Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
Google ScholarTM
NCCU Library
Citation Infomation
Related Publications in TAIR
題名 轉型正義議題調查中的敏感性：透過列項實驗分析
Sensitivity in Transitional Justice Surveys: Analyzing Through List Experiments作者 李宜陵
Li, Yi-Ling貢獻者 蘇彥斌
Su, Yen-Pin
李宜陵
Li, Yi-Ling關鍵詞 民意調查
轉型正義
列項實驗
社會期望偏誤
敏感性問題
Transitional Justice
Public Opinion Survey
Sensitive Issues
Social Desirability Bias
List Experiments日期 2024 上傳時間 4-Sep-2024 15:58:30 (UTC+8) 摘要 社會期望偏誤對於調查研究的正確性有重大影響，尤其在詢問敏感性問題時尤為顯著。轉型正義作為台灣社會中的重要政治議題，因涉及歷史、族群與政治立場的複雜性，常引發社會期望偏誤。本研究透過網路問卷調查方式收集數據，並採用列項實驗法探討台灣轉型正義議題中的社會期望偏誤，並探究不同個人特徵（如族群身分、國家認同、政黨認同、民主價值與年齡）如何影響這些偏誤。本文的實證分析結果顯示，轉型正義議題中普遍存在社會期望偏誤，且不同議題之偏誤程度有所差異，而個人特徵以及態度會型塑這些偏誤。本研究實證分析顯示，就問卷中「真相調查」和「除去符號」的問題而言，可以發現列項實驗法與直接問題法所得的結果存在顯著差異，顯示受訪者在回答相關問題時受到社會期望偏誤影響。此外，我們發現受訪者的族群身分和政黨認同，會顯著影響社會期望偏誤的大小。整體而言，本研究驗證了過去研究中對於敏感性問題的假設，而本研究同時也對未來的研究和政策制定具有重要意涵。特別是，本研究指出在設計涉及轉型正義的民意調查時，需要考慮社會期望偏誤的存在；而在解讀與分析時，也得要考量不同社會群體之間的認知和態度如何影響社會期望偏誤。
Social desirability bias might have important impacts on the accuracy of survey research, especially for the surveys that include sensitive questions. Survey questions about transitional justice, a key issue in Taiwanese society due to its complexity involving history, ethnicity, and politics, often involve social desirability bias. Using an online survey, this study employs the list experiment technique to examine social desirability bias in issues regarding transitional justice in Taiwan. This study also analyzes how these biases are affected by personal characteristics, such as ethnic identity, national identity, political affiliation, and democratic values. The empirical results of this study show that responses to survey questions about truth investigation and symbol removal suggest social desirability bias. Additionally, this study finds social desirability biases can be explained by the respondents' group features and party identification. Overall, this study tests the hypotheses about sensitive survey questions that can be found in the previous literature, and it provides important implications for future research and policy making. In particular, this study posits that it is necessary to consider issues of social desirability biases when designing surveys about transitional justice. Moreover, it is also crucial to analyze how social desirability bias is shaped by individuals' perceptions and attitudes.參考文獻 一、中文部分 王甫昌，1998，〈族群意識, 民族主義與政黨支持：一九九○年代台灣的族群政治〉，《台灣社會學研究》，2：1-45。 王泰升，2017，〈論台灣的轉型正義：過去、現在與未來之間的對話〉，《台灣法學雜誌》， 315：1-24。 王智立、陳泰達，2018，〈分層隨機作答模式於敏感性特值比例之貝氏估計研究〉，《調查研究－方法與應用》，39：43-76。 古永嘉、張威龍，2000，〈社會期望反應偏差對負面消費者行為研究的影響：以物質主義為例的間接量表驗證〉，《企業管理學報》，46：49-75。 江宜樺，2007，〈台灣的轉型正義及其省思〉，《思想》，5：65-81。 吳乃德，1992，〈國家認同和政黨支持：台灣政黨競爭的社會基礎〉，《中央研究院民族學研究所集刊》，74：33-61。 吳乃德，2002，〈認同衝突和政治信任：現階段台灣族群政治的核心難題〉，《台灣社會學》，4：75-118。 吳乃德，2006，〈轉型正義和歷史記憶：台灣民主化的未竟之業〉，《思想》，2：1-34。 吳乃德，2008，〈書寫「民族」創傷：二二八事件的歷史記憶〉，《思想》，8：39-70。 吳乃德，2015，〈導言〉，莊瑞琳主編，《記憶與遺忘的鬥爭：臺灣轉型正義階段報告（卷一）清理威權遺緒》：17-24，新北：衛城。 吳重禮，2008，〈台灣民眾威權懷舊的初探：蔣經國政府施政的比較評價〉，《選舉研究》 15（2）：119-142。 吳豪人，2012，〈「野蠻」的復權：台灣修復式正義與轉型正義實踐的困境與脫困之道〉，《台灣人權學刊》，1（3）：67-93。 吳叡人，2015，〈作為政治的轉型正義〉，《台灣人權學刊》，3（1）：93-102。 李怡俐，2014，〈當代轉型正義的制度與規範脈絡－兼論南韓與台灣的經驗比較〉，國立臺灣大學法律學系博士學位論文。 李燊銘、陳泓愷，2023，〈在無關聯問題隨機作答設計資料下比較敏感群與非敏感群的類別輔助變數分配差異〉，《智慧科技與應用統計學報》，21（1）：1-24。 汪宏倫，2021， 〈我們能和解共生嗎？：反思台灣的轉型正義與集體記憶〉，《思想》，42：1-61。 汪宏倫，2022，〈探索轉型正義的社會基礎〉，《臺灣社會學刊》，71：91-135。 林宗弘，2015， 〈再探臺灣的世代政治：交叉分類隨機效應模型的應用〉，《人文及社會科學集刊》，27（2）：395-436。 林宗弘，2017，〈台灣青年世代的政治認同（1995-2015）〉，《香港社會科學學報》，49：27-65。 林美榕、莊文忠，2018，〈問卷調查題型設計的效應檢證：以「政治知識」測量的隨機實驗為例〉，《選舉研究》，25（1）：37-73。 林瓊珠，2012， 〈穩定與變動：台灣民眾的「台灣人／中國人」認同與統獨立場之分析〉，《選舉研究》，19（1）：97-127。 促進轉型正義委員會，2022，《任務推動及調查結果報告書（摘要版）》，台北：促進轉型正義委員會。 柯朝欽，2015，〈轉型正義與歷史記憶的分歧〉，莊瑞琳主編，《記憶與遺忘的鬥爭：臺灣轉型正義階段報告（卷三）清理威權遺緒》：346-358，新北：衛城。 洪郁如等譯，若林正丈原著，2016，《戰後臺灣政治史：中華民國臺灣化的歷程》，台北市：台灣大學出版。 徐永明，2008，《轉型，要不要正義？——新興民主國家與台灣的經驗對話》，台北：台灣智庫。 馬英九，2005。〈紀念台灣光復一甲子－重溫先賢典範再造台灣精神〉，《海峽評論》，179：10-14。 張文貞、葉俊榮，2006， 〈路徑相依或制度選擇?—論民主轉型與憲法變遷的模式〉，《問題與研究》，45（6）：1-31。 張佑宗，2018，《年輕人對民主作何理解？》，計畫編號：103-2410-H-002-061-SS1，台北：科技部專題研究計畫結案報告。 陳俊宏，2015，《檢視台灣的轉型正義之路》，《新世紀智庫論壇》，71：18-28。 陳泰宏、林家鳴、李燊銘，2020，〈Christofides隨機作答設計之邏輯斯迴歸參數估計〉，《智慧科技與應用統計學報》，18（1）：1-22。 陳陸輝、周應龍，2004，〈台灣民眾統獨立場的持續與變遷〉，《東亞研究》，35（2）：143-186。 陳義彥、陳陸輝，2003，〈模稜兩可的態度還是不確定的未來：台灣民眾統獨觀的解析〉，《中國大陸研究》，46（5）：1-20。 陳翠蓮，2008，〈歷史正義的困境－族群議題與二二八論述〉，《國史館學術集刊》，16：179-222。 黃丞儀，2015，〈戒嚴時期法律體制的未解難題與責任追究〉，莊瑞琳主編，《記憶與遺忘的鬥爭：臺灣轉型正義階段報告（卷三）清理威權遺緒》：300-345，新北：衛城。 黃紀，2016，〈調查研究設計〉，《民意調查研究》，台北市：五南。 黃紀、王德育，2012，《質變數與受限依變數的迴歸分析》，台北市：五南。 楊光、鄭琹尹，2019，〈列項實驗與網路調查之結合：臺灣民衆對同性戀民代接受程度的探究〉，《選舉研究》，26（2）：23-51。 