Intentions and Political Participation. Environmental Communication, 16(4), 458–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2027801Dekoninck, H., & Schmuck, D. (2023). The “greenfluence”: Following environmental influencers, parasocial relationships, and youth’s participation behavior. New Media & Society, 14614448231156132. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231156131Dolan, R., Conduit, J., Fahy, J., & Goodman, S. (2016). Social media engagement behaviour: A uses and gratifications perspective. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24(3–4), 261–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2015.1095222Drengner, J., Jahn, S., & Gaus, H. (2012). Creating Loyalty in Collective Hedonic Services: The Role of Satisfaction and Psychological Sense of Community. Schmalenbach Business Review, 64(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03396838Ekström, M., & Östman, J. (2015). Information, Interaction, and Creative Production: The Effects of Three Forms of Internet Use on Youth Democratic Engagement. Communication Research, 42(6), 796–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650213476295Ellis, E. G. (2018, September 19). The Alt-Right Are Savvy Internet Users. Stop Letting Them Surprise You. WIRED. https://www.wired.com/story/alt-right-youtube-savvy-data-and-society/English, K., Sweetser, K. D., & Ancu, M. (2011). YouTube-ification of Political Talk: An Examination of Persuasion Appeals in Viral Video. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(6), 733–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211398090Farah, H. (2023, July 19). TikTok is the most popular news source for 12 to 15-year-olds, says Ofcom. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/20/tiktok-is-the-most-popular-news-source-for-12-to-15-year-olds-says-ofcomFarivar, S., Wang, F., & Yuan, Y. (2021). Opinion leadership vs. Para-social relationship: Key factors in influencer marketing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102371Fernandes, T., & Castro, A. (2020). Understanding drivers and outcomes of lurking vs. Posting engagement behaviours in social media-based brand communities. Journal of Marketing Management, 36(7–8). https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.2020.1724179Fischer, T.-S., Kolo, C., & Mothes, C. (2022). Political Influencers on YouTube: Business Strategies and Content Characteristics. Media and Communication, 10(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i1.4767Flanagin, A. J., Flanagin, C., & Flanagin, J. (2010). Technical code and the social construction of the internet. New Media & Society, 12(2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809341391Fowler, K., & Thomas, V. L. (2023). Influencer marketing: A scoping review and a look ahead. Journal of Marketing Management, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.2022.2157038Freberg, K., Graham, K., McGaughey, K., & Freberg, L. A. (2011). Who are the social media influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 90–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.11.001Gainous, J., Abbott, J. P., & Wagner, K. M. (2021). Active vs. Passive Social Media Engagement with Critical Information: Protest Behavior in Two Asian Countries. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 26(2), 464–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220963606Garthwaite, C., & Moore, T. J. (2013). Can Celebrity Endorsements Affect Political Outcomes? Evidence from the 2008 US Democratic Presidential Primary. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 29(2), 355–384. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewr031Gavilanes, J. M., Flatten, T. C., & Brettel, M. (2018). Content Strategies for Digital Consumer Engagement in Social Networks: Why Advertising Is an Antecedent of Engagement. Journal of Advertising, 47(1), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2017.1405751Gearhart, M. C. (2020). Social cohesion, internal efficacy, and external efficacy: Studying voting behavior using collective efficacy theory. Community Development, 51(5), 593–608. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2020.1825502Gerson, J., Plagnol, A. C., & Corr, P. J. (2017). Passive and Active Facebook Use Measure (PAUM): Validation and relationship to the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.034Geyser, W. (2023). The State of Influencer Marketing 2023: Benchmark Report. Influencer Marketing Hub. https://influencermarketinghub.com/influencer-marketing-benchmark-report/Gil de Zúñiga, H., Diehl, T., & Ardévol-Abreu, A. (2017). Internal, External, and Government Political Efficacy: Effects on News Use, Discussion, and Political Participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(3), 574–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2017.1344672Gil de Zúñiga, H., Diehl, T., Huber, B., & Liu, J. H. (2019). The Citizen Communication Mediation Model Across Countries: A Multilevel Mediation Model of News Use and Discussion on Political Participation. Journal of Communication, 69(2), 144–167. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz002Gimpel, J. G., Lay, J. C., & Schuknecht, J. E. (2003). Cultivating democracy: Civic environments and political socialization in America. Brookings Institution Press.Grasso, M. (2018). Young people’s political participation in Europe in times of crisis. Young people re-generating politics in times of crises. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58250-4_10.Gräve, J. F. (2017). Exploring the perception of influencers vs. Traditional celebrities: Are social media stars a new type of endorser? Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Social Media & Society, 1–5.Grude, E. T. (2021). At the end of the day, these are just regular people talking about political things.”—YouTube as a platform for politics [Unpublished master’s thesis, The University of Bergen]. https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2761211Gundelach, B. (2020). Political Consumerism as a Form of Political Participation: Challenges and Potentials of Empirical Measurement. Social Indicators Research, 151(1), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02371-2Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests (Vol. 23, Issue 91, p. 170). Heinemann Educational.Halpern, D., Valenzuela, S., & Katz, J. E. (2017). We face, I tweet: How different social media influence political participation through collective and internal efficacy. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 22(6), 320–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12198Harff, D., & Schmuck, D. (2023a). Influencers as Empowering Agents? Following Political Influencers, Internal Political Efficacy and Participation among Youth. Political Communication, 40(2), 147–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2166631Harff, D., & Schmuck, D. (2023b). Influencers as Empowering Agents? Following Political Influencers, Internal Political Efficacy and Participation among Youth. Political Communication, 40(2), 147–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2166631Harris, A., Wyn, J., & Younes, S. (2010). Beyond apathetic or activist youth: ‘Ordinary’ young people and contemporary forms of participation. YOUNG, 18(1), 9–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/110330880901800103Harris, N. (2021). How YouTubers got clever: The rise of the video essay. The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/youtubers-got-clever-rise-video-essay/Hart, P. S., & Feldman, L. (2016). The Influence of Climate Change Efficacy Messages and Efficacy Beliefs on Intended Political Participation. PLOS ONE, 11(8), e0157658. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157658Hawking, T. (2019). How a 57-hour Donkey Kong game struck a blow against online toxicity. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/games/2019/jan/22/how-a-57-hour-donkey-kong-twitch-stream-struck-a-blow-against-gamergateHay, C. (2007). Why we hate politics (Vol. 5). Polity.Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.Heiss, R., Knoll, J., & Matthes, J. (2020). Pathways to political (dis-)engagement: Motivations behind social media use and the role of incidental and intentional exposure modes in adolescents’ political engagement. Communications, 45(s1), 671–693. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2019-2054Heiss, R., & Matthes, J. (2017). Who ‘likes’ populists? Characteristics of adolescents following right-wing populist actors on Facebook. Information, Communication & Society, 20(9), 1408–1424. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1328524Hoffman, L. H., & Thomson, T. L. (2009). The effect of television viewing on adolescents’ civic participation: Political efficacy as a mediating mechanism. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838150802643415Hoffman, L. H., & Young, D. G. (2011). Satire, punch lines, and the nightly news: Untangling media effects on political participation. Communication Research Reports, 28(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2011.565278Hoffmann, C. P., & Lutz, C. (2021). Digital Divides in Political Participation: The Mediating Role of Social Media Self-Efficacy and Privacy Concerns. Policy & Internet, 13(1), 6–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.225Hoffner, C., & Buchanan, M. (2005). Young adults’ wishful identification with television characters: The role of perceived similarity and character attributes. Media Psychology, 7(4), 325–351. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0704_2Hofstetter, C. R., Donovan, M. C., Klauber, M. R., Cole, A., Huie, C. J., & Yuasa, T. (1994). Political Talk Radio: A Stereotype Reconsidered. Political Research Quarterly, 47(2), 467–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299404700212Holland, M. (2016). How YouTube Developed into a Successful Platform for User-Generated Content. Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, 7(1). http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1477Hollander, B. A. (1995). The New News and the 1992 Presidential Campaign: Perceived vs. Actual Political Knowledge. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(4), 786–798. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909507200403Hollander, B. A. (2005). Late-Night Learning: Do Entertainment Programs Increase Political Campaign Knowledge for Young Viewers? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49(4), 402–415. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4904_3Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002Hootsuite & We Are Social. (2021). Digital 2021 Taiwan. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-taiwanHornsey, M. J. (2008). Social Identity Theory and Self-categorization Theory: A Historical Review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00066.xHorton, D., & Richard, W. R. (1956). Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049Hudders, L., Jans, S., & Veirman, M. (2021). The commercialization of social media stars: A literature review and conceptual framework on the strategic use of social media influencers. In Social Media Influencers in Strategic Communication (pp. 24–67).Hwang, K., & Zhang, Q. (2018). Influence of parasocial relationship between digital celebrities and their followers on followers’ purchase and electronic word-of-mouth intentions, and persuasion knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 155–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.029Jung, N., Kim, Y., & Zúniga, H. G. (2011). The mediating role of knowledge and efficacy in the effects of communication on political participation. Mass Communication and Society, 14(4), 407–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2010.496135Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003Kapoor, K. K., Tamilmani, K., Rana, N. P., Patil, P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Nerur, S. (2018). Advances in social media research: Past, present and future. Information Systems Frontiers, 20, 531–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9810-yKatz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and Gratifications Research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1086/268109Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1964). Personal Influence, The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Transaction publishers.Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25(1), 57–78. https://doi.org/10.1086/266996Khamis, S., Ang, L., & Welling, R. (2017). Self-branding, ‘micro-celebrity’ and the rise of Social Media Influencers. Celebrity Studies, 8(2), 191–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2016.1218292Khan, M. L. (2017). Social media engagement: What motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube? Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.024Ki, C. W. C., Cuevas, L. M., Chong, S. M., & Lim, H. (2020). Influencer marketing: Social media influencers as human brands attaching to followers and yielding positive marketing results by fulfilling needs. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 55, 102133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102133Kline, R. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). The Guilford.Kosenko, K. A., Binder, A. R., & Hurley, R. (2016). Celebrity influence and identification: A test of the Angelina effect. Journal of Health Communication, 21(3), 318–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1064498Ku, K. Y. L., Kong, Q., Song, Y., Deng, L., Kang, Y., & Hu, A. (2019). What predicts adolescents’ critical thinking about real-life news? The roles of social media news consumption and news media literacy. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 33, 100570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.05.004Kuznetsov, D., & Ismangil, M. (2020). YouTube as praxis? On BreadTube and the digital propagation of socialist thought. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 18(1), 204–218. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v18i1.1128Laffan, D. A., Stenson, A., & Flood, C. (2023). The role of cyberbullying victimization in the relationship between adult BTS fans’ psychological sense of community and wellbeing. Journal of Community Psychology, 51(4), 1479–1494. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22924Lane, D. S., Do, K., & Molina-Rogers, N. (2022). What is political expression on social media anyway?: A systematic review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 19(3), 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2021.1985031Lane, D. S., Lee, S. S., Liang, F., Kim, D. H., Shen, L., Weeks, B. E., & Kwak, N. (2019). Social media expression and the political self. Journal of Communication, 69(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy064Lappé, A. (2003). O Magazine.Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. McGraw Hall.Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1968). The people’s choice. In The people’s choice. Columbia University Press.Ledwich, M., & Zaitsev, A. (2020). Algorithmic extremism: Examining YouTube’s rabbit hole of radicalization. First Monday. https://doi.org/2013Lee, H. (2012). Communication Mediation Model of Late-Night Comedy: The Mediating Role of Structural Features of Interpersonal Talk Between Comedy Viewing and Political Participation. Mass Communication and Society, 15(5), 647–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2012.664239Lee, H., & Kwak, N. (2014). The affect effect of political satire: Sarcastic humor, negative emotions, and political participation. Mass Communication and Society, 17(3), 307–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.891133Lee, N. J., Shah, D. V., & McLeod, J. M. (2013). Processes of political socialization: A communication mediation approach to youth civic engagement. Communication Research, 40(5), 669–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212436712Lewis, B. (2018). Alternative Influence: Broadcasting the Reactionary Right on YouTube (White paper). New York: Data & Society Research Institute. https://datasociety.net/library/alternative-influence/Lewis, R. (2020). “This Is What the News Won’t Show You”: YouTube Creators and the Reactionary Politics of Micro-celebrity. Television & New Media, 21(2), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476419879919Lichtenstein, D., Herbers, M. R., & Bause, H. (2021). Journalistic YouTubers and Their Role Orientations, Strategies, and Professionalization Tendencies. Journalism Studies, 22(9), 1103–1122. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2021.1922302Lin, J.-H. (2016). Differential gains in SNSs: Effects of active vs. passive Facebook political participation on offline political participation and voting behavior among first-time and experienced voters. Asian Journal of Communication, 26(3), 278–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2016.1148184Litvinenko, A. (2021). YouTube as Alternative Television in Russia: Political Videos During the Presidential Election Campaign 2018. Social Media + Society, 7(1), 2056305120984455. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120984455Long, J. A., Jeong, M. S., & Lavis, S. M. (2021). Political Comedy as a Gateway to News Use, Internal Efficacy, and Participation: A Longitudinal Mediation Analysis. Human Communication Research, 47(2), 166–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqaa011Lyu, J., & Kim, J. (2020). Antecedents of social media–induced retail commerce activities: Impact of brand–consumer relationships and psychological sense of community. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 20(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2020.1769513Lyu, J., & Kim-Vick, J. (2022). The Effects of Media Use Motivation on Consumer Retail Channel Choice: A Psychological Sense of Community Approach. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 23(3), 190–206.Malthouse, E. C., Haenlein, M., Skiera, B., Wege, E., & Zhang, M. (2013). Managing customer relationships in the social media era: Introducing the social CRM house. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27(4), 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.09.008Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The Dynamic Self-Concept: A Social Psychological Perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38(1), 299–337. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.38.020187.001503Martins Rebouças Nery, M., Alves Sincorá, L., & Carneiro, T. C. J. (2021). Trajectory and Research Opportunities on Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Networking Sites. Journal of Internet Commerce, 20(4), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2021.1950328Marwick, A. E. (2015). You May Know Me from YouTube: (Micro-)Celebrity in Social Media. In A Companion to Celebrity (pp. 333–350). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118475089.ch18Marx, P., & Nguyen, C. (2016). Are the Unemployed Less Politically Involved? A Comparative Study of Internal Political Efficacy. European Sociological Review, 32(5), 634–648. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcw020Matthes, J., Heiss, R., & Scharrel, H. (2023). The distraction effect. Political and entertainment-oriented content on social media, political participation, interest, and knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 107644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107644May, A. L. (2010). Who Tube? How YouTube’s News and Politics Space Is Going Mainstream. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 15(4), 499–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161210382861McLeod, D. M., Kosicki, G. M., & McLeod, J. M. (2009). Political communication effects. In B. by & J. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research, 3nd (pp. 228–243). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429491146McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., & Moy, P. (1999). Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political communication, 16(3), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846099198659McLeod, J. M., Zubric, J., Keum, H., Deshpande, S., Cho, J., Stein, S., & Heather, M. (2001, August). Reflecting and connecting: Testing a communication mediation model of civic participation. In annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1<6::AID-JCOP2290140103>3.0.CO;2-IMeltwater & We Are Social. (2023). Digital 2023: Taiwan. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2023-taiwanMiranti, R., & Evans, M. (2019). Trust, sense of community, and civic engagement: Lessons from Australia. Journal of community psychology, 47(2), 254–271. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22119Moeller, J., Shehata, A., & Kruikemeier, S. (2018). Internet use and political interest: Growth curves, reinforcing spirals, and causal effects during adolescence. Journal of Communication, 68(6), 1052–1078. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy062Moeller, J., Vreese, C., Esser, F., & Kunz, R. (2014). Pathway to political participation: The influence of online and offline news media on internal efficacy and turnout of first-time voters. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(5), 689–700. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213515220Morrell, M. E. (2003). Survey and Experimental Evidence for a Reliable and Valid Measure of Internal Political Efficacy*. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(4), 589–602. https://doi.org/10.1086/378965Moy, P., Xenos, M. A., & Hess, V. K. (2005). Communication and Citizenship: Mapping the Political Effects of Infotainment. Mass Communication and Society, 8(2), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327825mcs0802_3Moy, P., Xenos, M. A., & Hess, V. K. (2006). Priming Effects of Late-Night Comedy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(2), 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edh092Munger, K., & Phillips, J. (2022). Right-Wing YouTube: A Supply and Demand Perspective. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(1), 186–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220964767Muniz, A. M., Jr., & O’Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand Community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 412–432. https://doi.org/10.1086/319618Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 13–46. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-30-1-013-046Muradova, L., & Arceneaux, K. (2022). Reflective political reasoning: Political disagreement and empathy. European Journal of Political Research, 61(3), 740–761. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12490Naderer, B. (2023). Influencers as political agents? The potential of an unlikely source to motivate political action. Communications, 48(1), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2021-0006Newman, N. (2023, June 14). Overview and key findings of the 2023 Digital News Report | Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2023/dnr-executive-summaryNiemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1407–1413. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963953Norris, P. (1996). Does Television Erode Social Capital? A Reply to Putnam. PS: Political Science & Politics, 29(3), 474–480. https://doi.org/10.2307/420827Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.Ohme, J., de Vreese, C. H., & Albæk, E. (2018). From theory to practice: How to apply van Deth’s conceptual map in empirical political participation research. Acta Politica, 53(3), 367–390. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-017-0056-yPapacharissi, Z. (2014). Affective Publics. In Affective Publics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199999736.003.0006Park, C. S. (2019). The mediating role of political talk and political efficacy in the effects of news use on expressive and collective participation. Communication and the Public, 4(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047319829580Peterson, T. (2018, July 3). Creators are making longer videos to cater to the YouTube algorithm. DIGIDAY. https://digiday.com/future-of-tv/creators-making-longer-videos-cater-youtube-algorithm/Pew Research Center. (2020). Many Americans Get News on YouTube, Where News Organizations and Independent Producers Thrive Side by Side. Pew Research Center. https://www.journalism.org/2020/09/28/many-americans-get-news-on-YouTube-where-news-organizations-and-independent-producers-thrive-side-by-side/Pick, M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). Influencer Marketing as a Counterstrategy to the Commoditization of Marketing Communications: A Bibliometric Analysis. In Commodity Marketing: Strategies, Concepts, and Cases (pp. 293–328). Springer International Publishing.Pickard, S. (2019a). Defining and Measuring Political Participation and Young People. In Politics, Protest and Young People: Political Participation and Dissent in 21st Century Britain (pp. 57–87). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57788-7_3Pickard, S. (2019b). Young People and DIO Politics: Do-It-Ourselves Political Participation. In S. Pickard (Ed.), Politics, Protest and Young People: Political Participation and Dissent in 21st Century Britain (pp. 375–405). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57788-7_12Pingree, R. J. (2007). How Messages Affect Their Senders: A More General Model of Message Effects and Implications for Deliberation. Communication Theory, 17(4), 439–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00306.xPoddar, U. (2022, June 19). Are YouTubers now as important as TV journalists in shaping Indian politics. Scroll.In. https://scroll.in/article/1025983/news-and-commentary-is-exploding-on-youtube-and-indian-politicians-want-to-control-itPrior, M. (2003). Any Good News in Soft News? The Impact of Soft News Preference on Political Knowledge. Political Communication, 20(2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600390211172Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and schuster.Quintelier, E., & Hooghe, M. (2011). Television and Political Participation Among Adolescents: The Impact of Television Viewing, Entertainment and Information Preferences. Mass Communication and Society, 14(5), 620–642. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2010.530383Raun, T. (2018). Capitalizing intimacy: New subcultural forms of micro-celebrity strategies and affective labour on YouTube. Convergence, 24(1), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517736983Reichert, F. (2016). How internal political efficacy translates political knowledge into political participation: Evidence from Germany. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 12(2), 221. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v12i2.1095Rill, L. A., & Cardiel, C. L. B. (2013). Funny, Ha-Ha: The Impact of User-Generated Political Satire on Political Attitudes. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(12), 1738–1756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213489016Rodelo, F. V. (2022). Why Can’t We Believe in That? Partisan Political Entertainment in the Mexican YouTube Sphere. Television & New Media, 24(4), 414–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/15274764221117170Roose K. (2019, June 8). The Making of a YouTube Radical. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/08/technology/youtube-radical.html, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/08/technology/youtube-radical.htmlRoth, F. S., Weinmann, C., Schneider, F. M., Hopp, F. R., & Vorderer, P. (2014). Seriously Entertained: Antecedents and Consequences of Hedonic and Eudaimonic Entertainment Experiences With Political Talk Shows on TV. Mass Communication and Society, 17(3), 379–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.891135Rubin, A. M., & Step, M. M. (2000). Impact of Motivation, Attraction, and Parasocial Interaction on Talk Radio listening. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(4), 635–654. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4404_7Saastad, P. V. (2020). Politisk influenser-kommunikasjon på YouTube [Unpublished master’s thesis, The University of Bergen]. https://hdl.handle.net/1956/24121Sairambay, Y. (2020). The Contemporary Challenges of Measuring Political Participation. Slovenská Politologická Revue, 20(2), 206–226. https://doi.org/10.34135/sjps.200202Santos, L. A., Voelkel, J. G., Willer, R., & Zaki, J. (2022). Belief in the Utility of Cross-Partisan Empathy Reduces Partisan Animosity and Facilitates Political Persuasion. Psychological Science, 33(9), 1557–1573. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221098594Sarason, S. B. (1974). The psychological sense of community. San Francisco.Schivinski, B., Christodoulides, G., & Dabrowski, D. (2016). Measuring Consumers’ Engagement With Brand-Related Social-Media Content. Journal of Advertising Research, 56(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2016-004Schmuck, D., Hirsch, M., Stevic, A., & Matthes, J. (2022). Politics – Simply Explained? How Influencers Affect Youth’s Perceived Simplification of Politics, Political Cynicism, and Political Interest. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(3), 738–762. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612221088987Schouten, A. P., Janssen, L., & Verspaget, M. (2020). Celebrity vs. Influencer endorsements in advertising: The role of identification, credibility, and Product-Endorser fit. International Journal of Advertising, 39(2), 258–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2019.1634898Schuetze, C. F. (2019, October 18). The German YouTuber Emerging as the Voice of a Generation. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/world/europe/germany-rezo-youtube.htmlSebastian, C. (2021, July 8). Beispiel Rezo: Wie Influencer Wahlen beeinflussen. Fachjournalist. https://www.fachjournalist.de/beispiel-rezo-wie-influencer-wahlen-beeinflussen/Senft, T. M. (2008). Camgirls: Celebrity and community in the age of social networks (Vol. 4). Peter Lang.Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and Expression in a Digital Age: Modeling Internet Effects on Civic Participation. Communication Research, 32(5), 531–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205279209Sokolova, K., & Kefi, H. (2020). Instagram and YouTube bloggers promote it, why should I buy? How credibility and parasocial interaction influence purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53, 101742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.011Solon, O. (2018, September 18). YouTube’s “alternative influence network” breeds rightwing radicalisation, report finds. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/18/report-youtubes-alternative-influence-network-breeds-rightwing-radicalisationSoriano, C. R. R., & Gaw, F. (2021). Platforms, alternative influence, and networked political brokerage on YouTube. Convergence, 13548565211029768. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565211029769Stenner‐Day, K., & Fischle, M. (1992). The effects of political participation on political efficacy: A simultaneous equations model. Australian Journal of Political Science, 27(2), 282–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/00323269208402195Stolle, D., Hooghe, M., & Micheletti, M. (2005). Politics in the supermarket: Political consumerism as a form of political participation. International Political Science Review, 26(3), 245–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512105053784Suk, J., Abhishek, A., Zhang, Y., Ahn, S. Y., Correa, T., Garlough, C., & Shah, D. V. (2021). #MeToo, Networked Acknowledgment, and Connective Action: How “Empowerment Through Empathy” Launched a Social Movement. Social Science Computer Review, 39(2), 276–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319864882Swimberghe, K., Darrat, M. A., Beal, B. D., & Astakhova, M. (2018). Examining a psychological sense of brand community in elderly consumers. Journal of Business Research, 82, 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.09.035Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Political psychology (pp. 276–293). Psychology Press.Talò, C., Mannarini, T., & Rochira, A. (2014). Sense of community and community participation: A meta-analytic review. Social Indicators Research, 117, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0347-2Tang, G., & Lee, F. L. (2013). Facebook use and political participation: The impact of exposure to shared political information, connections with public political actors, and network structural heterogeneity. Social Science Computer Review, 31(6), 763–773. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439313490625Theocharis, Y., de Moor, J., & van Deth, J. W. (2021). Digitally Networked Participation and Lifestyle Politics as New Modes of Political Participation. Policy & Internet, 13(1), 30–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.231Thomson, M. (2006). Human brands: Investigating antecedents to consumers’ strong attachments to celebrities. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.3.104Torres-Harding, S. R., Diaz, E., Schamberger, A., & Carollo, O. (2015). Psychological sense of community and university mission as predictors of student social justice engagement. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 19(3), 89–112.Tsai, W. H. S., & Men, L. R. (2013). Motivations and antecedents of consumer engagement with brand pages on social networking sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 13(2), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2013.826549Tuck, A. B., & Thompson, R. J. (2023). The Social Media Use Scale: Development and Validation. Assessment, 10731911231173080. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911231173080Valkenburg, P. M., van Driel, I. I., & Beyens, I. (2022). The associations of active and passive social media use with well-being: A critical scoping review. New Media & Society, 24(2), 530–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211065425van Deth, J. W. (2014). A conceptual map of political participation. Acta Politica, 49(3), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2014.6van Deth, J. W. (2016). What Is Political Participation? Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/ACREFORE/9780190228637.013.68Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1987). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. University of Chicago Press.Waeterloos, C., Walrave, M., & Ponnet, K. (2021). Designing and validating the Social Media Political Participation Scale: An instrument to measure political participation on social media. Technology in Society, 64, 101493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101493Wasike, B. (2023). I am an Influencer and I Approve This Message! Examining How Political Social Media Influencers Affect Political Interest, Political Trust, Political Efficacy, and Political Participation. International Journal of Communication, 17(0), Article 0.Waterloo, S. F., Baumgartner, S. E., Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2018). Norms of online expressions of emotion: Comparing Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and WhatsApp. New Media & Society, 20(5), 1813–1831. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817707349Weill, K. (2018, December 19). How YouTube Built a Radicalization Machine for the Far-Right. The Daily Beast. https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-youtube-pulled-these-men-down-a-vortex-of-far-right-hateWeinmann, C., & Vorderer, P. (2018). A normative perspective for political entertainment research: Connecting deliberative democracy and entertainment theory. Communication Theory, 28(4), 466–486. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qty018Wen, N. (2017). Celebrity Influence and Young People’s Attitudes Toward Cosmetic Surgery in Singapore: The Role of Parasocial Relationships and Identification. International Journal of Communication, 11(0), Article 0.Wurst, C. (2022). Bread and Plots: Conspiracy Theories and the Rhetorical Style of Political Influencer Communities on YouTube. Media and Communication, 10(4), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i4.5807Xu, Y., Abeele, M. V., Hou, M., & Antheunis, M. (2022). Do parasocial relationships with micro-and mainstream celebrities differ? An empirical study testing four attributes of the parasocial relationship. Celebrity Studies.Yoo, J. H. (2013). No clear winner: Effects of The Biggest Loser on the stigmatization of obese persons. Health Communication, 28(3), 294–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2012.684143Yu, R. P. (2016). The relationship between passive and active non-political social media use and political expression on Facebook and Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 413–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.019Zhang, W., & Storck, J. (2001). Peripheral members in online communities. AMCIS 2001 Proceedings. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2001/117Zimmermann, D., Noll, C., Gräßer, L., Hugger, K.-U., Braun, L. M., Nowak, T., & Kaspar, K. (2020). Influencers on YouTube: A quantitative study on young people’s use and perception of videos about political and societal topics. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01164-7 【韓文部分】임병도 (2023). "문재인 곧 감옥행"... `극우 유튜버` 차관급 내정한 윤 대통령. 아이엠피터뉴스. Retrieved from http://www.impeternews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=61098설진아. (2023). 유튜브 정치/시사 채널 이용자의 댓글 관여 방식과 반응에 관한 연구: 정치적 성향을 중심으로. 한국방송학보, 37(2), 119-153.권오주, & 민영. (2015). 정치엔터테인먼트 시청이 정치대화에 미치는 영향: 관여도와 정치정보효능감의 매개 효과. 한국언론정보학보, 7-34.【俄文部分】Д.в, Р. (2021). Специфика реакции молодежной аудитории на отражение социальных проблем в видеоблогах: Кейс видео «ВИЧ в России» на YouTube-канале «Вдудь». Политика и Общество, 2, 53–67. https://doi.org/10.7256/2454-0684.2021.2.36242 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
