Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
Google ScholarTM
NCCU Library
Citation Infomation
Related Publications in TAIR
題名 從驚訝闡述傾向探討偶然政治醜聞暴露對政治討論與表達的影響
The Impact of Incidental Political Scandal Exposure on Political Discussion and Expression from the Surprised Elaboration Tendency作者 陳宴馨
Chen, Yan-Sin貢獻者 韓義興
陳宴馨
Chen, Yan-Sin關鍵詞 偶然新聞暴露
驚訝
驚訝闡述
政治討論
政治表達
政治醜聞
Incidental news exposure
Surprise
Surprised elaboration
Political discussion
Political expression
Political scandal日期 2024 上傳時間 5-Aug-2024 14:10:26 (UTC+8) 摘要 本研究探討社群媒體偶然新聞暴露下，個人偶然接觸到政治人物醜聞新聞時產生的驚訝，以及驚訝情緒對社群媒體上政治討論意願與政治表達傾向的影響，將Eskreis-Winkler 與 Fishbach（2022）所提出的驚訝闡述傾向（surprised elaboration）延伸至社群媒體上的政治參與行為動機來進行探索與檢驗。本研究採線上實驗法，實驗設計以Facebook上的文字貼文形式呈現刺激物，並分為兩組，分別為偶然暴露於政治醜聞新聞的實驗組和沒有政治醜聞暴露的控制組。 本研究發現，在不考慮驚訝情緒的情況下，偶然政治醜聞新聞暴露對政治討論意願與政治表達傾向並無顯著影響，然而，當加入驚訝情緒作為中介時，有偶然政治醜聞新聞暴露的個人會因為驚訝程度越高，而有更高的政治討論意圖與政治表達傾向。 這樣的結果強調了驚訝情緒在資訊處理過程中的重要性，以及驚訝在偶然暴露於政治醜聞新聞時對政治討論與表達傾向的正向中介效果。此結果可供新聞從業者和政治內容發布者進一步思考，如何針對政治醜聞或是令人感到驚訝的政治事件進行揭露與傳播，以提升公民政治討論與表達的行為傾向，進而加速政治新聞傳播、促進政治參與行為。
This study examines the impact of incidental exposure to political scandal news on social media on individuals' surprise and how this surprise influences their intentions for political discussion and expression on social media. The research extends the concept of "surprised elaboration" proposed by Eskreis-Winkler and Fishbach (2022) to the context of political participation on social media. An online experiment was conducted using Facebook text posts, with participants divided into an experimental group exposed to political scandal news and a control group with non-scandal news exposure. The findings indicate that without considering surprise, incidental exposure to political scandal news does not significantly affect political discussion or expression intentions. However, when surprise is included as a mediator, higher levels of surprise due to scandal news exposure lead to increased political discussion and expression intentions. These results underscore the importance of surprise in information processing and its positive mediating effect on political discussion intention and expression tendency. This insight is valuable for journalists and political content creators in enhancing the dissemination and disclosure of political scandal news, thereby promoting political participation intentions and behaviors.參考文獻 一、 中文文獻 王揚宇（2022年12月5日）。遭館長指邀請一起罵政府 陳明文臉書喊冤。中央通訊社。取自：https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/202212020330.aspx 沈佩瑤（2022年1月25日）。林秉樞涉施暴高嘉瑜 檢方依8項罪嫌起訴。中央通訊社。取自：https://www.cna.com.tw/news/asoc/202201250338.aspx 李韋廷（2008）。《審議式民主與大眾傳播媒體新角色初探。》，國立政治大學碩士論文。 呂晏慈（2022年12月2日）。陳明文要求警政署大掃黑 「再沒動作就是被黑幫瞧不起」。ETtoday新聞雲。取自：https://www.ettoday.net/news/20221205/2394989.htm 林淑芳（2018）。社群媒體與政治公民參與：網路政治討論頻率與政治討論異質性的中介角色，傳播與社會學刊，44，25-48。https://doi.org/10.30180/CS.201804_(44).0003 俞蘋（2019）。有心或無意？：社群媒體上的新聞與政治資訊使用，中華傳播學刊，36，39-79。https://doi.org/10.3966/172635812019120036002 張卿卿、陶振超（2022）。臺灣傳播調查資料庫第二期 第五次(2021年):新傳播科技與人際延伸【執行報告】。中央研究院臺灣傳播調查資料庫。取自：https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-D00224_1- 1。 黃麗芸（2022年2月16日）。網傳不雅照遭影射 刑事局受理高嘉瑜報案。中央通訊社。取自：https://www.cna.com.tw/news/asoc/202202160052.aspx 葉素萍（2022年4月7日）。陳水扁公布國務機要費1.3億21項支出 稱沒有不法所得。中央通訊社。https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/202204070268.aspx 鄭麗玉（2006）。《認知心理學：理論與應用（三版）》，臺北市：五南。 劉世怡（2022年7月15日）。國務機要費等案偵審大事記。中央通訊社。取自：https://www.cna.com.tw/news/asoc/202207150056.aspx 劉世怡（2022年7月15日）。詐領國務費法律廢止刑罰 更二審判陳水扁免訴。中央通訊社。取自：https://www.cna.com.tw/news/asoc/202207150111.aspx 二、 英文文獻 Barto, A., Mirolli, M., & Baldassarre, G. (2013). Novelty or surprise?. Frontiers in psychology, 4, 907. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00907 Beaudoin, C. E. (2008). Explaining the Relationship between Internet Use and Interpersonal Trust: Taking into Account Motivation and Information Overload. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(3), 550–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00410.x Burgoon, J. K. (2015). Expectancy Violations Theory. In The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 1–9). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic102 Burgoon, J. K., & Le Poire, B. A. (1993). Effects of Communication Expectancies, Actual Communication, and Expectancy Disconfirmation on Evaluations of Communicators and Their Communication Behavior. Human Communication Research, 20(1), 67–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00316.x Boczkowski, P. J., Mitchelstein, E., & Matassi, M. (2018). “News comes across when I’m in a moment of leisure”: Understanding the practices of incidental news consumption on social media. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3523–3539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817750396 Bode, L., Vraga, E. K., Borah, P., & Shah, D. V. (2014). A New Space for Political Behavior: Political Social Networking and its Democratic Consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 414–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12048 Bode, L. (2016). Political News in the News Feed: Learning Politics from Social Media. Mass Communication and Society, 19(1), 24–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1045149 Brundidge, J. (2010). Encountering “Difference” in the Contemporary Public Sphere: The Contribution of the Internet to the Heterogeneity of Political Discussion Networks. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 680–700. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01509.x Chaiken, S. (1980). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. Zanna, J. Olson, & C. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (vol. 5., pp. 3–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chanley, V. A., Rudolph, T. J., & Rahn, W. M. (2000). The Origins and Consequences of Public Trust in Government: A Time Series Analysis. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(3), 239–256. JSTOR. Chen, H.-T., Kim, Y., & Chan, M. (2021). Just a Glance, or More? Pathways from Counter-Attitudinal Incidental Exposure to Attitude (De)Polarization Through Response Behaviors and Cognitive Elaboration. Journal of Communication, 72(1), 83–110. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab046 Cho, 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.x Choi, S. (2014). Flow, Diversity, Form, and Influence of Political Talk in Social-Media-Based Public Forums. Human Communication Research, 40(2), 209–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12023 Damico, A. J., Conway, M. M., & Damico, S. B. (2000). Patterns of Political Trust and Mistrust: Three Moments in the Lives of Democratic Citizens. Polity, 32(3), 377–400. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/3235357 Downey, J., & Stanyer, J. (2013). Exposing Politicians’ Peccadilloes in Comparative Context: Explaining the Frequency of Political Sex Scandals in Eight Democracies Using Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Political Communication, 30(3), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2012.737434 Downs A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper. Dziuda, W., & Howell, W. G. (2021). Political Scandal: A Theory. American Journal of Political Science, 65(1), 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12568 Eveland, Jr., & William, P. (2004). The Effect of Political Discussion in Producing Informed Citizens: The Roles of Information, Motivation, and Elaboration. Political Communication, 21(2), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600490443877 Eveland Jr., W. P., & Hively, M. H. (2009). Political Discussion Frequency, Network Size, and “Heterogeneity” of Discussion as Predictors of Political Knowledge and Participation. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01412.x Eveland Jr., W. P., & Thomson, T. (2006). Is It Talking, Thinking, or Both? A Lagged Dependent Variable Model of Discussion Effects on Political Knowledge. Journal of Communication, 56(3), 523–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00299.x Eskreis-Winkler, L., & Fishbach, A. (2022). Surprised elaboration: When White men get longer sentences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000297 Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018). Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2450–2468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817724170 fForgas, J. P. (1992). Affect in social judgments and decisions: A multiprocessmodel. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 25, 227–275. New York: Academic Press Foster, M. I., & Keane, M. T. (2019). The Role of Surprise in Learning: Different Surprising Outcomes Affect Memorability Differentially. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12392 Frijda, N. H. (2004). Emotions and Action. In A. S. R. Manstead, N. Frijda, & A. Fischer (Eds.), Feelings and Emotions: The Amsterdam Symposium, 158–173. chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gil de Zúñiga, H., Molyneux, L., & Zheng, P. (2014). Social Media, Political Expression, and Political Participation: Panel Analysis of Lagged and Concurrent Relationships. Journal of Communication, 64, 612–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12103 Gil de Zúñiga, H., Weeks, B., & Ardèvol-Abreu, A. (2017). Effects of the News-Finds-Me Perception in Communication: Social Media Use Implications for News Seeking and Learning About Politics. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(3), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12185 Haynes, A. A., Flowers, J. F., & Gurian, P.-H. (2002). Getting the Message Out: Candidate Communication Strategy during the Invisible Primary. Political Research Quarterly, 55(3), 633–652. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088034 Heiss, R., & Matthes, J. (2019). Does incidental exposure on social media equalize or reinforce participatory gaps? Evidence from a panel study. New Media & Society, 21(11–12), 2463–2482. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819850755 Hirsch, P. M., & Milner, D. (2016). When Scandals Yield “It’s About Time!” Rather Than “We’re Shocked and Surprised!”. Journal of Management Inquiry, 25(4), 447-449. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492616651234 Hutter, K., & Hoffmann, S. (2014). Surprise, Surprise. Ambient Media as Promotion Tool for Retailers. Journal of Retailing, 90(1), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2013.08.001 Ju, A., Jeong, S. H., & Chyi, H. I. (2014). Will Social Media Save Newspapers? Journalism Practice, 8(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.794022 Kahlor, L., Dunwoody, S., Griffin, R. J., Neuwirth, K., & Giese, J. (2003). Studying heuristic-systematic processing of risk communication. Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 23(2), 355–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00314 Kaiser, J., Keller, T. R., & Königslöw, K. K. (2021). Incidental News Exposure on Facebook as a Social Experience: The Influence of Recommender and Media Cues on News Selection. Communication Research, 48(1), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218803529 Karnowski, V., Kümpel, A. S., Leonhard, L., & Leiner, D. J. (2017). From incidental news exposure to news engagement. How perceptions of the news post and news usage patterns influence engagement with news articles encountered on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.041 Kim, Y., Chen, H.-T., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2013). Stumbling upon news on the Internet: Effects of incidental news exposure and relative entertainment use on political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2607–2614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.005 Knoll, J., Matthes, J., & Heiss, R. (2018). The social media political participation model: A goal systems theory perspective. Convergence, 26(1), 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517750366 Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing.” Psychological Review, 103(2), 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.263 Krugman, H. E., & Hartley, E. L. (1970). Passive Learning FromTelevision. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34(2), 184–190. https://doi.org/10.1086/267788 Kumlin, S., & Esaiasson, P. (2012). Scandal Fatigue? Scandal Elections and Satisfaction with Democracy in Western Europe, 1977–2007. British Journal of Political Science, 42(2), 263–282. Cambridge Core. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712341100024X Kümpel, A. S. (2020). The Matthew Effect in social media news use: Assessing inequalities in news exposure and news engagement on social network sites (SNS). Journalism, 21(8), 1083–1098. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920915374 Kwak, N., Williams, A. E., Wang, X., & Lee, H. (2005). Talking Politics and Engaging Politics: An Examination of the Interactive Relationships Between Structural Features of Political Talk and Discussion Engagement. Communication Research, 32(1), 87–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650204271400 Lazarus, R. S.(1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195069945.001.0001. Lee, J. K., & Kim, E. (2017). Incidental exposure to news: Predictors in the social media setting and effects on information gain online. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 1008–1015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.018 Lee, S. H. (2022). "Constructive Consciousness of Gen-pro: Transforming Political Engagement with a Proactive Behavior, a Progressive Attitude, and a Professional Mindset." Dissertation, Georgia State University, https://doi.org/10.57709/30435566 Lee, S., Nanz, A., Heiss, R. (2022). Platform-dependent effects of incidental exposure to political news on political knowledge and political participation. Computers in Human Behavior, 127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107048. Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75 Loewenstein, J. (2019). Surprise, Recipes for Surprise, and Social Influence. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11(1), 178–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12312 Lu, Y. (2019). Incidental Exposure to Political Disagreement on Facebook and Corrective Participation: Unraveling the Effects of Emotional Responses and Issue Relevance. International Journal of Communication, 13. Lu, Y., & Lee, J. K. (2019). Stumbling upon the other side: Incidental learning of counter-attitudinal political information on Facebook. New Media & Society, 21(1), 248–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818793421 Macedo, L., Cardoso, A., Reisenzein, R., Lorini, E., & Castelfranchi, C. (2009). Artificial Surprise. Handbook of research on synthetic emotions and sociable robotics : New applications in affective computing and artificial intelligence, 267–291. Hershey: IGI Global. McClurg, S. D. (2006). Political Disagreement in Context: The Conditional Effect of Neighborhood Context, Disagreement and Political Talk on Electoral Participation. Political Behavior, 28(4), 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-006-9015-4 Maguire, P., & Maguire, R. (2009, January). Investigating the Difference between Surprise and Probability Judgments. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 31. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0xz0s3v1 Maguire, R., Maguire, P., & Keane, M. T. (2011). Making sense of surprise: An investigation of the factors influencing surprise judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021609 Maguire, P., Moser, P., Maguire, R., & Keane, M. T. (2019). Seeing Patterns in Randomness: A Computational Model of Surprise. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11(1), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12345 Maier, J. (2011). The Impact of Political Scandals on Political Support: An Experimental Test of Two Theories. International Political Science Review - INT POLIT SCI REV, 32, 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512110378056 Marcus, G. (2000). Emotions in politics. ANNUAL REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 3, 221–250. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.221 Martin, B. N. (2011). Using a Theory of Expectations to Understand why There is Variation in Voter Response to Political Scandals. UC Riverside. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1zf5p796 Mandler, G. (1984). Mind and Body: Psychology of Emotion and Stress. New York: Norton. Matthes, J., Nanz, A., Stubenvoll, M., & Heiss, R. (2020). Processing news on social media. The political incidental news exposure model (PINE). Journalism, 21(8), 1031–1048. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920915371 Mcleod, 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/10.1080/105846099198659 Meyer, W.-U., Reisenzein, R., & Schuetzwohl, A. (1997). Toward a Process Analysis of Emotions: The Case of Surprise. Motivation and Emotion, 21, 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024422330338 Nabi, R. L. (2003). Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do discrete emotions differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference? Communication Research, 30(2), 224–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202250881 Namkoong, K., Fung, T. K. F., & Scheufele, D. A. (2012). The Politics of Emotion: News Media Attention, Emotional Responses, and Participation During the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election. Mass Communication and Society, 15(1), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.563894 Nanz, A., & Matthes, J. (2020). Learning from Incidental Exposure to Political Information in Online Environments, Journal of Communication, 70(6), 769–793. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaa031 Nanz, A., & Matthes, J. (2022). Democratic Consequences of Incidental Exposure to Political Information: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Communication, 72(3), 345–373. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqac008 Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. (2018). The Role of Engagement in Learning From Active and Incidental News Exposure on Social Media. Mass Communication and Society, 21(2), 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2017.1384022 Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., & Sundar, S. S. (2015). Posting, commenting, and tagging: Effects of sharing news stories on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 240–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.024 Liedke, J. & Matsa, K. E. (2022, September 20). Social Media and News Fact Sheet. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/social-media-and-news-fact-sheet/ Li, M., & Vitányi, P. (1997). An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications. In Graduate Texts in Computer Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2606-0 Pingree, 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.x Plutchik, R. (1982). A psychoevolutionary theory of emotions. Social Science Information, 21(4–5), 529–553. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901882021004003 Prior M. (2007). Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reichardt, R., Polner, B., & Simor, P. (2020). Novelty Manipulations, Memory Performance, and Predictive Coding: The Role of Unexpectedness. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.00152 Reinemann, C., Stanyer, J., Scherr, S., & Legnante, G. (2012). Hard and soft news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13(2), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911427803 Reisenzein, R., Horstmann, G., & Schützwohl, A. (2019). The Cognitive-Evolutionary Model of Surprise: A Review of the Evidence. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11(1), 50–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12292 Reisenzein, R., Meyer, W.-U., & Niepel, M. (2012). Surprise. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (2nd ed, pp. 564–570). Oxford, England: Academic Press. Roseman, I. J. (1996). Appraisal Determinants of Emotions: Constructing a More Accurate and Comprehensive Theory. Cognition and Emotion, 10(3), 241–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999396380240 Rumelhart, D. E. (1984). Schemata and the cognitive system. Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Emotion and adaptation. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 609–637). The Guilford Press. Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). “I don’t feel like it”: The function of interest in self-regulation. Striving and Feeling: Interactions among Goals, Affect, and Self-Regulation., 203–228. Schäfer, S. (2023). Incidental news exposure in a digital media environment: A scoping review of recent research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 47(2), 242–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2023.2169953 Schützwohl, A. (1998). Surprise and schema strength. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1182–1199. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.5.1182 Shah, D., Cho, J., Eveland, W., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and Expression in a Digital Age Modeling Internet Effects on Civic Participation. Communication Research - COMMUN RES, 32, 531–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205279209 Shen, L., Fishbach, A., & Hsee, C. (2015). The Motivating-Uncertainty Effect: Uncertainty Increases Resource Investment in the Process of Reward Pursuit. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 1301–1315. https://doi.org/10.1086/679418 Shoemaker, P., & Reese, S. (1996). Mediating the Message: Theories of Influence on Mass Media Content (2nd ed.). New York: Longman. Skavronskaya, L., Moyle, B., Scott, N., & Schaffer, V. (2021). Novelty, unexpectedness and surprise: A conceptual clarification. Tourism Recreation Research, 46(4), 548–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2020.1828556 Smith, E. S., Powers, A. S., & Suarez, G. A. (2005). If Bill Clinton Were a Woman: The Effectiveness of Male and Female Politicians’ Account Strategies Following Alleged Transgressions. Political Psychology, 26(1), 115–134. JSTOR. Stangor, C. and Walinga, J. (2014). Introduction to Psychology – 1st Canadian Edition. Victoria, B.C.: BCcampus. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontopsychology/ Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. JSTOR. Teigen, K. H., & Keren, G. (2003). Surprises: Low probabilities or high contrasts? Cognition, 87(2), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00201-9 Tewksbury, D., Weaver, A. J., & Maddex, B. D. (2001). Accidentally Informed: Incidental News Exposure on the World Wide Web. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(3), 533–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900107800309 Thompson, John B. (2000). Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age Cambridge: Polity Press Vaccari, C., Valeriani, A., Barberá, P., Bonneau, R., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. A. (2015). Political Expression and Action on Social Media: Exploring the Relationship Between Lower- and Higher-Threshold Political Activities Among Twitter Users in Italy. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12108 Valeriani, A., & Vaccari, C. (2016). Accidental exposure to politics on social media as online participation equalizer in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. New Media & Society, 18(9), 1857–1874. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815616223 Vanhamme, J. (2000). The Link Between Surprise and Satisfaction: An Exploratory Research on how best to Measure Surprise. Journal of Marketing Management, 16(6), 565–582. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725700785045949 Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and Equality. Harvard University Press; JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1pnc1k7 von Sikorski, C., Heiss, R., & Matthes, J. (2020). How Political Scandals Affect the Electorate. Tracing the Eroding and Spillover Effects of Scandals with a Panel Study. Political Psychology, 41(3), 549–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12638 Weber, C. (2013). Emotions, Campaigns, and Political Participation. Political Research Quarterly, 66(2), 414–428. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23563153 Weeks, B., Lane, D., Kim, D., Lee, S., & Kwak, N. (2017). Incidental Exposure, Selective Exposure, and Political Information Sharing: Integrating Online Exposure Patterns and Expression on Social Media: POLITICAL INFORMATION EXPOSURE AND SHARING. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12199 Wieland, M., & Königslöw, K. K. (2020). Conceptualizing different forms of news processing following incidental news contact: A triple-path model. Journalism, 21(8), 1049–1066. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920915353 Yu, 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.2016.01.019 Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M. A., Marganski, A., Baran, T., & Piotrowski, J. (2017). Corruption and sexual scandal: The importance of politician gender. Anales de Psicología, 33, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.32.3.229171 Zhu, J., & Thagard, P. (2002). Emotion and action. Philosophical Psychology, 15(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515080120109397 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
傳播學院傳播碩士學位學程
110464052資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110464052 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 韓義興 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) 陳宴馨 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chen, Yan-Sin en_US dc.creator (作者) 陳宴馨 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Chen, Yan-Sin en_US dc.date (日期) 2024 en_US dc.date.accessioned 5-Aug-2024 14:10:26 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 5-Aug-2024 14:10:26 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 5-Aug-2024 14:10:26 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0110464052 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/152815 - 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) 110464052 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究探討社群媒體偶然新聞暴露下，個人偶然接觸到政治人物醜聞新聞時產生的驚訝，以及驚訝情緒對社群媒體上政治討論意願與政治表達傾向的影響，將Eskreis-Winkler 與 Fishbach（2022）所提出的驚訝闡述傾向（surprised elaboration）延伸至社群媒體上的政治參與行為動機來進行探索與檢驗。本研究採線上實驗法，實驗設計以Facebook上的文字貼文形式呈現刺激物，並分為兩組，分別為偶然暴露於政治醜聞新聞的實驗組和沒有政治醜聞暴露的控制組。 本研究發現，在不考慮驚訝情緒的情況下，偶然政治醜聞新聞暴露對政治討論意願與政治表達傾向並無顯著影響，然而，當加入驚訝情緒作為中介時，有偶然政治醜聞新聞暴露的個人會因為驚訝程度越高，而有更高的政治討論意圖與政治表達傾向。 