葉俊榮，2003，《民主轉型與憲法變遷》，台北：元照。 葉浩，2017，〈從過去的執拗低音到今日的主旋律－關於台灣轉型正義論述的側寫〉，《二十一世紀》，159：24-38。 蔡奇霖、蔡宗漢，2021，〈所得變數於政治學民意調查研究中之測量與應用〉，《調查研究－方法與應用》，46：55-119。 蕭新煌，1998，〈從省籍矛盾到族群差異、從國家認同到統獨爭議：歷史與社會的思辯〉，《族群正義與人權障研討會》。 謝淑惠、杜素豪、李燊銘、王千文，2016。〈台灣2012年總統選舉隨機作答模式調查探討〉。《調查研究-方法與應用》，35：81-109。 蘇彥斌、蔡維廷，2022，〈台灣民眾對轉型正義態度的實證分析〉，金馬地區解除戰地政務卅年暨轉型正義學術研討會，金門：國立金門大學閩南文化碩士學位學程。 二、英文部分 Aguilar, Paloma, Laia Balcells, and Héctor Cebolla-Boado. 2011. “Determinants of Attitudes Toward Transitional Justice: An Empirical Analysis of the Spanish Case.” Comparative Political Studies 44 (10): 1397-1430. Ahlquist, John S. 2018. “List Experiment Design, Non-Strategic Respondent Error, and Item Count Technique Estimators.” Political Analysis 26 (1): 34-53. Aronow, Peter m., Alexander Coppock, Forrest W. Crawford, and Donald P. Green. 2015. "Combining List Experiment and Direct Question Estimates of Sensitive Behavior Prevalence." Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 3: 43-66. Balcells, Laia, Valeria Palanza, and Elsa Voytas. 2022. “Do Transitional Justice Museums Persuade Visitors? Evidence From a Field Experiment.” The Journal of Politics 84 (1):496-510. Bell, Suzanne, and David Bishai. 2019. "Can a List Experiment Improve Validity of Abortion Measurement?". Studies in Family Planning 50. Bergen, Nicole, and Ronald Labonté. 2020. “Everything is Perfect, and We Have No Problems: Detecting and Limiting Social Desirability Bias in Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Health Research 30 (5): 783-792. Blair, Graeme, Alexander Coppock, and Margaret Moor. 2020. “When to Worry About Sensitivity Bias: A Social Reference Theory and Evidence from 30 Years of List Experiments.” American Political Science Review 114 (4): 1297-1315. Blair, Graeme, and Kosuke Imai. 2012. “Statistical Analysis of List Experiments.” Political Analysis 20 (1): 47-77. Blair, Graeme, Kosuke Imai, and Jason Lyall. 2014. “Comparing and Combining List and Endorsement Experiments: Evidence from Afghanistan.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (4): 1043-1063. Blair, Graeme, Winston Chou, and Kosuke Imai. 2019. “List Experiments with Measurement Error.” Political Analysis 27 (4): 455-480. Buckley-Zistel, Susanne, Teresa Koloma Beck, Christian Braun, and Friederike Mieth. 2014. Transitional Justice Theories. New York, NY: Routledge. Bullock, Will, Kosuke Imai, and Jacob N. Shapiro. 2011. “Statistical Analysis of Endorsement Experiments: Measuring Support for Militant Groups in Pakistan.” Political Analysis 19 (4): 363-384. Bundschuh, Thomas. 2015. “Enabling Transitional Justice, Restoring Capabilities: The Imperative of Participation and Normative Integrity.” International Journal of Transitional Justice 9 (1): 10-32. Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Capoccia, Giovanni, and Grigore Pop-Eleches. 2020. "Democracy and Retribution: Transitional Justice and Regime Support in Postwar West Germany." Comparative Political Studies 53 (3-4): 399-433. Cerri, Jacopo, John Thøgersen, and Francesco Testa. 2019. "Social Desirability and Sustainable Food Research: A Systematic Literature Review." Food Quality and Preference 71: 136-140. Chen, Wei-Lin. 2017. "Social Desirability Bias and Social Tolerance: A Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis." International Journal of Intelligent Technologies & Applied Statistics 10 (4): 257-274. Coffman, Katherine, Lucas Coffman, and Keith Ericson. 2016. "The Size of the LGBT Population and the Magnitude of Antigay Sentiment Are Substantially Underestimated." Management Science 63 (10): 3168-3186. Corstange, Daniel. 2017. "Sensitive Questions, Truthful Answers? Modeling the List Experiment with LISTIT." Political Analysis 17 (1): 45-63. Costa Pinto, Antonio. 2006. "Authoritarian Legacies, Transitional Justice and State Crisis in Portugal's Democratization." Democratization 13 (2): 173-204. Dai, Yaoyao. 2014. Do Citizens in Authoritarian Countries Censor Themselves? Master’s thesis. Duke University. Dancy, Geoff, and Oskar Timo Thoms. 2022. "Do Truth Commissions Really Improve Democracy?" Comparative Political Studies 55 (4): 555-587. Dancy, Geoff, Bridget E Marchesi, Tricia D Olsen, Leigh A Payne, Andrew G Reiter, and Kathryn Sikkink. 2019. "Behind Bars and Bargains: New Findings on Transitional Justice in Emerging Democracies." International Studies Quarterly 63 (1): 99-110. Dancy, Geoff. 