傳播學院傳播碩士學位學程
109464015資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109464015 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 林芝璇 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Lin, Jhih-Syuan en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 王柏文 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Wang, Po-Wen en_US dc.creator (作者) 王柏文 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Wang, Po-Wen en_US dc.date (日期) 2023 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Sep-2023 15:44:04 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Sep-2023 15:44:04 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Sep-2023 15:44:04 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0109464015 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/147114 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 傳播學院傳播碩士學位學程 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 109464015 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 「YouTuber 政治時事節目」是近年在臺灣和世界各國中崛起的新興媒體，臺灣有 48.9% 的年輕人有時或經常收看，且在各國都已成為年輕世代接收政治資訊的重要管道。這類由 YouTuber 專門為了網路觀眾製作且主要以政治、時事為主題的節目，已經開始對政治領域產生一定影響。在臺灣，談論政治時事的 YouTuber 已舉辦過破萬人的遊行、採訪總統大選候選人、募資千萬買下紐約時報頭版，甚至曾成功創建政黨。這些現象顯示出YouTuber政治時事節目推動民眾政治行動的潛力，但所造成的實際影響仍有待更多實證研究投入探索。因此，本研究著重探討 YouTuber 政治時事節目是否、如何對青年使用者的政治參與產生關聯，並援引社會心理學理論建構研究模型，釐清傳播過程中的心理機制。首先，為符合 YouTube／社交媒體容許不同參與程度的特性，本研究在自變項部分區分了主動、被動程度的 YouTuber 政治時事節目參與。再者，為有效捕捉年輕世代的新形態政治行為，在依變項的政治參與部分擴大了定義範圍，納入選舉參與、示威行動、公民參與和生活政治等參與模式。為回應近年學界對媒體與政治細部中介過程的重視，本研究在中介變項部分依據不同理論納入三個心理中介因素：第一階中介因素包括由社會認知理論和認同概念引入之「微名人認同」因素，以及由社會認同理論和品牌社群文獻納入的「社群心理意識」概念，第二階加入經過去研究多次驗證的「內在政治效能」變項。本研究對台北市、新北市四間大專院校（涵蓋公立／私立、一般大學／技職院校）之 456 位通識課學生進行問卷調查，研究發現 YouTuber 政治時事節目主動參與程度和政治參與有直接、正向之關聯，但節目的被動參與程度無法直接預測政治參與。分析結果也指出，YouTuber 政治時事節目被動與主動參與程度與微名人認同之間有正向相關性，且微名人認同與政治參與之間亦為正相關。雖然被動參與、主動參與程度，與社群心理意識皆有正相關，但僅被動參與中的社群心理意識和政治參與有顯著的正相關。此外，被動、主動參與程度和內在政治效能為正相關，且內在政治效能亦與政治參與有正向關聯性。然而，微名人認同、社群心理意識與內在政治效能之間無顯著關聯性。此外，無論是被動或主動參與，YouTuber 政治時事節目的參與程度均是透過微名人認同以及內在政治效能的個別中介來與政治參與產生正向關聯，且透過內在政治效能中介的間接關聯性較強；而研究模型中的連續中介路徑均未得到證實。研究結尾進一步討論研究結果的學術與實務性意涵、研究限制與未來研究建議。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) In recent years, the popularity of YouTubers’ videos about political and current affairs (YTVPC) has been observed globally, including in Taiwan. To understand the phenomenon, this study builds on social psychology theories to explore the relationship between YTVPC and political participation among young adults and the underlying psychological mechanisms in the communication process. Specifically, this study distinguishes between active and passive engagement with YTVPC. It also expands the definition of political participation to include election involvement, demonstrations, civic engagement, and lifestyle politics, aiming to capture new forms of political behavior among young adults. In response to the recent academic emphasis on intermediary processes between media exposure and political participation, three psychological mediating factors are included in the research model. The first-stage mediating factors include microcelebrity identification and the psychological sense of community. The second stage introduces the well-established variable of internal political efficacy.The survey method was employed to examine the proposed hypotheses and research question. A total of 456 general education students from four higher education institutions in Taipei participated in this study. Findings indicate a direct and positive relationship between active engagement with YTVPC and political participation, while passive engagement does not directly predict political participation. Both active and passive engagement with YTVPC correlates positively with microcelebrity identification, which, in turn, relates positively to political participation.While positive correlations exist between passive and active engagement with YTVPC and the psychological sense of community, a significant positive correlation between the psychological sense of community and political participation is only evident for passive engagement. Additionally, both passive and active engagement correlate positively with internal political efficacy, which is also positively related to political participation. However, microcelebrity identification and the psychological sense of community do not significantly associate with internal political efficacy.Moreover, whether through passive or active engagement, YTVPC participation is positively linked to political participation via the single mediation of microcelebrity identification and internal political efficacy, and the indirect association through internal political efficacy is stronger. However, the hypothesized sequential mediation paths in the research model lack empirical support. This study concludes by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of the findings, addressing research limitations, and providing recommendations for future research. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第一節 在各國崛起的「YouTuber政治時事節目」 1第二節 相關研究尚待探索之處 2第三節 研究模型與研究目的 4第二章 文獻探討 7第一節 YouTuber政治時事節目 7第二節 YouTuber政治時事節目參與和青年政治參與 17第三節 微名人與認同作用 26第四節 社群心理意識 32第五節 內在政治效能 36第三章 研究方法 40第一節 研究架構及假設 40第二節 研究對象及抽樣方法 41第三節 執行過程 42第四節 變項測量 44第四章 研究結果 51第一節 樣本數量與描述性統計 51第二節 量表信效度分析 56第三節 假設驗證 57第四節 檢定結果總結 63第五章 討論與結論 66第一節 研究發現與討論 66第二節 學術貢獻與實務貢獻 74第三節 研究限制與未來研究建議 80參考文獻 84中文部分 84英文部分 88韓文部分 106附錄一 正式問卷 107 zh_TW dc.format.extent 3623867 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109464015 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) YouTube政治時事節目參與 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 社交媒體影響者 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 微名人認同 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 社群心理意識 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 內在政治效能 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 政治參與 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) engagement with YouTubers’ videos about political and current affairs en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) social media influencers en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) microcelebrity identification en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) psychological sense of community en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) internal political efficacy en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) political participation en_US dc.title (題名) YouTuber 政治時事節目與青年政治參與：微名人認同與社群心理意識的中介角色 zh_TW dc.title (題名) YouTubers` Videos about Political and Current Affairs and Youth Political Participation: The Mediating Roles of Microcelebrity Identification and Psychological Sense of Community en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 【中文部分】BBC（2022年10月29日）。臺灣同志遊行20週年，民眾雨中盛裝慶賀。BBC News中文。https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/chinese-news-63441099Giddens, A.（2016）。現代性與自我認同：晚期現代中自我與社會（夏璐譯）。中國人民大學出版社。（原著出版於 1991年）。Twenge, J（2020）。i 世代報告：更包容、沒有叛逆期，卻也更憂鬱不安，且遲遲無法長大的一代（林哲安譯）。大家出版。（原著出版於2017年）夕岸（2017年4月5日）。夕岸：從反女權到新朋克，另類右翼運動如何發家？。端傳媒。https://theinitium.com/article/20170405-opinion-xian-altright/中央社（2021年4月30日）。經濟學人封面稱臺灣「最危險地區」 憂台海煙硝釀災籲美中避戰。中央社。https://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/202104300011.aspx中央社（2023年2月2日）。2022民主指數 臺灣第10亞洲之首俄羅斯侵烏退步最多。中央社。https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aopl/202302020130.aspx王昱翔、林鳳琪（2020年4月30日）。Podcast大軍上架 廣播另類復活。遠見雜誌。https://www.gvm.com.tw/article/72432王柏文（2021年6 月25-27 日）。用 YouTube 關心社會？政治時事影片使用者的動機、行為與政治參與〔會議發表〕。2021中華傳播學會年會，台北市，臺灣。王柏文（2022年11 月5 日）。融合技術與觀眾參與的「政治時事特映會」 —— YouTube 政治時事網紅初探〔會議發表〕。2022臺灣資訊社會研究學會年會暨論文研討會，台北市，臺灣。王泰俐（2013）。「臉書選舉」？2012年臺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。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=10198636-201303-201304300012-201304300012-1-52王嵩音（2017）。社交媒體政治性使用行為與公民參與之研究，資訊社會研究，(32)，83-111。https://doi.org/10.29843/JCCIS.201701_(32).0004田芳華（1999）。認知訪談在調查研究上的應用－以假設市場評價法為例，國科會人文及社會科學研究彙刊，9(3)，555-574。石濤（2019年5月24日）。“網紅政治”來襲基民盟手忙腳亂。德國之聲。https://www.dw.com/zh/%E7%BD%91%E7%BA%A2%E6%94%BF%E6%B2%BB%E6%9D%A5%E8%A2%AD-%E5%9F%BA%E6%B0%91%E7%9B%9F%E6%89%8B%E5%BF%99%E8%84%9A%E4%B9%B1/a-48865414自由時報（2018年11月26日）。網紅變議員！「呱吉」 謝票坦言只做這一任。自由時報。https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/2625116自由時報（2019年8月10日）。台手搖飲之亂持續延燒 13家手搖飲能不能喝看這裡。自由時報。https://ent.ltn.com.tw/news/breakingnews/2880285吳元熙（2019年11月6日）。YouTube激增逾20萬訂閱！政府+網紅跨界合作揭流量爆炸的社群秘訣。數位時代。https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/55370/government-collaborate-with-internet-celebrity-吳齊殷、陶振超、曾淑芬、吳泰毅、陳靜君、陳貞雅（2022）。2022臺灣網路報告。財團法人臺灣網路資訊中心。李宗憲（2019年7月24日）。台灣總統選舉：蔡英文借勢網紅助連任，但學者稱政績才是關鍵。BBC News中文。https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/chinese-news-49070332李德治、童惠玲（2009）。多變量分析：專題及論文常用的統計方法。雙葉書廊。.沈佩瑤（2018年5月4日）小法典—預算法第62-1條。自由時報。https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/local/paper/1197631旻洲（2019年6月17日）。623反紅媒遊行募款 189萬元1小時達標。大紀元。https://www.epochtimes.com.tw/n284318林育萱（2019年12月27日）。28名YouTuber拍片催投票 蔡英文響應：一起決定臺灣的未來。上報。https://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?Type=24&SerialNo=78372林辰（2014年3月25日）。一場服貿熱雨下的太陽花 [影片]。YouTube。https://youtu.be/IJQwYxm39tI林恩如（2023年3月9日）。公平會出手管網紅 藍委轟：對蔡英文「政治業配」洗腦視而不見。TVBS新聞網。https://news.tvbs.com.tw/politics/2063556林莉琳、蘇蘅（2014）。從公共到娛樂：新聞性談話節目的移界與歧路。廣播與電視，(37)，63-99。https://doi.org/10.30385/JRTS.201412_(37).0003林揚軼（2017年1月28日）。中華民國官媒、央視春晚⋯⋯這個笑話，我們想講給臺灣人聽。端傳媒。https://theinitium.com/article/20170128-taiwan-EYECTV/信傳媒（2020年4月16日）。不到24小時募到近2千萬 紐時廣告「WHO Can help?」 背後的5個年輕人。信傳媒。https://www.cmmedia.com.tw/home/articles/20871柯家媛（2023年5月26日）。2023新鮮人夢幻工作排行榜出爐！男性最多人想當「YouTuber」、「網站小編」佔女性第3名。風傳媒。https://www.storm.mg/lifestyle/4797151唐筱恬、陳柏樺、呂苡榕（2018年12月12日）。拍進市議會 網紅邱威傑掀起參政實境秀。今周刊。https://www.businesstoday.com.tw/article/category/154769/post/201812120018/徐湘芸（2023年7月12日）。TikTok 上的政治版圖——藍營搶灘、綠營棄守 年輕人只認識柯文哲？。READr。https://www.readr.tw/post/2946張士哲（2021年11月19日）。臺灣手搖飲「人權自由價值」分數曝光 6家遭評絕對不買。TVBS新聞網。https://news.tvbs.com.tw/life/1638961張里歐（2013年12月3日）。臺灣7成用戶多螢體驗YouTube 手機觀看時數年成長3倍。手機王。https://www.sogi.com.tw/articles/臺灣7成用戶多螢體驗YouTube_手機觀看時數年成長3倍/6222484張卿卿（2017）。政黨雙歧不確定的糾結：成因、決策過程、媒體接收與行為意向。中華傳播學刊，(32)，167-202。https://doi.org/10.6195/cjcr.2017.32.05張卿卿、陶振超（2016）。臺灣傳播調查資料庫第一期第四次（2015年）：政治傳播與公民傳播【執行報告】。中央研究院臺灣傳播調查資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-D00161-1。張卿卿、陶振超（2021）。臺灣傳播調查資料庫第二期第四次（2020年）調查：新傳播科技與生活延伸【原始數據】。中央研究院臺灣傳播調查資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-D00216-1。張卿卿、陶振超（2022）。臺灣傳播調查資料庫第二期第五次（2021年）調查：新傳播科技與人際延伸【原始數據、執行報告】。中央研究院臺灣傳播調查資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-D00224_1-1。張卿卿、羅文輝（2007）。追求知識、認同或娛樂？政論性談話節目的內容與閱聽眾收視動機的探討。新聞學研究，(93)，83-139。https://doi.org/10.30386/MCR.200710_(93).0003張卿卿、羅文輝（2009）。政論性談話節目影響之探討。新聞學研究，(91)，47-91。https://doi.org/10.30386/MCR.200901_(98).0002盛治仁（2005）。電視談話性節目研究－來賓、議題結構及閱聽人特質分析。新聞學研究，84: 163-20。https://doi.org/10.30386/MCR.200507_(84).0005陳冠宇（2019年7月2日）。夜夜秀博恩飆罵三字經求判刑 想釋憲卻「無罪收場」。TVBS新聞網。https://news.tvbs.com.tw/local/1159202陳雅慧（2019年10月30日）。中學生媒體素養萬人調查 YouTube成青少年最大資訊來源，親子天下。https://www.parenting.com.tw/article/5080584陳德愉（2019年10月30日）。全台創意腦YouTuber祕密基地 「臺灣吧」創辦人蕭宇辰。上報。https://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?Type=5&SerialNo=31217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。https://doi.org/10.30180/CS.201601_(35).0006傅仰止、章英華、杜素豪、廖培珊（2015）。臺灣社會變遷基本調查計畫2014第六期第五次：公民權組（C00310_1）【原始數據】。中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-C00310_1-1。彭芸（2000）。2000年總統大選的媒介使用、選舉參與及投票對象，選舉研究，7(1)，21-52。https://doi.org/10.6612/tjes.2000.07.01.21-52彭森明（2006）。臺灣弱勢學生的大學教育機會 演講稿，國立東華大學多元文化教育研究所官方網站。http://www.mce.ndhu.edu.tw/~gimewww/epaper/9507/811D.htm換日線（2022年8月5日）。與臺灣 Z 世代對談，以 8 道題目誠實答辯！──他們的觀點，可能顛覆你的想像。換日線Crossing。https://crossing.cw.com.tw/article/16575黃秀端、吳俊德、張一彬、林瓊珠（2020）。政治知識的面向與政治參與的類型。政治科學論叢，(84)，1-38。https://doi.org/10.6166/TJPS.202006_(84).0001黃紀、張卿卿（2021）。臺灣政經傳播研究多年期研究規劃：2020年民眾定群追蹤網路問卷調查資料（TIGCR-W-PPS2020）【調查問卷檔】。臺灣政經傳播研究中心。https://doi.org/10.6923/TW-TIGCR-W-PPS2020。黃淑玲（2019年6月10日）。網紅55分鐘之亂 重傷德執政聯盟。經濟日報。https://paper.udn.com/udnpaper/PID0001/340983/web/index.html#11L-14910924L楊宗興（2013年3月5日）。挺核kuso影片爆紅 田秋堇直指數據有誤，Newtalk新聞。https://newtalk.tw/news/view/2013-03-05/34214楊貴、陳韻暄（2020）。