這樣的結果強調了驚訝情緒在資訊處理過程中的重要性，以及驚訝在偶然暴露於政治醜聞新聞時對政治討論與表達傾向的正向中介效果。此結果可供新聞從業者和政治內容發布者進一步思考，如何針對政治醜聞或是令人感到驚訝的政治事件進行揭露與傳播，以提升公民政治討論與表達的行為傾向，進而加速政治新聞傳播、促進政治參與行為。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) This study examines the impact of incidental exposure to political scandal news on social media on individuals' surprise and how this surprise influences their intentions for political discussion and expression on social media. The research extends the concept of "surprised elaboration" proposed by Eskreis-Winkler and Fishbach (2022) to the context of political participation on social media. An online experiment was conducted using Facebook text posts, with participants divided into an experimental group exposed to political scandal news and a control group with non-scandal news exposure. The findings indicate that without considering surprise, incidental exposure to political scandal news does not significantly affect political discussion or expression intentions. However, when surprise is included as a mediator, higher levels of surprise due to scandal news exposure lead to increased political discussion and expression intentions. These results underscore the importance of surprise in information processing and its positive mediating effect on political discussion intention and expression tendency. This insight is valuable for journalists and political content creators in enhancing the dissemination and disclosure of political scandal news, thereby promoting political participation intentions and behaviors. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究問題 3 第三節 研究目的 5 第二章 文獻探討 6 第一節 偶然新聞暴露 6 一、 偶然暴露 6 二、 偶然新聞暴露 6 第二節 政治參與、政治討論與表達 8 一、 政治參與 8 二、 政治討論與政治表達 8 第三節 驚訝與驚訝闡述傾向 11 一、 驚訝情緒與驚訝感 11 二、 驚訝闡述 12 第四節 政治醜聞 15 第三章 研究方法 18 第一節 研究架構 18 第二節 研究假設與研究問題 19 第三節 研究流程與實驗設計 20 一、 實驗刺激物 20 二、 前測 27 三、 正式實驗 28 第四節 變項測量 30 一、 操弄檢定 30 二、 中介變項 30 三、 應變項 32 四、 控制變項 33 第四章 研究結果 36 第一節 樣本與描述性統計 36 第二節 操弄檢定 37 第三節 研究問題與假設檢定 38 一、 偶然政治醜聞新聞暴露對政治討論與政治表達之效果 38 二、 驚訝對政治討論與政治表達之效果 43 三、 偶然政治醜聞新聞暴露對驚訝之效果 46 四、 驚訝的中介效果 47 五、 問題與假設驗證小結 49 第五章 結論 50 第一節 研究發現與結論 50 一、 偶然政治醜聞新聞暴露對政治討論與政治表達的影響 50 二、 驚訝情緒能夠提升政治討論及政治表達 52 三、 偶然政治醜聞新聞暴露會引起更高程度的驚訝情緒 53 四、 驚訝情緒提升偶然新聞暴露下政治討論及政治表達的效果 54 第二節 研究貢獻 57 一、 學術貢獻 57 二、 實務貢獻 58 第三節 研究限制與未來研究建議 60 一、 實驗刺激物與樣本篩選的限制 60 二、 量表使用及測量之限制與建議 60 三、 未來研究建議 61 參考文獻 64 一、 中文文獻 64 二、 英文文獻 65 附錄 75 附錄一：前測問卷（實驗組） 75 附錄二：前測問卷（控制組） 84 附錄三：正式問卷（實驗組） 93 附錄四：正式問卷（控制組） 100 附錄五：研究倫理審查通過證明書 106 zh_TW dc.format.extent 4967013 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110464052 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 偶然新聞暴露 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 驚訝 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 驚訝闡述 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 政治討論 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 政治表達 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 政治醜聞 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Incidental news exposure en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Surprise en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Surprised elaboration en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Political discussion en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Political expression en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Political scandal en_US dc.title (題名) 從驚訝闡述傾向探討偶然政治醜聞暴露對政治討論與表達的影響 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The Impact of Incidental Political Scandal Exposure on Political Discussion and Expression from the Surprised Elaboration Tendency en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、 中文文獻 王揚宇（2022年12月5日）。遭館長指邀請一起罵政府 陳明文臉書喊冤。中央通訊社。取自：https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/202212020330.aspx 沈佩瑤（2022年1月25日）。林秉樞涉施暴高嘉瑜 檢方依8項罪嫌起訴。中央通訊社。取自：https://www.cna.com.tw/news/asoc/202201250338.aspx 李韋廷（2008）。《審議式民主與大眾傳播媒體新角色初探。》，國立政治大學碩士論文。 呂晏慈（2022年12月2日）。陳明文要求警政署大掃黑 「再沒動作就是被黑幫瞧不起」。ETtoday新聞雲。取自：https://www.ettoday.net/news/20221205/2394989.htm 林淑芳（2018）。社群媒體與政治公民參與：網路政治討論頻率與政治討論異質性的中介角色，傳播與社會學刊，44，25-48。https://doi.org/10.30180/CS.201804_(44).0003 俞蘋（2019）。有心或無意？：社群媒體上的新聞與政治資訊使用，中華傳播學刊，36，39-79。https://doi.org/10.3966/172635812019120036002 張卿卿、陶振超（2022）。臺灣傳播調查資料庫第二期 第五次(2021年):新傳播科技與人際延伸【執行報告】。中央研究院臺灣傳播調查資料庫。取自：https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-D00224_1- 1。 黃麗芸（2022年2月16日）。網傳不雅照遭影射 刑事局受理高嘉瑜報案。中央通訊社。取自：https://www.cna.com.tw/news/asoc/202202160052.aspx 葉素萍（2022年4月7日）。陳水扁公布國務機要費1.3億21項支出 稱沒有不法所得。中央通訊社。https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/202204070268.aspx 鄭麗玉（2006）。《認知心理學：理論與應用（三版）》，臺北市：五南。 劉世怡（2022年7月15日）。國務機要費等案偵審大事記。中央通訊社。取自：https://www.cna.com.tw/news/asoc/202207150056.aspx 劉世怡（2022年7月15日）。詐領國務費法律廢止刑罰 更二審判陳水扁免訴。中央通訊社。取自：https://www.cna.com.tw/news/asoc/202207150111.aspx 二、 英文文獻 Barto, A., Mirolli, M., & Baldassarre, G. (2013). Novelty or surprise?. Frontiers in psychology, 4, 907. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00907 Beaudoin, C. E. (2008). Explaining the Relationship between Internet Use and Interpersonal Trust: Taking into Account Motivation and Information Overload. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(3), 550–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00410.x Burgoon, J. K. (2015). Expectancy Violations Theory. In The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 1–9). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic102 Burgoon, J. K., & Le Poire, B. A. (1993). Effects of Communication Expectancies, Actual Communication, and Expectancy Disconfirmation on Evaluations of Communicators and Their Communication Behavior. Human Communication Research, 20(1), 67–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00316.x Boczkowski, P. J., Mitchelstein, E., & Matassi, M. (2018). “News comes across when I’m in a moment of leisure”: Understanding the practices of incidental news consumption on social media. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3523–3539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817750396 Bode, L., Vraga, E. K., Borah, P., & Shah, D. V. (2014). A New Space for Political Behavior: Political Social Networking and its Democratic Consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 414–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12048 Bode, L. (2016). Political News in the News Feed: Learning Politics from Social Media. Mass Communication and Society, 19(1), 24–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1045149 Brundidge, J. (2010). Encountering “Difference” in the Contemporary Public Sphere: The Contribution of the Internet to the Heterogeneity of Political Discussion Networks. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 680–700. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01509.x Chaiken, S. (1980). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. Zanna, J. Olson, & C. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (vol. 5., pp. 3–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chanley, V. A., Rudolph, T. J., & Rahn, W. M. (2000). The Origins and Consequences of Public Trust in Government: A Time Series Analysis. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(3), 239–256. JSTOR. Chen, H.-T., Kim, Y., & Chan, M. (2021). Just a Glance, or More? Pathways from Counter-Attitudinal Incidental Exposure to Attitude (De)Polarization Through Response Behaviors and Cognitive Elaboration. Journal of Communication, 72(1), 83–110. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab046 Cho, 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.x Choi, S. (2014). Flow, Diversity, Form, and Influence of Political Talk in Social-Media-Based Public Forums. Human Communication Research, 40(2), 209–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12023 Damico, A. J., Conway, M. M., & Damico, S. B. (2000). Patterns of Political Trust and Mistrust: Three Moments in the Lives of Democratic Citizens. Polity, 32(3), 377–400. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/3235357 Downey, J., & Stanyer, J. (2013). Exposing Politicians’ Peccadilloes in Comparative Context: Explaining the Frequency of Political Sex Scandals in Eight Democracies Using Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Political Communication, 30(3), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2012.737434 Downs A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper. Dziuda, W., & Howell, W. G. (2021). Political Scandal: A Theory. American Journal of Political Science, 65(1), 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12568 Eveland, Jr., & William, P. (2004). The Effect of Political Discussion in Producing Informed Citizens: The Roles of Information, Motivation, and Elaboration. Political Communication, 21(2), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600490443877 Eveland Jr., W. P., & Hively, M. H. (2009). Political Discussion Frequency, Network Size, and “Heterogeneity” of Discussion as Predictors of Political Knowledge and Participation. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01412.x Eveland Jr., W. P., & Thomson, T. (2006). Is It Talking, Thinking, or Both? A Lagged Dependent Variable Model of Discussion Effects on Political Knowledge. Journal of Communication, 56(3), 523–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00299.x Eskreis-Winkler, L., & Fishbach, A. (2022). Surprised elaboration: When White men get longer sentences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000297 Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018). Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2450–2468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817724170 fForgas, J. P. (1992). Affect in social judgments and decisions: A multiprocessmodel. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 25, 227–275. New York: Academic Press Foster, M. I., & Keane, M. T. (2019). The Role of Surprise in Learning: Different Surprising Outcomes Affect Memorability Differentially. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12392 Frijda, N. H. (2004). Emotions and Action. In A. S. R. Manstead, N. Frijda, & A. Fischer (Eds.), Feelings and Emotions: The Amsterdam Symposium, 158–173. chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gil de Zúñiga, H., Molyneux, L., & Zheng, P. (2014). Social Media, Political Expression, and Political Participation: Panel Analysis of Lagged and Concurrent Relationships. Journal of Communication, 64, 612–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12103 Gil de Zúñiga, H., Weeks, B., & Ardèvol-Abreu, A. (2017). Effects of the News-Finds-Me Perception in Communication: Social Media Use Implications for News Seeking and Learning About Politics. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(3), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12185 Haynes, A. A., Flowers, J. F., & Gurian, P.-H. (2002). Getting the Message Out: Candidate Communication Strategy during the Invisible Primary. Political Research Quarterly, 55(3), 633–652. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088034 Heiss, R., & Matthes, J. (2019). Does incidental exposure on social media equalize or reinforce participatory gaps? Evidence from a panel study. New Media & Society, 21(11–12), 2463–2482. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819850755 Hirsch, P. M., & Milner, D. (2016). When Scandals Yield “It’s About Time!” Rather Than “We’re Shocked and Surprised!”. Journal of Management Inquiry, 25(4), 447-449. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492616651234 Hutter, K., & Hoffmann, S. (2014). Surprise, Surprise. Ambient Media as Promotion Tool for Retailers. Journal of Retailing, 90(1), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2013.08.001 Ju, A., Jeong, S. H., & Chyi, H. I. (2014). Will Social Media Save Newspapers? Journalism Practice, 8(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.794022 Kahlor, L., Dunwoody, S., Griffin, R. J., Neuwirth, K., & Giese, J. (2003). Studying heuristic-systematic processing of risk communication. Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 23(2), 355–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00314 Kaiser, J., Keller, T. R., & Königslöw, K. K. (2021). Incidental News Exposure on Facebook as a Social Experience: The Influence of Recommender and Media Cues on News Selection. Communication Research, 48(1), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218803529 Karnowski, V., Kümpel, A. S., Leonhard, L., & Leiner, D. J. (2017). From incidental news exposure to news engagement. How perceptions of the news post and news usage patterns influence engagement with news articles encountered on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.041 Kim, Y., Chen, H.-T., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2013). Stumbling upon news on the Internet: Effects of incidental news exposure and relative entertainment use on political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2607–2614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.005 Knoll, J., Matthes, J., & Heiss, R. (2018). The social media political participation model: A goal systems theory perspective. Convergence, 26(1), 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517750366 Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing.” Psychological Review, 103(2), 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.263 Krugman, H. E., & Hartley, E. L. (1970). Passive Learning FromTelevision. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34(2), 184–190. https://doi.org/10.1086/267788 Kumlin, S., & Esaiasson, P. (2012). Scandal Fatigue? Scandal Elections and Satisfaction with Democracy in Western Europe, 1977–2007. British Journal of Political Science, 42(2), 263–282. Cambridge Core. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712341100024X Kümpel, A. S. (2020). The Matthew Effect in social media news use: Assessing inequalities in news exposure and news engagement on social network sites (SNS). Journalism, 21(8), 1083–1098. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920915374 Kwak, N., Williams, A. E., Wang, X., & Lee, H. (2005). Talking Politics and Engaging Politics: An Examination of the Interactive Relationships Between Structural Features of Political Talk and Discussion Engagement. Communication Research, 32(1), 87–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650204271400 Lazarus, R. S.(1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195069945.001.0001. Lee, J. K., & Kim, E. (2017). Incidental exposure to news: Predictors in the social media setting and effects on information gain online. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 1008–1015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.018 Lee, S. H. (2022). "Constructive Consciousness of Gen-pro: Transforming Political Engagement with a Proactive Behavior, a Progressive Attitude, and a Professional Mindset." Dissertation, Georgia State University, https://doi.org/10.57709/30435566 Lee, S., Nanz, A., Heiss, R. (2022). Platform-dependent effects of incidental exposure to political news on political knowledge and political participation. Computers in Human Behavior, 127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107048. Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75 Loewenstein, J. (2019). Surprise, Recipes for Surprise, and Social Influence. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11(1), 178–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12312 Lu, Y. (2019). Incidental Exposure to Political Disagreement on Facebook and Corrective Participation: Unraveling the Effects of Emotional Responses and Issue Relevance. International Journal of Communication, 13. Lu, Y., & Lee, J. K. (2019). Stumbling upon the other side: Incidental learning of counter-attitudinal political information on Facebook. New Media & Society, 21(1), 248–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818793421 Macedo, L., Cardoso, A., Reisenzein, R., Lorini, E., & Castelfranchi, C. (2009). Artificial Surprise. Handbook of research on synthetic emotions and sociable robotics : New applications in affective computing and artificial intelligence, 267–291. Hershey: IGI Global. McClurg, S. D. (2006). Political Disagreement in Context: The Conditional Effect of Neighborhood Context, Disagreement and Political Talk on Electoral Participation. Political Behavior, 28(4), 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-006-9015-4 Maguire, P., & Maguire, R. (2009, January). Investigating the Difference between Surprise and Probability Judgments. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 31. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0xz0s3v1 Maguire, R., Maguire, P., & Keane, M. T. (2011). Making sense of surprise: An investigation of the factors influencing surprise judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021609 Maguire, P., Moser, P., Maguire, R., & Keane, M. T. (2019). Seeing Patterns in Randomness: A Computational Model of Surprise. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11(1), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12345 Maier, J. (2011). The Impact of Political Scandals on Political Support: An Experimental Test of Two Theories. International Political Science Review - INT POLIT SCI REV, 32, 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512110378056 Marcus, G. (2000). Emotions in politics. ANNUAL REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 3, 221–250. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.221 Martin, B. N. (2011). Using a Theory of Expectations to Understand why There is Variation in Voter Response to Political Scandals. UC Riverside. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1zf5p796 Mandler, G. (1984). Mind and Body: Psychology of Emotion and Stress. New York: Norton. Matthes, J., Nanz, A., Stubenvoll, M., & Heiss, R. (2020). Processing news on social media. The political incidental news exposure model (PINE). Journalism, 21(8), 1031–1048. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920915371 Mcleod, 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/10.1080/105846099198659 Meyer, W.-U., Reisenzein, R., & Schuetzwohl, A. (1997). Toward a Process Analysis of Emotions: The Case of Surprise. Motivation and Emotion, 21, 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024422330338 Nabi, R. L. (2003). Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do discrete emotions differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference? Communication Research, 30(2), 224–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202250881 Namkoong, K., Fung, T. K. F., & Scheufele, D. A. (2012). The Politics of Emotion: News Media Attention, Emotional Responses, and Participation During the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election. Mass Communication and Society, 15(1), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.563894 Nanz, A., & Matthes, J. (2020). Learning from Incidental Exposure to Political Information in Online Environments, Journal of Communication, 70(6), 769–793. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaa031 Nanz, A., & Matthes, J. (2022). Democratic Consequences of Incidental Exposure to Political Information: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Communication, 72(3), 345–373. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqac008 Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. (2018). The Role of Engagement in Learning From Active and Incidental News Exposure on Social Media. Mass Communication and Society, 21(2), 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2017.1384022 Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., & Sundar, S. S. (2015). Posting, commenting, and tagging: Effects of sharing news stories on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 240–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.024 Liedke, J. & Matsa, K. E. (2022, September 20). Social Media and News Fact Sheet. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/social-media-and-news-fact-sheet/ Li, M., & Vitányi, P. (1997). An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications. In Graduate Texts in Computer Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2606-0 Pingree, 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.x Plutchik, R. (1982). A psychoevolutionary theory of emotions. Social Science Information, 21(4–5), 529–553. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901882021004003 Prior M. (2007). Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reichardt, R., Polner, B., & Simor, P. (2020). Novelty Manipulations, Memory Performance, and Predictive Coding: The Role of Unexpectedness. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.00152 Reinemann, C., Stanyer, J., Scherr, S., & Legnante, G. (2012). Hard and soft news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13(2), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911427803 Reisenzein, R., Horstmann, G., & Schützwohl, A. (2019). The Cognitive-Evolutionary Model of Surprise: A Review of the Evidence. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11(1), 50–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12292 Reisenzein, R., Meyer, W.-U., & Niepel, M. (2012). Surprise. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (2nd ed, pp. 564–570). Oxford, England: Academic Press. Roseman, I. J. (1996). Appraisal Determinants of Emotions: Constructing a More Accurate and Comprehensive Theory. Cognition and Emotion, 10(3), 241–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999396380240 Rumelhart, D. E. (1984). Schemata and the cognitive system. Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Emotion and adaptation. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 609–637). The Guilford Press. Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). “I don’t feel like it”: The function of interest in self-regulation. Striving and Feeling: Interactions among Goals, Affect, and Self-Regulation., 203–228. Schäfer, S. (2023). Incidental news exposure in a digital media environment: A scoping review of recent research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 47(2), 242–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2023.2169953 Schützwohl, A. (1998). Surprise and schema strength. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1182–1199. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.5.1182 Shah, D., Cho, J., Eveland, W., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and Expression in a Digital Age Modeling Internet Effects on Civic Participation. Communication Research - COMMUN RES, 32, 531–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205279209 Shen, L., Fishbach, A., & Hsee, C. (2015). The Motivating-Uncertainty Effect: Uncertainty Increases Resource Investment in the Process of Reward Pursuit. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 1301–1315. https://doi.org/10.1086/679418 Shoemaker, P., & Reese, S. (1996). Mediating the Message: Theories of Influence on Mass Media Content (2nd ed.). New York: Longman. Skavronskaya, L., Moyle, B., Scott, N., & Schaffer, V. (2021). Novelty, unexpectedness and surprise: A conceptual clarification. Tourism Recreation Research, 46(4), 548–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2020.1828556 Smith, E. S., Powers, A. S., & Suarez, G. A. (2005). If Bill Clinton Were a Woman: The Effectiveness of Male and Female Politicians’ Account Strategies Following Alleged Transgressions. Political Psychology, 26(1), 115–134. JSTOR. Stangor, C. and Walinga, J. (2014). Introduction to Psychology – 1st Canadian Edition. Victoria, B.C.: BCcampus. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontopsychology/ Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. JSTOR. Teigen, K. H., & Keren, G. (2003). Surprises: Low probabilities or high contrasts? Cognition, 87(2), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00201-9 Tewksbury, D., Weaver, A. J., & Maddex, B. D. (2001). Accidentally Informed: Incidental News Exposure on the World Wide Web. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(3), 533–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900107800309 Thompson, John B. (2000). Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age Cambridge: Polity Press Vaccari, C., Valeriani, A., Barberá, P., Bonneau, R., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. A. (2015). Political Expression and Action on Social Media: Exploring the Relationship Between Lower- and Higher-Threshold Political Activities Among Twitter Users in Italy. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12108 Valeriani, A., & Vaccari, C. (2016). Accidental exposure to politics on social media as online participation equalizer in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. New Media & Society, 18(9), 1857–1874. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815616223 Vanhamme, J. (2000). The Link Between Surprise and Satisfaction: An Exploratory Research on how best to Measure Surprise. Journal of Marketing Management, 16(6), 565–582. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725700785045949 Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and Equality. Harvard University Press; JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1pnc1k7 von Sikorski, C., Heiss, R., & Matthes, J. (2020). How Political Scandals Affect the Electorate. Tracing the Eroding and Spillover Effects of Scandals with a Panel Study. Political Psychology, 41(3), 549–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12638 Weber, C. (2013). Emotions, Campaigns, and Political Participation. Political Research Quarterly, 66(2), 414–428. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23563153 Weeks, B., Lane, D., Kim, D., Lee, S., & Kwak, N. (2017). Incidental Exposure, Selective Exposure, and Political Information Sharing: Integrating Online Exposure Patterns and Expression on Social Media: POLITICAL INFORMATION EXPOSURE AND SHARING. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12199 Wieland, M., & Königslöw, K. K. (2020). Conceptualizing different forms of news processing following incidental news contact: A triple-path model. Journalism, 21(8), 1049–1066. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920915353 Yu, 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.2016.01.019 Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M. A., Marganski, A., Baran, T., & Piotrowski, J. (2017). Corruption and sexual scandal: The importance of politician gender. Anales de Psicología, 33, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.32.3.229171 Zhu, J., & Thagard, P. (2002). Emotion and action. Philosophical Psychology, 15(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515080120109397 zh_TW