2010. "Impact Assessment, Not Evaluation: Defining a Limited Role for Positivism in the Study of Transitional Justice." International Journal of Transitional Justice 4(3): 355-376. Daoust, Jean-François, Richard Nadeau, Ruth Dassonneville, Erick Lachapelle, Éric Bélanger, Justin Savoie, and Clifton van der Linden. 2021. "How to Survey Citizens’ Compliance with COVID-19 Public Health Measures: Evidence from Three Survey Experiments." Journal of Experimental Political Science 8(3): 310-317. David, Roman. 2017. "What We Know About Transitional Justice: Survey and Experimental Evidence." Political Psychology 38: 151-177. de Greiff, Pablo. 2011. Transitional Justice, Security, and Development. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Development Report. Fisher, Ronald J. 1993. "Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning." Journal of Consumer Research 20(2): 303-315. Fowler, Floyd J., Jr. 1995. Improving Survey Questions: Design and Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Galasso, Vincenzo, Vincent Pons, Paola Profeta, Michael Becher, Sylvain Brouard, and Martial Foucault. 2020. “Gender Differences in COVID-19 Attitudes and Behavior: Panel Evidence from Eight Countries.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (44): 27285-27291. Gilens, Martin, Paul M. Sniderman, and James H. Kuklinski. 1998. “Affirmative Action and the Politics of Realignment.” British Journal of Political Science 28 (1): 159-183. Glynn, Adam N. 2013. “What Can We Learn with Statistical Truth Serum? Design and Analysis of the List Experiment.” Public Opinion Quarterly 77 (1): 159-172. Greenstein, Claire, and Cole J. Harvey. 2017. “Trials, Lustration, and Clean Elections: The Uneven Effects of Transitional Justice Mechanisms on Electoral Manipulation.” Democratization 24 (6): 1195-1214. Groves, Robert M., and Lars Lyberg. 2010. “Total Survey Error: Past, Present, and Future.” Public Opinion Quarterly 74 (5): 849-879. Hall, Jonathan, Iosif Kovras, Djordje Stefanovic, and Neophytos Loizides. 2018. “Exposure to Violence and Attitudes towards Transitional Justice.” Political Psychology 39 (2): 345-363. Hamad, Mahmoud. 2020. “A Law of Diminishing Returns: Transitional Justice in Post-Revolutionary Libya.” AlMuntaqa 3 (1): 23-37. Hopkins, Daniel J. 2009. “No More Wilder Effect, Never a Whitman Effect: When and Why Polls Mislead about Black and Female Candidates.” The Journal of Politics 71 (3): 769-781. Huang, Chi. 2019. “Generation Effects? Evolution of Independence–Unification Views in Taiwan, 1996–2016.” Electoral Studies 58: 103-112. Huntington, Samuel P. 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Vol. 4. University of Oklahoma Press. Hurst, Erik, Geng Li, and Benjamin Pugsley. 2014. “Are Household Surveys Like Tax Forms? Evidence from Income Underreporting of the Self-Employed.” Review of Economics and Statistics 96 (1): 19-33. Juster, F. Thomas, and James P. Smith. 1997. “Improving the Quality of Economic Data: Lessons from the HRS and AHEAD.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 92 (440): 1268-1278. Kaminski, Marek M., Monika Nalepa, and Barry O’neill. 2006. “Normative and Strategic Aspects of Transitional Justice.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 50(3): 295-302. Krumpal, Ivar. 2013. “Determinants of Social Desirability Bias in Sensitive Surveys: A Literature Review.” Quality & Quantity 47 (4): 2025-2047. Kuklinski, James H., Michael D. Cobb, and Martin Gilens. 1997. “Racial Attitudes and the ‘New South’.” The Journal of Politics 59 (2): 323-349. Lalwani, Ashok K., Sharon Shavitt, and Timothy Johnson. 2006. “What Is the Relation Between Cultural Orientation and Socially Desirable Responding?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90(1): 165. Larsen, Martin, Jacob Nyrup, and Michael Bang Petersen. 2020. “Do Survey Estimates of the Public’s Compliance with COVID-19 Regulations Suffer from Social Desirability Bias?” Journal of Behavioral Public Administration 3 (2): 1-9. Lax, Jeffrey R., Justin H. Phillips, and Alissa F. Stollwerk. 2016. “Are Survey Respondents Lying about Their Support for Same-Sex Marriage? Lessons from a List Experiment.” Public Opinion Quarterly 80 (2): 510-533. Lyall, Jason, Graeme Blair, and Kosuke Imai. 2013. “Explaining Support for Combatants during Wartime: A Survey Experiment in Afghanistan.” American Political Science Review 107 (4): 679-705. Mallinder, Louise. 2008. Amnesty, Human Rights and Political Transitions: Bridging the Peace and Justice Divide. Oxford, United Kingdom: Hart. Mani, Rama. 2005. “Rebuilding an Inclusive Political Community after War.” Security Dialogue 36 (4): 511-526. Miller, Judith Droitcour. 