1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Communication
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

  • No doi shows Citation Infomation
題名 電視政論性談話節目的第三人效果研究
The Third-person Effect of Political Call-in Programs
作者 吳倩慧
Wu, Chien-Hui
貢獻者 羅文輝
Lo, Ven-Hwei
吳倩慧
Wu, Chien-Hui
關鍵詞 第三人效果
電視政論性談話節目
Third-person effect
Political call-in program
日期 2008
上傳時間 18-Sep-2009 19:48:35 (UTC+8)
摘要 　　本研究探討「電視政論性談話節目」的第三人效果。第三人效果假說指出，人們會傾向認為，媒介訊息對自己的影響較小，對他人的影響較大。當媒介訊息產生第三人效果認知時，會使人們採取對應行動，為保護自己或他人不受訊息的負面影響而支持限制媒介，因此本研究的主要目的，在探討一般人對電視政論性談話節目的認知與態度，是否存在第三人效果（third-person effect），以及第三人效果是否會導致人們支持限制電視政論性談話節目。

　　本研究除了探討電視政論性談話節目是否會產生第三人效果外；並採用人口變項、電視政論性談話節目的社會需要性、政治注意及政治自我能等變項，來預測電視政論性談話節目的第三人效果認知，同時也進一步採用第三人效果認知來預測人們是否支持對電視政論性談話節目進行限制。

　　本研究的資料來自中央研究院2008 年台灣地區社會變遷調查計畫第五期第四次大眾傳播組的數據，這項研究共有1980 份有效問卷。資料分析顯示，電視政論性談話節目對台灣民眾會產生第三人效果，受訪民眾普遍認為電視政論性談話節目對於一般民眾產生的負面影響，大於對自己的負面影響。

　　其次，在電視政論性談話節目的社會需要性方面，受訪者認為社會越不需要電視政論性談話節目，第三人效果認知差距越大。對於政治的注意程度方面，研究結果發現，受訪者對政治注意程度較高，越傾向認為對自己和其他人的負面影響較大。同時，受訪者認為電視政論性談話節目的負面影響越大，也就越傾向支持對電視政論性談話節目進行限制；電視政論性談話節目「對自己的負面影響」、「對其他人的負面的影響」和第三人效果認知差距三變項，均是預測支持政府限制電視政論性談話節目的顯著變項。
The research is about “third person effect” of political call-in program. The“third-person effect” hypothesis states that mass media have geater effect on others than on himself or herself. When “third person effect” occurs, people tend to protectthemselves or others from being influenced negatively by media, which lead them to favor the restriction of media. Therefore, the purpose of the research is to analyze the　existence of “third- person effect” among general pereception and attitude toward　television political call-in program and whether “third preson effect” would lead people to favor political call-in program.

In addition to the analysis of third person effect of political call-in program, demographic variable, desirability of TV political call-in program, political attentionand external political self-efficacy are all adopted to predict the third person effect of political call-in program. In the mean while, the result of third person effect is used topredict whether people favor the restriction of political call-in program.

The data of research comes from Academia Sinica, project of the Taiwan Social Change Survey, 2008 issue fifth, fourth time, section of mass communication. This
research includes 1980 valid samples. The result of data analysis indicates that TV political call-in programs have effects on interviewees generally believe that TV political program have greater negative effects on others than on themselves.