公民意識對臺灣民衆政治參與之影響：2012與2018兩個年度的觀察。人文及社會科學集刊，32(3)，367-410。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=1018189X-202009-202011030004-202011030004-367-410廖淑君（2006）。政府從事電視置入性行銷法律規範之研究。廣告學研究，(26)，83-107。https://doi.org/10.30412/TJAPR.200607_(26).0004端傳媒（2018年10月2日）。知名YouTuber「呱吉」參選台北市議員，你看好這場民主政治的「開箱」嗎？。端傳媒。https://theinitium.com/roundtable/20181002-roundtable-tw-froggychiu/管中祥（2020年7月17日）。拼大選上「博恩夜夜秀」，「娛樂」和「政治行銷」衝撞嗎？。端傳媒。https://theinitium.com/article/20200717-opinion-taiwan-entertainment-politics/遠見雜誌（2020年4月14日）。WHO can help？Taiwan. 紐時廣告上刊，文案藏著哪些洋蔥？。遠見雜誌。https://www.gvm.com.tw/article/72136劉建邦（2021年2月20日）。歡樂無法黨遭廢止備案 呱吉：未打算推參選人。中央社。https://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/202102200167.aspx劉琮琦（2010）。媒介娛樂中的生活政治：以AnthonyGiddens的「現代性自我認同」概念為基礎探討閱聽人的反思活動〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學新聞研究所。鄭思楠（2020年1月10日）。一芳5個月關掉50家店！創辦人柯梓凱「決定閉嘴」：商人最沒有權利說話。ETtoday 新聞雲。https://finance.ettoday.net/news/1622780謝廷昊（2020）。無聲的參與？Twitch 遊戲實況「潛水者」參與行為之初探〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學傳播碩士學位學程。蘇思云（2023年5月19日）。有線電視首季下探462.3萬戶新低 連22季下滑。中央社。https://www.cna.com.tw/news/afe/202305190106.aspx蘋果新聞網（2019年6月24日）。10萬人凱道雨傘花 紅色媒體 滾出臺灣 反滲透 群眾自發上街 沒便當沒動員 不畏風雨相挺。蘋果新聞網。https://web.archive.org/web/20200416004333/https://tw.news.appledaily.com/headline/daily/20190624/38373356/ 【英文部分】Aagre A., & Dizdarevic N. (2020, September 11). Tause om politikk i sosiale medier. Kommunikasjonsforeningen. https://www.kommunikasjon.no/pr-prat/tause-om-politikk-i-sosiale-medierAbid, A., Harrigan, P., Wang, S., Roy, S. K., & Harper, T. (2023). Social media in politics: How to drive engagement and strengthen relationships. Journal of Marketing Management, 39(3–4), 298–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2022.2117235Achen, C. H., & Wang, T. Y. (2019). Declining voter turnout in Taiwan: A generational effect? Electoral Studies, 58, 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2018.12.011Aichner, T., Grünfelder, M., Maurer, O., & Jegeni, D. (2021). Twenty-five years of social media: A review of social media applications and definitions from 1994 to 2019. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(4), 215–222. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0134Albanesi, C., Cicognani, E., & Zani, B. (2007). Sense of community, civic engagement and social well-being in Italian adolescents. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17(5), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.903Allgaier, J. (2020). Rezo and German climate change policy: The influence of networked expertise on YouTube and beyond. Media and Communication, 8(2), 376–386. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.2862Andersen, K., Shehata, A., & Andersson, D. (2021). Alternative news orientation and trust in mainstream media: A longitudinal audience perspective. Digital Journalism, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1986412Anderson, M. R. (2009). Beyond membership: A sense of community and political behavior. Political Behavior, 31, 603–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-009-9089-xAnderson, M. R. (2010). Community psychology, political efficacy, and trust. Political Psychology, 31(1), 59–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00734.xAndreas, B. (2019, December 5). YouTube Rewind: Das sind die erfolgreichsten Videos des Jahres. YouTube official blog. https://blog.youtube/intl/de-de/culture-and-trends/youtube-rewind-das-sind-die/Atkinson, M. D., & DeWitt, D. (2019). Does Celebrity Issue Advocacy Mobilize Issue Publics? Political Studies, 67(1), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321717751294Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(6), 589. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022070Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986(23–28).Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-LBandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265–299. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_03Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3), 575–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045925Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048687Basil, M. D. (1996). Identification as a mediator of celebrity effects. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40(4), 478–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838159609364370Baum, M. A. (2002). Sex, Lies, and War: How Soft News Brings Foreign Policy to the Inattentive Public. The American Political Science Review, 96(1), 91–109. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402004252Baum, M. A. (2003). Soft News and Political Knowledge: Evidence of Absence or Absence of Evidence? Political Communication, 20(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600390211181Baum, M. A. (2011). Soft News Goes to War: Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy in the New Media Age. In Soft News Goes to War. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400841288Baumgartner, J. C., & Lockerbie, B. (2018). Maybe it Is More Than a Joke: Satire, Mobilization, and Political Participation*. Social Science Quarterly, 99(3), 1060–1074. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12501Baumgartner, J., & Morris, J. S. (2006). The Daily Show Effect: Candidate Evaluations, Efficacy, and American Youth. American Politics Research, 34(3), 341–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X05280074Becker, A. B. (2020). Applying mass communication frameworks to study humor’s impact: Advancing the study of political satire. Annals of the International Communication Association, 44(3), 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2020.1794925Becker, A. B., & Bode, L. (2018). Satire as a source for learning? The differential impact of news versus satire exposure on net neutrality knowledge gain. Information, Communication & Society, 21(4), 612–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1301517Bennett, S. E. (2002). Americans’ Exposure to Political Talk Radio and Their Knowledge of Public Affairs. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4601_5Bennett, W. L. (2012). The Personalization of Politics: Political Identity, Social Media, and Changing Patterns of Participation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212451428Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The Logic of Connective Action. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661Berne-Manero, C., & Marzo-Navarro, M. (2020). Exploring How Influencer and Relationship Marketing Serve Corporate Sustainability. Sustainability, 12(11), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114392Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420030103Bivens, T. L. (2006). The influence of sense of community, social norms, linkages and knowledge of opportunities on the civic engagement behaviors of college students [Unpublished master’s thesis, North Carolina State University]. http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/1878Boulianne, S., Oser, J., & Hoffmann, C. P. (2023). Powerless in the digital age? A systematic review and meta-analysis of political efficacy and digital media use. New Media & Society, 25(9), 2512–2536. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231176519Boulianne, S., & Theocharis, Y. (2020). Young People, Digital Media, and Engagement: A Meta-Analysis of Research. Social Science Computer Review, 38(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318814190Bowyer, B. T., Kahne, J. E., & Middaugh, E. (2017). Youth comprehension of political messages in YouTube videos. New Media & Society, 19(4), 522–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815611593Brown, W., & Bocarnea, M. (2006). Celebrity-Persona Identification Scale. In Handbook of Research on Electronic Surveys and Measurements (pp. 302–305). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-792-8.ch037Burgess, J., & Green, J. (2018). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture. John Wiley & Sons.Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. Univ of California Press.Burnasheva, R., & Suh, Y. G. (2020). The moderating role of parasocial relationships in the associations between celebrity endorser’s credibility and emotion-based responses. Journal of Marketing Communications, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2020.1862894Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1971). The Voter Decides. Nachdruck der Originalausgabe [1954, Evanston].Carlson, B. D., Suter, T. A., & Brown, T. J. (2008). Social versus psychological brand community: The role of psychological sense of brand community. Journal of Business Research, 61(4), 284–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.022Carpini, M. D. (2004). Mediating democratic engagement: The impact of communications on citizens’ involvement in political and civic life. Handbook of Political Communication Research, 357–394.Chan, M. (2016). Social Network Sites and Political Engagement: Exploring the Impact of Facebook Connections and Uses on Political Protest and Participation. Mass Communication and Society, 19(4), 430–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.1161803Chan, M., Chen, H. T., & Lee, F. L. (2017). Examining the roles of mobile and social media in political participation: A cross-national analysis of three Asian societies using a communication mediation approach. New Media & Society, 19(12), 2003–2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816653190Chang, C., & Wu, C. (2022). Active vs. Passive Ambivalent Voters: Implications for Interactive Political Communication and Participation. Communication Research, 00936502211066001. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502211066001Cheng, Z., Chen, J., Peng, R. X., & Shoenberger, H. (2023). Social media influencers talk about politics: Investigating the role of source factors and PSR in Gen-Z followers’ perceived information quality, receptivity and sharing intention. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 0(0), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2023.2173700Chmielewski, D. C. (2012, August 28). YouTube gives wacky anchorman Philip DeFranco greater exposure. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/la-xpm-2012-aug-28-la-et-ct-youtube-news-philip-defranco-elections-hub-20120828-story.htmlCho, J., Shah, D. V., McLeod, J. M., McLeod, D. M., Scholl, R. M., & Gotlieb, M. R. (2009). Campaigns, Reflection, and Deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R Model of Communication Effects. Communication Theory, 19(1), 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.01333.xChoi, Y. K., Zhang, R., & Sung, C. (Eunyoung). (2023). Attractiveness or expertise? Which is more effective in beauty product endorsement? Moderating role of social distance. International Journal of Advertising, 0(0), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2023.2192111Citarella, J. (2021, April 24). Are we ready for social media influencers shaping politics? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/24/social-media-influencers-shaping-politicsCormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. First Monday. https://doi.org/2013Craig, S. C., Niemi, R. G., & Silver, G. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12, 289–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992337Dalton, R. J. (2008). Citizenship Norms and the Expansion of Political Participation. Political Studies, 56(1), 76–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00718.xDambeck, H. (2019, June 4). Der Rezo-Effekt—Echt oder nur gefühlt? DER SPIEGEL. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/rezo-effekt-hat-er-der-cdu-geschadet-oder-den-gruenen-genuetzt-a-1270620.htmlDavidson, W. B., & Cotte, P. R. (1989). Sense of community and political participation. Journal of Community Psychology, 17(2), 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198904)17:2<119::AID-JCOP2290170203>3.0.CO;2-CDekoninck, H., & Schmuck, D. (2022). The Mobilizing Power of Influencers for Pro-Environmental Behavior Intentions and Political Participation. Environmental Communication, 16(4), 458–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2027801Dekoninck, H., & Schmuck, D. (2023). The “greenfluence”: Following environmental influencers, parasocial relationships, and youth’s participation behavior. New Media & Society, 14614448231156132. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231156131Dolan, R., Conduit, J., Fahy, J., & Goodman, S. (2016). Social media engagement behaviour: A uses and gratifications perspective. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24(3–4), 261–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2015.1095222Drengner, J., Jahn, S., & Gaus, H. (2012). Creating Loyalty in Collective Hedonic Services: The Role of Satisfaction and Psychological Sense of Community. Schmalenbach Business Review, 64(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03396838Ekström, M., & Östman, J. (2015). Information, Interaction, and Creative Production: The Effects of Three Forms of Internet Use on Youth Democratic Engagement. Communication Research, 42(6), 796–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650213476295Ellis, E. G. (2018, September 19). The Alt-Right Are Savvy Internet Users. Stop Letting Them Surprise You. WIRED. https://www.wired.com/story/alt-right-youtube-savvy-data-and-society/English, K., Sweetser, K. D., & Ancu, M. (2011). YouTube-ification of Political Talk: An Examination of Persuasion Appeals in Viral Video. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(6), 733–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211398090Farah, H. (2023, July 19). TikTok is the most popular news source for 12 to 15-year-olds, says Ofcom. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/20/tiktok-is-the-most-popular-news-source-for-12-to-15-year-olds-says-ofcomFarivar, S., Wang, F., & Yuan, Y. (2021). Opinion leadership vs. Para-social relationship: Key factors in influencer marketing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102371Fernandes, T., & Castro, A. (2020). Understanding drivers and outcomes of lurking vs. Posting engagement behaviours in social media-based brand communities. Journal of Marketing Management, 36(7–8). https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.2020.1724179Fischer, T.-S., Kolo, C., & Mothes, C. (2022). Political Influencers on YouTube: Business Strategies and Content Characteristics. Media and Communication, 10(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i1.4767Flanagin, A. J., Flanagin, C., & Flanagin, J. (2010). Technical code and the social construction of the internet. New Media & Society, 12(2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809341391Fowler, K., & Thomas, V. L. (2023). Influencer marketing: A scoping review and a look ahead. Journal of Marketing Management, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.2022.2157038Freberg, K., Graham, K., McGaughey, K., & Freberg, L. A. (2011). Who are the social media influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 90–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.11.001Gainous, J., Abbott, J. P., & Wagner, K. M. (2021). Active vs. Passive Social Media Engagement with Critical Information: Protest Behavior in Two Asian Countries. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 26(2), 464–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220963606Garthwaite, C., & Moore, T. J. (2013). Can Celebrity Endorsements Affect Political Outcomes? Evidence from the 2008 US Democratic Presidential Primary. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 29(2), 355–384. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewr031Gavilanes, J. M., Flatten, T. C., & Brettel, M. (2018). Content Strategies for Digital Consumer Engagement in Social Networks: Why Advertising Is an Antecedent of Engagement. Journal of Advertising, 47(1), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2017.1405751Gearhart, M. C. (2020). Social cohesion, internal efficacy, and external efficacy: Studying voting behavior using collective efficacy theory. Community Development, 51(5), 593–608. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2020.1825502Gerson, J., Plagnol, A. C., & Corr, P. J. (2017). Passive and Active Facebook Use Measure (PAUM): Validation and relationship to the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.034Geyser, W. (2023). The State of Influencer Marketing 2023: Benchmark Report. Influencer Marketing Hub. https://influencermarketinghub.com/influencer-marketing-benchmark-report/Gil de Zúñiga, H., Diehl, T., & Ardévol-Abreu, A. (2017). Internal, External, and Government Political Efficacy: Effects on News Use, Discussion, and Political Participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(3), 574–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2017.1344672Gil de Zúñiga, H., Diehl, T., Huber, B., & Liu, J. H. (2019). The Citizen Communication Mediation Model Across Countries: A Multilevel Mediation Model of News Use and Discussion on Political Participation. Journal of Communication, 69(2), 144–167. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz002Gimpel, J. G., Lay, J. C., & Schuknecht, J. E. (2003). Cultivating democracy: Civic environments and political socialization in America. Brookings Institution Press.Grasso, M. (2018). Young people’s political participation in Europe in times of crisis. Young people re-generating politics in times of crises. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58250-4_10.Gräve, J. F. (2017). Exploring the perception of influencers vs. Traditional celebrities: Are social media stars a new type of endorser? Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Social Media & Society, 1–5.Grude, E. T. (2021). At the end of the day, these are just regular people talking about political things.”—YouTube as a platform for politics [Unpublished master’s thesis, The University of Bergen]. https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2761211Gundelach, B. (2020). Political Consumerism as a Form of Political Participation: Challenges and Potentials of Empirical Measurement. Social Indicators Research, 151(1), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02371-2Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests (Vol. 23, Issue 91, p. 170). Heinemann Educational.Halpern, D., Valenzuela, S., & Katz, J. E. (2017). We face, I tweet: How different social media influence political participation through collective and internal efficacy. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 22(6), 320–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12198Harff, D., & Schmuck, D. (2023a). Influencers as Empowering Agents? Following Political Influencers, Internal Political Efficacy and Participation among Youth. Political Communication, 40(2), 147–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2166631Harff, D., & Schmuck, D. (2023b). Influencers as Empowering Agents? Following Political Influencers, Internal Political Efficacy and Participation among Youth. Political Communication, 40(2), 147–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2166631Harris, A., Wyn, J., & Younes, S. (2010). Beyond apathetic or activist youth: ‘Ordinary’ young people and contemporary forms of participation. YOUNG, 18(1), 9–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/110330880901800103Harris, N. (2021). How YouTubers got clever: The rise of the video essay. The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/youtubers-got-clever-rise-video-essay/Hart, P. S., & Feldman, L. (2016). The Influence of Climate Change Efficacy Messages and Efficacy Beliefs on Intended Political Participation. PLOS ONE, 11(8), e0157658. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157658Hawking, T. (2019). How a 57-hour Donkey Kong game struck a blow against online toxicity. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/games/2019/jan/22/how-a-57-hour-donkey-kong-twitch-stream-struck-a-blow-against-gamergateHay, C. (2007). Why we hate politics (Vol. 5). Polity.Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.Heiss, R., Knoll, J., & Matthes, J. (2020). Pathways to political (dis-)engagement: Motivations behind social media use and the role of incidental and intentional exposure modes in adolescents’ political engagement. Communications, 45(s1), 671–693. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2019-2054Heiss, R., & Matthes, J. (2017). Who ‘likes’ populists? Characteristics of adolescents following right-wing populist actors on Facebook. Information, Communication & Society, 20(9), 1408–1424. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1328524Hoffman, L. H., & Thomson, T. L. (2009). The effect of television viewing on adolescents’ civic participation: Political efficacy as a mediating mechanism. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838150802643415Hoffman, L. H., & Young, D. G. (2011). Satire, punch lines, and the nightly news: Untangling media effects on political participation. Communication Research Reports, 28(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2011.565278Hoffmann, C. P., & Lutz, C. (2021). Digital Divides in Political Participation: The Mediating Role of Social Media Self-Efficacy and Privacy Concerns. Policy & Internet, 13(1), 6–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.225Hoffner, C., & Buchanan, M. (2005). Young adults’ wishful identification with television characters: The role of perceived similarity and character attributes. Media Psychology, 7(4), 325–351. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0704_2Hofstetter, C. R., Donovan, M. C., Klauber, M. R., Cole, A., Huie, C. J., & Yuasa, T. (1994). Political Talk Radio: A Stereotype Reconsidered. Political Research Quarterly, 47(2), 467–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299404700212Holland, M. (2016). How YouTube Developed into a Successful Platform for User-Generated Content. Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, 7(1). http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1477Hollander, B. A. (1995). The New News and the 1992 Presidential Campaign: Perceived vs. Actual Political Knowledge. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(4), 786–798. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909507200403Hollander, B. A. (2005). Late-Night Learning: Do Entertainment Programs Increase Political Campaign Knowledge for Young Viewers? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49(4), 402–415. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4904_3Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002Hootsuite & We Are Social. (2021). Digital 2021 Taiwan. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-taiwanHornsey, M. J. (2008). Social Identity Theory and Self-categorization Theory: A Historical Review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00066.xHorton, D., & Richard, W. R. (1956). Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049Hudders, L., Jans, S., & Veirman, M. (2021). The commercialization of social media stars: A literature review and conceptual framework on the strategic use of social media influencers. In Social Media Influencers in Strategic Communication (pp. 24–67).Hwang, K., & Zhang, Q. (2018). Influence of parasocial relationship between digital celebrities and their followers on followers’ purchase and electronic word-of-mouth intentions, and persuasion knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 155–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.029Jung, N., Kim, Y., & Zúniga, H. G. (2011). The mediating role of knowledge and efficacy in the effects of communication on political participation. Mass Communication and Society, 14(4), 407–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2010.496135Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003Kapoor, K. K., Tamilmani, K., Rana, N. P., Patil, P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Nerur, S. (2018). Advances in social media research: Past, present and future. Information Systems Frontiers, 20, 531–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9810-yKatz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and Gratifications Research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1086/268109Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1964). Personal Influence, The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Transaction publishers.Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25(1), 57–78. https://doi.org/10.1086/266996Khamis, S., Ang, L., & Welling, R. (2017). Self-branding, ‘micro-celebrity’ and the rise of Social Media Influencers. Celebrity Studies, 8(2), 191–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2016.1218292Khan, M. L. (2017). Social media engagement: What motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube? Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.024Ki, C. W. C., Cuevas, L. M., Chong, S. M., & Lim, H. (2020). Influencer marketing: Social media influencers as human brands attaching to followers and yielding positive marketing results by fulfilling needs. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 55, 102133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102133Kline, R. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). The Guilford.Kosenko, K. A., Binder, A. R., & Hurley, R. (2016). Celebrity influence and identification: A test of the Angelina effect. Journal of Health Communication, 21(3), 318–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1064498Ku, K. Y. L., Kong, Q., Song, Y., Deng, L., Kang, Y., & Hu, A. (2019). What predicts adolescents’ critical thinking about real-life news? The roles of social media news consumption and news media literacy. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 33, 100570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.05.004Kuznetsov, D., & Ismangil, M. (2020). YouTube as praxis? On BreadTube and the digital propagation of socialist thought. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 18(1), 204–218. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v18i1.1128Laffan, D. A., Stenson, A., & Flood, C. (2023). The role of cyberbullying victimization in the relationship between adult BTS fans’ psychological sense of community and wellbeing. Journal of Community Psychology, 51(4), 1479–1494. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22924Lane, D. S., Do, K., & Molina-Rogers, N. (2022). What is political expression on social media anyway?: A systematic review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 19(3), 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2021.1985031Lane, D. S., Lee, S. S., Liang, F., Kim, D. H., Shen, L., Weeks, B. E., & Kwak, N. (2019). Social media expression and the political self. Journal of Communication, 69(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy064Lappé, A. (2003). O Magazine.Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. McGraw Hall.Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1968). The people’s choice. In The people’s choice. Columbia University Press.Ledwich, M., & Zaitsev, A. (2020). Algorithmic extremism: Examining YouTube’s rabbit hole of radicalization. First Monday. https://doi.org/2013Lee, H. (2012). Communication Mediation Model of Late-Night Comedy: The Mediating Role of Structural Features of Interpersonal Talk Between Comedy Viewing and Political Participation. Mass Communication and Society, 15(5), 647–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2012.664239Lee, H., & Kwak, N. (2014). The affect effect of political satire: Sarcastic humor, negative emotions, and political participation. Mass Communication and Society, 17(3), 307–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.891133Lee, N. J., Shah, D. V., & McLeod, J. M. (2013). Processes of political socialization: A communication mediation approach to youth civic engagement. Communication Research, 40(5), 669–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212436712Lewis, B. (2018). Alternative Influence: Broadcasting the Reactionary Right on YouTube (White paper). New York: Data & Society Research Institute. https://datasociety.net/library/alternative-influence/Lewis, R. (2020). “This Is What the News Won’t Show You”: YouTube Creators and the Reactionary Politics of Micro-celebrity. Television & New Media, 21(2), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476419879919Lichtenstein, D., Herbers, M. R., & Bause, H. (2021). Journalistic YouTubers and Their Role Orientations, Strategies, and Professionalization Tendencies. Journalism Studies, 22(9), 1103–1122. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2021.1922302Lin, J.-H. (2016). Differential gains in SNSs: Effects of active vs. passive Facebook political participation on offline political participation and voting behavior among first-time and experienced voters. Asian Journal of Communication, 26(3), 278–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2016.1148184Litvinenko, A. (2021). YouTube as Alternative Television in Russia: Political Videos During the Presidential Election Campaign 2018. Social Media + Society, 7(1), 2056305120984455. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120984455Long, J. A., Jeong, M. S., & Lavis, S. M. (2021). Political Comedy as a Gateway to News Use, Internal Efficacy, and Participation: A Longitudinal Mediation Analysis. Human Communication Research, 47(2), 166–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqaa011Lyu, J., & Kim, J. (2020). Antecedents of social media–induced retail commerce activities: Impact of brand–consumer relationships and psychological sense of community. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 20(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2020.1769513Lyu, J., & Kim-Vick, J. (2022). The Effects of Media Use Motivation on Consumer Retail Channel Choice: A Psychological Sense of Community Approach. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 23(3), 190–206.Malthouse, E. C., Haenlein, M., Skiera, B., Wege, E., & Zhang, M. (2013). Managing customer relationships in the social media era: Introducing the social CRM house. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27(4), 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.09.008Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The Dynamic Self-Concept: A Social Psychological Perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38(1), 299–337. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.38.020187.001503Martins Rebouças Nery, M., Alves Sincorá, L., & Carneiro, T. C. J. (2021). Trajectory and Research Opportunities on Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Networking Sites. Journal of Internet Commerce, 20(4), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2021.1950328Marwick, A. E. (2015). You May Know Me from YouTube: (Micro-)Celebrity in Social Media. In A Companion to Celebrity (pp. 333–350). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118475089.ch18Marx, P., & Nguyen, C. (2016). Are the Unemployed Less Politically Involved? A Comparative Study of Internal Political Efficacy. European Sociological Review, 32(5), 634–648. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcw020Matthes, J., Heiss, R., & Scharrel, H. (2023). The distraction effect. Political and entertainment-oriented content on social media, political participation, interest, and knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 107644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107644May, A. L. (2010). Who Tube? How YouTube’s News and Politics Space Is Going Mainstream. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 15(4), 499–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161210382861McLeod, D. M., Kosicki, G. M., & McLeod, J. M. (2009). Political communication effects. In B. by & J. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research, 3nd (pp. 228–243). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429491146McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., & Moy, P. (1999). Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political communication, 16(3), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846099198659McLeod, J. M., Zubric, J., Keum, H., Deshpande, S., Cho, J., Stein, S., & Heather, M. (2001, August). Reflecting and connecting: Testing a communication mediation model of civic participation. In annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1<6::AID-JCOP2290140103>3.0.CO;2-IMeltwater & We Are Social. (2023). Digital 2023: Taiwan. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2023-taiwanMiranti, R., & Evans, M. (2019). Trust, sense of community, and civic engagement: Lessons from Australia. Journal of community psychology, 47(2), 254–271. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22119Moeller, J., Shehata, A., & Kruikemeier, S. (2018). Internet use and political interest: Growth curves, reinforcing spirals, and causal effects during adolescence. Journal of Communication, 68(6), 1052–1078. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy062Moeller, J., Vreese, C., Esser, F., & Kunz, R. (2014). Pathway to political participation: The influence of online and offline news media on internal efficacy and turnout of first-time voters. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(5), 689–700. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213515220Morrell, M. E. (2003). Survey and Experimental Evidence for a Reliable and Valid Measure of Internal Political Efficacy*. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(4), 589–602. https://doi.org/10.1086/378965Moy, P., Xenos, M. A., & Hess, V. K. (2005). Communication and Citizenship: Mapping the Political Effects of Infotainment. Mass Communication and Society, 8(2), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327825mcs0802_3Moy, P., Xenos, M. A., & Hess, V. K. (2006). Priming Effects of Late-Night Comedy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(2), 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edh092Munger, K., & Phillips, J. (2022). Right-Wing YouTube: A Supply and Demand Perspective. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(1), 186–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220964767Muniz, A. M., Jr., & O’Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand Community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 412–432. https://doi.org/10.1086/319618Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 13–46. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-30-1-013-046Muradova, L., & Arceneaux, K. (2022). Reflective political reasoning: Political disagreement and empathy. European Journal of Political Research, 61(3), 740–761. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12490Naderer, B. (2023). Influencers as political agents? The potential of an unlikely source to motivate political action. Communications, 48(1), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2021-0006Newman, N. (2023, June 14). Overview and key findings of the 2023 Digital News Report | Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2023/dnr-executive-summaryNiemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1407–1413. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963953Norris, P. (1996). Does Television Erode Social Capital? A Reply to Putnam. PS: Political Science & Politics, 29(3), 474–480. https://doi.org/10.2307/420827Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.Ohme, J., de Vreese, C. H., & Albæk, E. (2018). From theory to practice: How to apply van Deth’s conceptual map in empirical political participation research. Acta Politica, 53(3), 367–390. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-017-0056-yPapacharissi, Z. (2014). Affective Publics. In Affective Publics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199999736.003.0006Park, C. S. (2019). The mediating role of political talk and political efficacy in the effects of news use on expressive and collective participation. Communication and the Public, 4(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047319829580Peterson, T. (2018, July 3). Creators are making longer videos to cater to the YouTube algorithm. DIGIDAY. https://digiday.com/future-of-tv/creators-making-longer-videos-cater-youtube-algorithm/Pew Research Center. (2020). Many Americans Get News on YouTube, Where News Organizations and Independent Producers Thrive Side by Side. Pew Research Center. https://www.journalism.org/2020/09/28/many-americans-get-news-on-YouTube-where-news-organizations-and-independent-producers-thrive-side-by-side/Pick, M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). Influencer Marketing as a Counterstrategy to the Commoditization of Marketing Communications: A Bibliometric Analysis. In Commodity Marketing: Strategies, Concepts, and Cases (pp. 293–328). Springer International Publishing.Pickard, S. (2019a). Defining and Measuring Political Participation and Young People. In Politics, Protest and Young People: Political Participation and Dissent in 21st Century Britain (pp. 57–87). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57788-7_3Pickard, S. (2019b). Young People and DIO Politics: Do-It-Ourselves Political Participation. In S. Pickard (Ed.), Politics, Protest and Young People: Political Participation and Dissent in 21st Century Britain (pp. 375–405). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57788-7_12Pingree, R. J. (2007). How Messages Affect Their Senders: A More General Model of Message Effects and Implications for Deliberation. Communication Theory, 17(4), 439–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00306.xPoddar, U. (2022, June 19). Are YouTubers now as important as TV journalists in shaping Indian politics. Scroll.In. https://scroll.in/article/1025983/news-and-commentary-is-exploding-on-youtube-and-indian-politicians-want-to-control-itPrior, M. (2003). Any Good News in Soft News? The Impact of Soft News Preference on Political Knowledge. Political Communication, 20(2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600390211172Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and schuster.Quintelier, E., & Hooghe, M. (2011). Television and Political Participation Among Adolescents: The Impact of Television Viewing, Entertainment and Information Preferences. Mass Communication and Society, 14(5), 620–642. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2010.530383Raun, T. (2018). Capitalizing intimacy: New subcultural forms of micro-celebrity strategies and affective labour on YouTube. Convergence, 24(1), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517736983Reichert, F. (2016). How internal political efficacy translates political knowledge into political participation: Evidence from Germany. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 12(2), 221. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v12i2.1095Rill, L. A., & Cardiel, C. L. B. (2013). Funny, Ha-Ha: The Impact of User-Generated Political Satire on Political Attitudes. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(12), 1738–1756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213489016Rodelo, F. V. (2022). Why Can’t We Believe in That? Partisan Political Entertainment in the Mexican YouTube Sphere. Television & New Media, 24(4), 414–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/15274764221117170Roose K. (2019, June 8). The Making of a YouTube Radical. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/08/technology/youtube-radical.html, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/08/technology/youtube-radical.htmlRoth, F. S., Weinmann, C., Schneider, F. M., Hopp, F. R., & Vorderer, P. (2014). Seriously Entertained: Antecedents and Consequences of Hedonic and Eudaimonic Entertainment Experiences With Political Talk Shows on TV. Mass Communication and Society, 17(3), 379–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.891135Rubin, A. M., & Step, M. M. (2000). Impact of Motivation, Attraction, and Parasocial Interaction on Talk Radio listening. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(4), 635–654. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4404_7Saastad, P. V. (2020). Politisk influenser-kommunikasjon på YouTube [Unpublished master’s thesis, The University of Bergen]. https://hdl.handle.net/1956/24121Sairambay, Y. (2020). The Contemporary Challenges of Measuring Political Participation. Slovenská Politologická Revue, 20(2), 206–226. https://doi.org/10.34135/sjps.200202Santos, L. A., Voelkel, J. G., Willer, R., & Zaki, J. (2022). Belief in the Utility of Cross-Partisan Empathy Reduces Partisan Animosity and Facilitates Political Persuasion. Psychological Science, 33(9), 1557–1573. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221098594Sarason, S. B. (1974). The psychological sense of community. San Francisco.Schivinski, B., Christodoulides, G., & Dabrowski, D. (2016). Measuring Consumers’ Engagement With Brand-Related Social-Media Content. Journal of Advertising Research, 56(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2016-004Schmuck, D., Hirsch, M., Stevic, A., & Matthes, J. (2022). Politics – Simply Explained? How Influencers Affect Youth’s Perceived Simplification of Politics, Political Cynicism, and Political Interest. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(3), 738–762. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612221088987Schouten, A. P., Janssen, L., & Verspaget, M. (2020). Celebrity vs. Influencer endorsements in advertising: The role of identification, credibility, and Product-Endorser fit. International Journal of Advertising, 39(2), 258–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2019.1634898Schuetze, C. F. (2019, October 18). The German YouTuber Emerging as the Voice of a Generation. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/world/europe/germany-rezo-youtube.htmlSebastian, C. (2021, July 8). Beispiel Rezo: Wie Influencer Wahlen beeinflussen. Fachjournalist. https://www.fachjournalist.de/beispiel-rezo-wie-influencer-wahlen-beeinflussen/Senft, T. M. (2008). Camgirls: Celebrity and community in the age of social networks (Vol. 4). Peter Lang.Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and Expression in a Digital Age: Modeling Internet Effects on Civic Participation. Communication Research, 32(5), 531–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205279209Sokolova, K., & Kefi, H. (2020). Instagram and YouTube bloggers promote it, why should I buy? How credibility and parasocial interaction influence purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53, 101742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.011Solon, O. (2018, September 18). YouTube’s “alternative influence network” breeds rightwing radicalisation, report finds. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/18/report-youtubes-alternative-influence-network-breeds-rightwing-radicalisationSoriano, C. R. R., & Gaw, F. (2021). Platforms, alternative influence, and networked political brokerage on YouTube. Convergence, 13548565211029768. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565211029769Stenner‐Day, K., & Fischle, M. (1992). The effects of political participation on political efficacy: A simultaneous equations model. Australian Journal of Political Science, 27(2), 282–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/00323269208402195Stolle, D., Hooghe, M., & Micheletti, M. (2005). Politics in the supermarket: Political consumerism as a form of political participation. International Political Science Review, 26(3), 245–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512105053784Suk, J., Abhishek, A., Zhang, Y., Ahn, S. Y., Correa, T., Garlough, C., & Shah, D. V. (2021). #MeToo, Networked Acknowledgment, and Connective Action: How “Empowerment Through Empathy” Launched a Social Movement. Social Science Computer Review, 39(2), 276–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319864882Swimberghe, K., Darrat, M. A., Beal, B. D., & Astakhova, M. (2018). Examining a psychological sense of brand community in elderly consumers. Journal of Business Research, 82, 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.09.035Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Political psychology (pp. 276–293). Psychology Press.Talò, C., Mannarini, T., & Rochira, A. (2014). Sense of community and community participation: A meta-analytic review. Social Indicators Research, 117, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0347-2Tang, G., & Lee, F. L. (2013). Facebook use and political participation: The impact of exposure to shared political information, connections with public political actors, and network structural heterogeneity. Social Science Computer Review, 31(6), 763–773. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439313490625Theocharis, Y., de Moor, J., & van Deth, J. W. (2021). Digitally Networked Participation and Lifestyle Politics as New Modes of Political Participation. Policy & Internet, 13(1), 30–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.231Thomson, M. (2006). Human brands: Investigating antecedents to consumers’ strong attachments to celebrities. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.3.104Torres-Harding, S. R., Diaz, E., Schamberger, A., & Carollo, O. (2015). Psychological sense of community and university mission as predictors of student social justice engagement. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 19(3), 89–112.Tsai, W. H. S., & Men, L. R. (2013). Motivations and antecedents of consumer engagement with brand pages on social networking sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 13(2), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2013.826549Tuck, A. B., & Thompson, R. J. (2023). The Social Media Use Scale: Development and Validation. Assessment, 10731911231173080. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911231173080Valkenburg, P. M., van Driel, I. I., & Beyens, I. (2022). The associations of active and passive social media use with well-being: A critical scoping review. New Media & Society, 24(2), 530–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211065425van Deth, J. W. (2014). A conceptual map of political participation. Acta Politica, 49(3), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2014.6van Deth, J. W. (2016). What Is Political Participation? Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/ACREFORE/9780190228637.013.68Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1987). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. University of Chicago Press.Waeterloos, C., Walrave, M., & Ponnet, K. (2021). Designing and validating the Social Media Political Participation Scale: An instrument to measure political participation on social media. Technology in Society, 64, 101493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101493Wasike, B. (2023). I am an Influencer and I Approve This Message! Examining How Political Social Media Influencers Affect Political Interest, Political Trust, Political Efficacy, and Political Participation. International Journal of Communication, 17(0), Article 0.Waterloo, S. F., Baumgartner, S. E., Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2018). Norms of online expressions of emotion: Comparing Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and WhatsApp. New Media & Society, 20(5), 1813–1831. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817707349Weill, K. (2018, December 19). How YouTube Built a Radicalization Machine for the Far-Right. The Daily Beast. https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-youtube-pulled-these-men-down-a-vortex-of-far-right-hateWeinmann, C., & Vorderer, P. (2018). A normative perspective for political entertainment research: Connecting deliberative democracy and entertainment theory. Communication Theory, 28(4), 466–486. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qty018Wen, N. (2017). Celebrity Influence and Young People’s Attitudes Toward Cosmetic Surgery in Singapore: The Role of Parasocial Relationships and Identification. International Journal of Communication, 11(0), Article 0.Wurst, C. (2022). Bread and Plots: Conspiracy Theories and the Rhetorical Style of Political Influencer Communities on YouTube. Media and Communication, 10(4), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i4.5807Xu, Y., Abeele, M. V., Hou, M., & Antheunis, M. (2022). Do parasocial relationships with micro-and mainstream celebrities differ? An empirical study testing four attributes of the parasocial relationship. Celebrity Studies.Yoo, J. H. (2013). No clear winner: Effects of The Biggest Loser on the stigmatization of obese persons. Health Communication, 28(3), 294–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2012.684143Yu, R. P. (2016). The relationship between passive and active non-political social media use and political expression on Facebook and Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 413–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.019Zhang, W., & Storck, J. (2001). Peripheral members in online communities. AMCIS 2001 Proceedings. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2001/117Zimmermann, D., Noll, C., Gräßer, L., Hugger, K.-U., Braun, L. M., Nowak, T., & Kaspar, K. (2020). Influencers on YouTube: A quantitative study on young people’s use and perception of videos about political and societal topics. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01164-7 【韓文部分】임병도 (2023). "문재인 곧 감옥행"... `극우 유튜버` 차관급 내정한 윤 대통령. 아이엠피터뉴스. Retrieved from http://www.impeternews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=61098설진아. (2023). 유튜브 정치/시사 채널 이용자의 댓글 관여 방식과 반응에 관한 연구: 정치적 성향을 중심으로. 한국방송학보, 37(2), 119-153.권오주, & 민영. (2015). 정치엔터테인먼트 시청이 정치대화에 미치는 영향: 관여도와 정치정보효능감의 매개 효과. 한국언론정보학보, 7-34.【俄文部分】Д.в, Р. (2021). Специфика реакции молодежной аудитории на отражение социальных проблем в видеоблогах: Кейс видео «ВИЧ в России» на YouTube-канале «Вдудь». Политика и Общество, 2, 53–67. https://doi.org/10.7256/2454-0684.2021.2.36242 zh_TW