1985. “The Nominative Technique: A New Method of Estimating Heroin Prevalence.” NIDA Research Monograph 54: 104-124. Nisbett, Richard E., and Timothy DeCamp Wilson. 1977. "Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes." Psychological Review 84(3): 231-259. Nussio, Enzo, Angelika Rettberg, and Juan E. Ugarriza. 2015. “Victims, Nonvictims and Their Opinions on Transitional Justice: Findings from the Colombian Case.” International Journal of Transitional Justice 9 (2): 336-354. Odugbemi, Sina, and Taeku Lee. 2011. Accountability through Public Opinion: From Inertia to Public Action. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Publications. Olsen, Tricia D., Leigh A. Payne, and Andrew G. Reiter. 2010. "The Justice Balance: When Transitional Justice Improves Human Rights and Democracy." Human Rights Quarterly 32 (4):980-1007. Payne, Leigh A., Tricia D. Olsen, and Andrew G. Reiter. 2008. "Does Transitional Justice Work?" Paper Presented at the 49th International Studies Association Convention, San Francisco, March 26-29. Powell, Richard J. 2013. "Social Desirability Bias in Polling on Same-Sex Marriage Ballot Measures." American Politics Research 41 (6):1052-1070. Procópio, Marcos Luís. 2022. "Qualitative Empirical Research on Ethical Decision-Making in Organizations: Revisiting Waters, Bird, and Chant's Pioneering Methodological Approach." Quality & Quantity 56 (3):1661-1680. Renzetti, Claire M., and Raymond M. Lee. 1993. Researching Sensitive Topics. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Samii, Cyrus. 2013. "Who Wants to Forgive and Forget? Transitional Justice Preferences in Postwar Burundi." Journal of Peace Research 50 (2):219-233. Sen, Amartya. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York, NY: Knopf. Sikkink, Kathryn, and Carrie Booth Walling. 2007. "The Impact of Human Rights Trials in Latin America." Journal of Peace Research 44 (4): 427-445. Stuart, Gretchen S., and David A. Grimes. 2009. "Social Desirability Bias in Family Planning Studies: A Neglected Problem." Contraception 80 (2): 108-112. Teitel, Ruti G. 2000. Transitional Justice. New York, NY: Oxford University. Thoms, Oskar, James Ron, and Roland Paris. 2008. "The Effects of Transitional Justice Mechanisms: A Summary of Empiric Research Findings and Implications for Analysts and Practitioners." Centre for International Policy Studies, University of Ottawa, Ottawa. Tourangeau, Roger, and Ting Yan. 2007. "Sensitive Questions in Surveys." Psychological Bulletin 133 (5): 859-883. Tourangeau, Roger, Lance J. Rips, and Kenneth Rasinski. 2000. The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Tsuchiya, Takahiro, Yoko Hirai, and Shigeru Ono. 2007. "A Study of the Properties of the Item Count Technique." Public Opinion Quarterly 71(2): 253-272. United Nations, Security Council. 2004. "Report of the Secretary-General on the Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies." UN Doc. S/2004/616. Vesely, Stepan, and Christian A. Klöckner. 2020. "Social Desirability in Environmental Psychology Research: Three Meta-Analyses." Frontiers in Psychology 11: 1395. Vésteinsdóttir, Vaka, Adam Joinson, Ulf-Dietrich Reips, Hilda Bjork Danielsdottir, Elin Astros Thorarinsdottir, and Fanney Thorsdottir. 2019. "Questions on Honest Responding." Behavior Research Methods 51 (2): 811-825. Warner, Stanley L. 1965. "Randomized Response: A Survey Technique for Eliminating Evasive Answer Bias." Journal of the American Statistical Association 60 (309): 63-69. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
政治學系
108252017資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108252017 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 蘇彥斌 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Su, Yen-Pin en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 李宜陵 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Li, Yi-Ling en_US dc.creator (作者) 李宜陵 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Li, Yi-Ling en_US dc.date (日期) 2024 en_US dc.date.accessioned 4-Sep-2024 15:58:30 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 4-Sep-2024 15:58:30 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 4-Sep-2024 15:58:30 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0108252017 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/153530 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 政治學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 108252017 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 社會期望偏誤對於調查研究的正確性有重大影響，尤其在詢問敏感性問題時尤為顯著。