In addition, as to the desirability of TV political call-in program, interviewees think that less desirability of TV political call-in program lead to greater gap of the
perception toward third person effect. As for the political attention, the result indicates that the higher political attention of interviewee, the high tendency for people to think greater third person effect on others and themselves. Mean while, interviewees think that the greater negative influence of political call-in program, there is higher
tendency for them to favor the restriction of political call-in program. The influence of political call-in program on oneself, the others and third-person perception, the three significant variables are all favorable to the restriction of TV political call-in program.
參考文獻 壹、中文部份
王旭（1996）。〈民意調查的效果與反效果—選舉期間民意調查報導在民眾心目中的觀感及其潛在影響〉，梁世武（編），《民意調查：一九九六年總統選舉預測》，頁147-184。台北：華泰。
王浩然（2001）。《電視犯罪新聞的第三人效果研究》。國立政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文。
台灣媒體觀察教育基金會（2002）。《2002第四季暨年度劣質節目評鑑報告》。台北：作者。
江子芽（2001）。〈李濤會把台灣帶到哪裡去〉，《財訊》，236: 150-154。
江聰明〈2003年12月5日〉。〈政論性節目　早已「各自表述」〉，《聯合報》，D2娛樂大搜查版。
李祖琛（1985）。《七Ｏ年代台灣鄉土文學運動析論》。國立政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文。
李清如（1999）。〈總統大選call-in名嘴排行榜出爐〉，《新新聞周報》，640: 21-25。
吳重禮、湯京平、黃紀（2000）。〈我國「政治功效意識」測量之初探〉，《選舉研究》，6(2): 23-44。
李岷愷（2004）。〈台灣電視新聞性節目多元化之研究－以談話性新聞節目為例〉。中國文化大學新聞研究所碩士論文。
李濠仲（2004）。〈從街頭到巷尾　大家都在談這個節目〉，《新新聞周報》，881/882: 44-45。
李雪莉（2006）。〈媒體主持人陳文茜　用知識魅力顛覆主流〉，《天下雜誌》，342: 178-179。
宋德貞（2007）。《反菸廣告的第三人效果》。世新大學傳播管理學研究所碩士論文。
林雅夫（2003）。〈不是富公，就是富婆〉，《財訊》，261: 124-129。
林瑩秋（2003年12月）。〈台灣七大政治談話節目──收視低於一、成本低、鈔票選票利益都不低〉，《財訊》，261, 130-132+134。
林博文（2004）。〈美國名嘴破滅的神話〉，《亞洲週刊》，18(33): 34-35。
林麗雲（2004年5月5、6日）。〈是民主的論壇，還是祭壇？透視政論性節目〉，《台灣日報》，8，名家論壇版。
林雪紅（2005）。〈李濤讓最長壽的叩應節目由黑翻紅〉，《商業周刊》，937: 46+48。
林瑩秋（2005）。〈熱愛「指導棋」的陳文茜〉，《財訊》，276: 38-40+42。
周鑫（2008年1月18日）。〈觀眾隨政論節目起舞〉，《中國時報》，A22時論廣場版。
林照真（2008年4月1日）。〈談話節目偏頗　選民皆輸〉，《中國時報》，A15時論廣場版。
林冠晨（2008年11月29日）。〈政論節目應轉型〉，《中國時報》，A14版時論廣場。
林政谷（2008）。《政論性叩應節目收視情形與政黨傾向關聯性之研究》。國立政治大學政治學研究所碩士論文。
翁秀琪（1993），〈台灣地下媒體〉，《解構廣電媒體》，台北：澄社。
苗棣譯（1999）。《脫口秀－－廣播電視談話節目的威力與影響》。北京：新華。（原書：Scott, G. G. [1996]. Can We Talk? the power and influence of talk shows. New York: Insight Books.）
紀淑芳（2003a）。〈什麼都能講！台灣政論名嘴驚奇錄〉，《財訊》，261: 111-115。
紀淑芳（2003b）。〈飛碟幫是政論界最大勢力〉，《財訊》，261: 116-122。
苗志勵（2004）。〈台灣心聲　嗆聲有理〉，《Taiwan News 財經、文化周刊》，121: 24-27。
〈政論節目多　台灣奇蹟〉（2004年12月22日）。《民生報》，A2新聞前線版。
紀佩君（2005）。《台灣政論節目的考古與拓璞－－談十年流變與初探大選期間集體收視升降的文化解釋》。國立政治大學社會學研究所項士論文。
姚人多（2006年4月15日），〈二一ＯＯ，請再三思！〉，《中國時報》，A19時論廣場版。
洪皓唐（2007年7月21日）。〈唇槍舌劍到同仇敵愾〉，《蘋果日報》，A15論壇版。
姚盈如（2007年7月18日）。〈選罷法修正，朝野達共識──政論節目不公，最高罰兩百萬〉，《中國時報》，A11政經綜合版。
洪雅慧（2007）〈網路電子郵件之「第三人效果」與「第一人效果」──以台灣「319槍擊疑雲」電子郵件散播為例〉，《新聞學研究》，90: 1-42。
姚人多（2008年1月17日）。〈最大亂源監督次大亂源〉。《中國時報》，A19版時論廣場。
〈政論節目偏頗　可罰200萬〉（2008年2月23日）。《蘋果日報》，A10 2008總統大選版。
姚人多（2008）。〈台灣政論節目的三重虛偽性格〉，《財訊》，312: 118+120。
高瑞松（1996）。《政治性叩應電視節目內容的節構分析──以2100全民開講大選大家談為例》。國立交通大學傳研所碩士論文。
高有智（2004年12月6日）。《拒上．拒看．拒聽──民間團體三拒運動，抵制汪、趙節目》，《中國時報》，A5焦點新聞版。
康紀漢（2002）。《電視談話節目的內容與收視率之關聯性分析》。文化大學新聞研究所碩士論文。
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: 163-204。
張世嘉（2004）。〈三年牢獄三部小說　他看到了另一個台灣〉，《新新聞周報》，881/882: 42-43。