轉型正義作為台灣社會中的重要政治議題，因涉及歷史、族群與政治立場的複雜性，常引發社會期望偏誤。本研究透過網路問卷調查方式收集數據，並採用列項實驗法探討台灣轉型正義議題中的社會期望偏誤，並探究不同個人特徵（如族群身分、國家認同、政黨認同、民主價值與年齡）如何影響這些偏誤。本文的實證分析結果顯示，轉型正義議題中普遍存在社會期望偏誤，且不同議題之偏誤程度有所差異，而個人特徵以及態度會型塑這些偏誤。本研究實證分析顯示，就問卷中「真相調查」和「除去符號」的問題而言，可以發現列項實驗法與直接問題法所得的結果存在顯著差異，顯示受訪者在回答相關問題時受到社會期望偏誤影響。此外，我們發現受訪者的族群身分和政黨認同，會顯著影響社會期望偏誤的大小。整體而言，本研究驗證了過去研究中對於敏感性問題的假設，而本研究同時也對未來的研究和政策制定具有重要意涵。特別是，本研究指出在設計涉及轉型正義的民意調查時，需要考慮社會期望偏誤的存在；而在解讀與分析時，也得要考量不同社會群體之間的認知和態度如何影響社會期望偏誤。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Social desirability bias might have important impacts on the accuracy of survey research, especially for the surveys that include sensitive questions. Survey questions about transitional justice, a key issue in Taiwanese society due to its complexity involving history, ethnicity, and politics, often involve social desirability bias. Using an online survey, this study employs the list experiment technique to examine social desirability bias in issues regarding transitional justice in Taiwan. This study also analyzes how these biases are affected by personal characteristics, such as ethnic identity, national identity, political affiliation, and democratic values. The empirical results of this study show that responses to survey questions about truth investigation and symbol removal suggest social desirability bias. Additionally, this study finds social desirability biases can be explained by the respondents' group features and party identification. Overall, this study tests the hypotheses about sensitive survey questions that can be found in the previous literature, and it provides important implications for future research and policy making. In particular, this study posits that it is necessary to consider issues of social desirability biases when designing surveys about transitional justice. Moreover, it is also crucial to analyze how social desirability bias is shaped by individuals' perceptions and attitudes. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機 1 第二節 為何要研究台灣轉型正義的社會期望偏誤？ 8 第二章 文獻回顧與理論 11 第一節 社會期望偏誤的實證研究 11 第二節 轉型正義與社會期望偏差：可驗證假設的提出 15 第三節 影響轉型正義看法的因素與假設 20 第三章 研究設計 27 第一節 分析方法 27 第二節 列項實驗法 28 第三節 資料蒐集與變數測量 31 第四章 列項實驗分析 45 第一節 列項實驗假說檢定 45 第二節 統計分析 53 第三節 研究發現 116 第五章 研究結論及研究限制 123 第一節 研究結論 123 第二節 研究限制 130 參考文獻 134 附錄 問卷 143 zh_TW dc.format.extent 3041703 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108252017 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 民意調查 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 轉型正義 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 列項實驗 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 社會期望偏誤 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 敏感性問題 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Transitional Justice en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Public Opinion Survey en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Sensitive Issues en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Social Desirability Bias en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) List Experiments en_US dc.title (題名) 轉型正義議題調查中的敏感性：透過列項實驗分析 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Sensitivity in Transitional Justice Surveys: Analyzing Through List Experiments en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文部分 王甫昌，1998，〈族群意識, 民族主義與政黨支持：一九九○年代台灣的族群政治〉，《台灣社會學研究》，2：1-45。 王泰升，2017，〈論台灣的轉型正義：過去、現在與未來之間的對話〉，《台灣法學雜誌》， 315：1-24。 王智立、陳泰達，2018，〈分層隨機作答模式於敏感性特值比例之貝氏估計研究〉，《調查研究－方法與應用》，39：43-76。 古永嘉、張威龍，2000，〈社會期望反應偏差對負面消費者行為研究的影響：以物質主義為例的間接量表驗證〉，《企業管理學報》，46：49-75。 江宜樺，2007，〈台灣的轉型正義及其省思〉，《思想》，5：65-81。 吳乃德，1992，〈國家認同和政黨支持：台灣政黨競爭的社會基礎〉，《中央研究院民族學研究所集刊》，74：33-61。 吳乃德，2002，〈認同衝突和政治信任：現階段台灣族群政治的核心難題〉，《台灣社會學》，4：75-118。 吳乃德，2006，〈轉型正義和歷史記憶：台灣民主化的未竟之業〉，《思想》，2：1-34。 吳乃德，2008，〈書寫「民族」創傷：二二八事件的歷史記憶〉，《思想》，8：39-70。 吳乃德，2015，〈導言〉，莊瑞琳主編，《記憶與遺忘的鬥爭：臺灣轉型正義階段報告（卷一）清理威權遺緒》：17-24，新北：衛城。 吳重禮，2008，〈台灣民眾威權懷舊的初探：蔣經國政府施政的比較評價〉，《選舉研究》 15（2）：119-142。 吳豪人，2012，〈「野蠻」的復權：台灣修復式正義與轉型正義實踐的困境與脫困之道〉，《台灣人權學刊》，1（3）：67-93。 吳叡人，2015，〈作為政治的轉型正義〉，《台灣人權學刊》，3（1）：93-102。 李怡俐，2014，〈當代轉型正義的制度與規範脈絡－兼論南韓與台灣的經驗比較〉，國立臺灣大學法律學系博士學位論文。 李燊銘、陳泓愷，2023，〈在無關聯問題隨機作答設計資料下比較敏感群與非敏感群的類別輔助變數分配差異〉，《智慧科技與應用統計學報》，21（1）：1-24。 汪宏倫，2021， 〈我們能和解共生嗎？：反思台灣的轉型正義與集體記憶〉，《思想》，42：1-61。 汪宏倫，2022，〈探索轉型正義的社會基礎〉，《臺灣社會學刊》，71：91-135。 林宗弘，2015， 〈再探臺灣的世代政治：交叉分類隨機效應模型的應用〉，《人文及社會科學集刊》，27（2）：395-436。 林宗弘，2017，〈台灣青年世代的政治認同（1995-2015）〉，《香港社會科學學報》，49：27-65。 林美榕、莊文忠，2018，〈問卷調查題型設計的效應檢證：以「政治知識」測量的隨機實驗為例〉，《選舉研究》，25（1）：37-73。 林瓊珠，2012， 〈穩定與變動：台灣民眾的「台灣人／中國人」認同與統獨立場之分析〉，《選舉研究》，19（1）：97-127。 促進轉型正義委員會，2022，《任務推動及調查結果報告書（摘要版）》，台北：促進轉型正義委員會。 柯朝欽，2015，〈轉型正義與歷史記憶的分歧〉，莊瑞琳主編，《記憶與遺忘的鬥爭：臺灣轉型正義階段報告（卷三）清理威權遺緒》：346-358，新北：衛城。 洪郁如等譯，若林正丈原著，2016，《戰後臺灣政治史：中華民國臺灣化的歷程》，台北市：台灣大學出版。 徐永明，2008，《轉型，要不要正義？——新興民主國家與台灣的經驗對話》，台北：台灣智庫。 馬英九，2005。〈紀念台灣光復一甲子－重溫先賢典範再造台灣精神〉，《海峽評論》，179：10-14。 張文貞、葉俊榮，2006， 〈路徑相依或制度選擇?—論民主轉型與憲法變遷的模式〉，《問題與研究》，45（6）：1-31。 張佑宗，2018，《年輕人對民主作何理解？》，計畫編號：103-2410-H-002-061-SS1，台北：科技部專題研究計畫結案報告。 陳俊宏，2015，《檢視台灣的轉型正義之路》，《新世紀智庫論壇》，71：18-28。 陳泰宏、林家鳴、李燊銘，2020，〈Christofides隨機作答設計之邏輯斯迴歸參數估計〉，《智慧科技與應用統計學報》，18（1）：1-22。 陳陸輝、周應龍，2004，〈台灣民眾統獨立場的持續與變遷〉，《東亞研究》，35（2）：143-186。 陳義彥、陳陸輝，2003，〈模稜兩可的態度還是不確定的未來：台灣民眾統獨觀的解析〉，《中國大陸研究》，46（5）：1-20。 陳翠蓮，2008，〈歷史正義的困境－族群議題與二二八論述〉，《國史館學術集刊》，16：179-222。 黃丞儀，2015，〈戒嚴時期法律體制的未解難題與責任追究〉，莊瑞琳主編，《記憶與遺忘的鬥爭：臺灣轉型正義階段報告（卷三）清理威權遺緒》：300-345，新北：衛城。 黃紀，2016，〈調查研究設計〉，《民意調查研究》，台北市：五南。 黃紀、王德育，2012，《質變數與受限依變數的迴歸分析》，台北市：五南。 楊光、鄭琹尹，2019，〈列項實驗與網路調查之結合：臺灣民衆對同性戀民代接受程度的探究〉，《選舉研究》，26（2）：23-51。 葉俊榮，2003，《民主轉型與憲法變遷》，台北：元照。 葉浩，2017，〈從過去的執拗低音到今日的主旋律－關於台灣轉型正義論述的側寫〉，《二十一世紀》，159：24-38。 蔡奇霖、蔡宗漢，2021，〈所得變數於政治學民意調查研究中之測量與應用〉，《調查研究－方法與應用》，46：55-119。 蕭新煌，1998，〈從省籍矛盾到族群差異、從國家認同到統獨爭議：歷史與社會的思辯〉，《族群正義與人權障研討會》。 謝淑惠、杜素豪、李燊銘、王千文，2016。〈台灣2012年總統選舉隨機作答模式調查探討〉。《調查研究-方法與應用》，35：81-109。 蘇彥斌、蔡維廷，2022，〈台灣民眾對轉型正義態度的實證分析〉，金馬地區解除戰地政務卅年暨轉型正義學術研討會，金門：國立金門大學閩南文化碩士學位學程。 二、英文部分 Aguilar, Paloma, Laia Balcells, and Héctor Cebolla-Boado. 2011. “Determinants of Attitudes Toward Transitional Justice: An Empirical Analysis of the Spanish Case.” Comparative Political Studies 44 (10): 1397-1430. Ahlquist, John S. 2018. “List Experiment Design, Non-Strategic Respondent Error, and Item Count Technique Estimators.” Political Analysis 26 (1): 34-53. Aronow, Peter m., Alexander Coppock, Forrest W. Crawford, and Donald P. Green. 2015. "Combining List Experiment and Direct Question Estimates of Sensitive Behavior Prevalence." Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 3: 43-66. Balcells, Laia, Valeria Palanza, and Elsa Voytas. 2022. “Do Transitional Justice Museums Persuade Visitors? Evidence From a Field Experiment.” The Journal of Politics 84 (1):496-510. Bell, Suzanne, and David Bishai. 2019. "Can a List Experiment Improve Validity of Abortion Measurement?". Studies in Family Planning 50. Bergen, Nicole, and Ronald Labonté. 2020. “Everything is Perfect, and We Have No Problems: Detecting and Limiting Social Desirability Bias in Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Health Research 30 (5): 783-792. Blair, Graeme, Alexander Coppock, and Margaret Moor. 2020. “When to Worry About Sensitivity Bias: A Social Reference Theory and Evidence from 30 Years of List Experiments.” American Political Science Review 114 (4): 1297-1315. Blair, Graeme, and Kosuke Imai. 2012. “Statistical Analysis of List Experiments.” Political Analysis 20 (1): 47-77. Blair, Graeme, Kosuke Imai, and Jason Lyall. 2014. “Comparing and Combining List and Endorsement Experiments: Evidence from Afghanistan.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (4): 1043-1063. Blair, Graeme, Winston Chou, and Kosuke Imai. 2019. “List Experiments with Measurement Error.” Political Analysis 27 (4): 455-480. Buckley-Zistel, Susanne, Teresa Koloma Beck, Christian Braun, and Friederike Mieth. 2014. Transitional Justice Theories. New York, NY: Routledge. Bullock, Will, Kosuke Imai, and Jacob N. Shapiro. 2011. “Statistical Analysis of Endorsement Experiments: Measuring Support for Militant Groups in Pakistan.” Political Analysis 19 (4): 363-384. Bundschuh, Thomas. 2015. “Enabling Transitional Justice, Restoring Capabilities: The Imperative of Participation and Normative Integrity.” International Journal of Transitional Justice 9 (1): 10-32. Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Capoccia, Giovanni, and Grigore Pop-Eleches. 2020. "Democracy and Retribution: Transitional Justice and Regime Support in Postwar West Germany." Comparative Political Studies 53 (3-4): 399-433. Cerri, Jacopo, John Thøgersen, and Francesco Testa. 2019. "Social Desirability and Sustainable Food Research: A Systematic Literature Review." Food Quality and Preference 71: 136-140. Chen, Wei-Lin. 2017. "Social Desirability Bias and Social Tolerance: A Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis." International Journal of Intelligent Technologies & Applied Statistics 10 (4): 257-274. Coffman, Katherine, Lucas Coffman, and Keith Ericson. 2016. "The Size of the LGBT Population and the Magnitude of Antigay Sentiment Are Substantially Underestimated." Management Science 63 (10): 3168-3186. Corstange, Daniel. 2017. "Sensitive Questions, Truthful Answers? Modeling the List Experiment with LISTIT." Political Analysis 17 (1): 45-63. Costa Pinto, Antonio. 2006. "Authoritarian Legacies, Transitional Justice and State Crisis in Portugal's Democratization." Democratization 13 (2): 173-204. Dai, Yaoyao. 2014. Do Citizens in Authoritarian Countries Censor Themselves? Master’s thesis. Duke University. Dancy, Geoff, and Oskar Timo Thoms. 2022. "Do Truth Commissions Really Improve Democracy?" Comparative Political Studies 55 (4): 555-587. Dancy, Geoff, Bridget E Marchesi, Tricia D Olsen, Leigh A Payne, Andrew G Reiter, and Kathryn Sikkink. 2019. "Behind Bars and Bargains: New Findings on Transitional Justice in Emerging Democracies." International Studies Quarterly 63 (1): 99-110. Dancy, Geoff. 2010. "Impact Assessment, Not Evaluation: Defining a Limited Role for Positivism in the Study of Transitional Justice." International Journal of Transitional Justice 4(3): 355-376. Daoust, Jean-François, Richard Nadeau, Ruth Dassonneville, Erick Lachapelle, Éric Bélanger, Justin Savoie, and Clifton van der Linden. 2021. "How to Survey Citizens’ Compliance with COVID-19 Public Health Measures: Evidence from Three Survey Experiments." Journal of Experimental Political Science 8(3): 310-317. David, Roman. 2017. "What We Know About Transitional Justice: Survey and Experimental Evidence." Political Psychology 38: 151-177. de Greiff, Pablo. 2011. Transitional Justice, Security, and Development. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Development Report. Fisher, Ronald J. 1993. "Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning." Journal of Consumer Research 20(2): 303-315. Fowler, Floyd J., Jr. 1995. Improving Survey Questions: Design and Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Galasso, Vincenzo, Vincent Pons, Paola Profeta, Michael Becher, Sylvain Brouard, and Martial Foucault. 2020. “Gender Differences in COVID-19 Attitudes and Behavior: Panel Evidence from Eight Countries.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (44): 27285-27291. Gilens, Martin, Paul M. Sniderman, and James H. Kuklinski. 1998. “Affirmative Action and the Politics of Realignment.” British Journal of Political Science 28 (1): 159-183. Glynn, Adam N. 2013. “What Can We Learn with Statistical Truth Serum? Design and Analysis of the List Experiment.” Public Opinion Quarterly 77 (1): 159-172. Greenstein, Claire, and Cole J. Harvey. 2017. “Trials, Lustration, and Clean Elections: The Uneven Effects of Transitional Justice Mechanisms on Electoral Manipulation.” Democratization 24 (6): 1195-1214. Groves, Robert M., and Lars Lyberg. 2010. “Total Survey Error: Past, Present, and Future.” Public Opinion Quarterly 74 (5): 849-879. Hall, Jonathan, Iosif Kovras, Djordje Stefanovic, and Neophytos Loizides. 2018. “Exposure to Violence and Attitudes towards Transitional Justice.” Political Psychology 39 (2): 345-363. Hamad, Mahmoud. 2020. “A Law of Diminishing Returns: Transitional Justice in Post-Revolutionary Libya.” AlMuntaqa 3 (1): 23-37. Hopkins, Daniel J. 2009. “No More Wilder Effect, Never a Whitman Effect: When and Why Polls Mislead about Black and Female Candidates.” The Journal of Politics 71 (3): 769-781. Huang, Chi. 2019. “Generation Effects? Evolution of Independence–Unification Views in Taiwan, 1996–2016.” Electoral Studies 58: 103-112. Huntington, Samuel P. 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Vol. 4. University of Oklahoma Press. Hurst, Erik, Geng Li, and Benjamin Pugsley. 2014. “Are Household Surveys Like Tax Forms? Evidence from Income Underreporting of the Self-Employed.” Review of Economics and Statistics 96 (1): 19-33. Juster, F. Thomas, and James P. Smith. 1997. “Improving the Quality of Economic Data: Lessons from the HRS and AHEAD.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 92 (440): 1268-1278. Kaminski, Marek M., Monika Nalepa, and Barry O’neill. 2006. “Normative and Strategic Aspects of Transitional Justice.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 50(3): 295-302. Krumpal, Ivar. 2013. “Determinants of Social Desirability Bias in Sensitive Surveys: A Literature Review.” Quality & Quantity 47 (4): 2025-2047. Kuklinski, James H., Michael D. Cobb, and Martin Gilens. 1997. “Racial Attitudes and the ‘New South’.” The Journal of Politics 59 (2): 323-349. Lalwani, Ashok K., Sharon Shavitt, and Timothy Johnson. 2006. “What Is the Relation Between Cultural Orientation and Socially Desirable Responding?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90(1): 165. Larsen, Martin, Jacob Nyrup, and Michael Bang Petersen. 2020. “Do Survey Estimates of the Public’s Compliance with COVID-19 Regulations Suffer from Social Desirability Bias?” Journal of Behavioral Public Administration 3 (2): 1-9. Lax, Jeffrey R., Justin H. Phillips, and Alissa F. Stollwerk. 2016. “Are Survey Respondents Lying about Their Support for Same-Sex Marriage? Lessons from a List Experiment.” Public Opinion Quarterly 80 (2): 510-533. Lyall, Jason, Graeme Blair, and Kosuke Imai. 2013. “Explaining Support for Combatants during Wartime: A Survey Experiment in Afghanistan.” American Political Science Review 107 (4): 679-705. Mallinder, Louise. 2008. Amnesty, Human Rights and Political Transitions: Bridging the Peace and Justice Divide. Oxford, United Kingdom: Hart. Mani, Rama. 2005. “Rebuilding an Inclusive Political Community after War.” Security Dialogue 36 (4): 511-526. Miller, Judith Droitcour. 1985. “The Nominative Technique: A New Method of Estimating Heroin Prevalence.” NIDA Research Monograph 54: 104-124. Nisbett, Richard E., and Timothy DeCamp Wilson. 1977. "Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes." Psychological Review 84(3): 231-259. Nussio, Enzo, Angelika Rettberg, and Juan E. Ugarriza. 2015. “Victims, Nonvictims and Their Opinions on Transitional Justice: Findings from the Colombian Case.” International Journal of Transitional Justice 9 (2): 336-354. Odugbemi, Sina, and Taeku Lee. 2011. Accountability through Public Opinion: From Inertia to Public Action. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Publications. Olsen, Tricia D., Leigh A. Payne, and Andrew G. Reiter. 2010. "The Justice Balance: When Transitional Justice Improves Human Rights and Democracy." Human Rights Quarterly 32 (4):980-1007. Payne, Leigh A., Tricia D. Olsen, and Andrew G. Reiter. 2008. "Does Transitional Justice Work?" Paper Presented at the 49th International Studies Association Convention, San Francisco, March 26-29. Powell, Richard J. 2013. "Social Desirability Bias in Polling on Same-Sex Marriage Ballot Measures." American Politics Research 41 (6):1052-1070. Procópio, Marcos Luís. 2022. "Qualitative Empirical Research on Ethical Decision-Making in Organizations: Revisiting Waters, Bird, and Chant's Pioneering Methodological Approach." Quality & Quantity 56 (3):1661-1680. Renzetti, Claire M., and Raymond M. Lee. 1993. Researching Sensitive Topics. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Samii, Cyrus. 2013. "Who Wants to Forgive and Forget? Transitional Justice Preferences in Postwar Burundi." Journal of Peace Research 50 (2):219-233. Sen, Amartya. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York, NY: Knopf. Sikkink, Kathryn, and Carrie Booth Walling. 2007. "The Impact of Human Rights Trials in Latin America." Journal of Peace Research 44 (4): 427-445. Stuart, Gretchen S., and David A. Grimes. 2009. "Social Desirability Bias in Family Planning Studies: A Neglected Problem." Contraception 80 (2): 108-112. Teitel, Ruti G. 2000. Transitional Justice. New York, NY: Oxford University. Thoms, Oskar, James Ron, and Roland Paris. 2008. "The Effects of Transitional Justice Mechanisms: A Summary of Empiric Research Findings and Implications for Analysts and Practitioners." Centre for International Policy Studies, University of Ottawa, Ottawa. Tourangeau, Roger, and Ting Yan. 2007. "Sensitive Questions in Surveys." Psychological Bulletin 133 (5): 859-883. Tourangeau, Roger, Lance J. Rips, and Kenneth Rasinski. 2000. The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Tsuchiya, Takahiro, Yoko Hirai, and Shigeru Ono. 2007. "A Study of the Properties of the Item Count Technique." Public Opinion Quarterly 71(2): 253-272. United Nations, Security Council. 2004. "Report of the Secretary-General on the Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies." UN Doc. S/2004/616. Vesely, Stepan, and Christian A. Klöckner. 2020. "Social Desirability in Environmental Psychology Research: Three Meta-Analyses." Frontiers in Psychology 11: 1395. Vésteinsdóttir, Vaka, Adam Joinson, Ulf-Dietrich Reips, Hilda Bjork Danielsdottir, Elin Astros Thorarinsdottir, and Fanney Thorsdottir. 2019. "Questions on Honest Responding." Behavior Research Methods 51 (2): 811-825. Warner, Stanley L. 1965. "Randomized Response: A Survey Technique for Eliminating Evasive Answer Bias." Journal of the American Statistical Association 60 (309): 63-69. zh_TW