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。
張景為（2008年11月25日）。〈名嘴、媒體、潛規則〉，《中國時報》，A15版時論廣場。
張卿卿、羅文輝（2009）。〈政論性談話節目影響之探討〉，《新聞學研究》，98: 47-91。
馮建三（1995）。〈異議媒體的停滯與流變之初探：從政論雜誌到地下電台〉，《廣電資本運動的政治經濟學：析論1990年代臺灣廣電媒體的若干變遷》，台北：台灣社會硏究社。
彭芸（1996）。〈談話性節目、叩應與民主政治〉，《美歐月刊》，11(8): 61-80。
邱紫穎譯（1997）。《日間電視節目的編排》。台北：廣電基金會。（原書Matelski M. J. [1991]. Daytime Television Programming. Boston: Focal Press.）
胡幼偉（1997年6月）。〈選舉新聞的第三者效果〉，「1997中華傳播學會論文研討會」，台北縣深坑。
胡幼偉（1998）。《傳播訊息的第三者效果—理論探源與實證研究》。台北：五南。
胡幼偉、蔡炯青、謝佳珍（2000年6月）。〈選舉民調：誰在意？誰相信？影響誰？〉，「2000中華傳播學會研討會」，台北縣深坑。
彭芸（2001）。《新媒介與政治》。台北：五南。
游明儀（2003）。《新聞談話性節目的內容分析暨其節目中記者專業意理實踐之研究：以新聞駭客News98為例》。國立台灣大學新聞研究所碩士論文。
黃莉雅（2007）。《政論節目之論辯語藝分析：以2100全民開講與大話新聞為例》。世新大學口語傳播研究所碩士論文。
楊軍良（1997）。《出賣李濤──2100全民開講幕後秘辛》。台北：商智文化。
楊意菁（2002）。《公共／眾，民意與媒體再現：以民調報導與談話性節目為例》。國立政治大學新聞研究所博士論文。
楊意菁（2004）。〈民意與公共性：批判解讀台灣電視談話節目〉，《新聞學研究》，79: 1-47。
揭陽（2004）。〈政治談話節目的墮落與悲哀〉，《Taiwan News 財經、文化周刊》121: 32-33。
楊孟瑜（2006年7月13日）。〈台灣來鴻：發趙建銘財〉，BBC新聞。
管中祥（2002）。〈為民喉舌還是口水大戰？〉，《目擊者》，27: 26-33。
歐陽聖恩（1985）。《無黨籍人士所辦政論雜誌在我國政治環境中角色功能之研究》。中國文化大學政治研究所碩士論文。
劉伯姬（2004）。〈汪笨湖開講　南台灣最高音〉，《新新聞周報》，881/882: 34-38。
陳昭如（1994）。《Call-in！地下電台：台灣新傳播文化的震撼與迷思》，台北：日臻。
陳炳宏（2004年4月7日）。〈都是媒體惹的禍〉，《蘋果日報》，A15論壇版。
陳潔寧（2004）。《支持監督犯罪新聞報導研究：傷害性影響與第三人效果之作用—以政策制定者以及執法人員為例》。輔仁大學大眾傳播學研究所碩士論文。
陳瑞南（2006）。《警政負面新聞第三人效果之研究》。國立政治大學傳播學院碩士在職專班碩士論文。
陳宗逸（2006）。〈年度風雲人物　【大話新聞】撫慰本土心靈〉，《新台灣新聞週刊》，562。取自http://www.newtaiwan.com.tw/bulletinview.jsp?bulletinid=65994
鍾新（2000）。〈美國電視談話節目運作特色分析〉。《中國記者》，2000年第10期：54。
蔡宜倩（2003）。《同性戀新聞中第三人效果研究》，南華大學傳播管理學系碩士論文。
簡余晏（2005年11月30日）。〈從「台灣心聲」看政論節目變化〉，《廣播電視資料館館訊》，取自http://library.bdf.org.tw/articles/f051130.pdf。
簡余晏（2005年11月2日）。〈政論節目從對話到激化〉，《蘋果日報》，A15論壇版。
簡余晏（2006）。《台灣心聲現象之解析》。國立政治大學新聞學系碩士在職專班碩士論文。
盧非易（1995）。《有線（限）電視無限（線）文化》。台北：幼獅。
盧世祥（2004）。《透視政論節目：廣電基金政論談話性節目觀察研究》，台北：財團法人廣播電視事業發展基金。
〈離譜　立委提限播政論節目〉（2008年11月28日）。《蘋果日報》，A10政治版。
羅文輝（2000a）。〈性策略理論、性別、第三人效果與支持限制色情媒介〉，《新聞學研究》，63: 201-222。
羅文輝（2000b）。〈負面內容與社會距離對第三人效果認知的影響〉，《新聞學研究》，65: 95-129。
羅文輝、牛隆光（2003）。〈自尊、第三人效果與對限制媒介支持度的關連性研究〉，《新聞學研究》，75: 141-167。
羅廣仁（2004年12月5日）。《部分團體籲拒上拒看拒聽汪笨湖趙少康節目》，中央社新聞。
貳、英文部分
Abramson, P. R., & Aldrich, J. (1982). The decline of electoral participation in America. American Political Science Review, 76 (3),502-521.
Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture. N. J.: Princeton University Press.
Andrews, J. C., Durvasula, S., & Akhter, S. H. (1990). A framework for conceptualizing and measuring the involvement construct in advertising research. Journal of Advertising Research, 19(4), 27-40.
Atwood, L. E. (1994). Illusions of media power: The third-person effect. Journalism Quarterly, 71(2), 269-281.
Balch, George I. (1974). Multiple indicators in survey research: The concept ‘sense of political efficacy’. Political Methodology, 1(1): 1-43.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Branden, N. (1969). The psychology of self-esteem. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Branden, N. (1994). Six pillars of self-esteem. New York: Bantam.
Brown, J. D. (1986). Evaluations of self and others: selfenchancement biases in social judgments. Social Cognition, 4(4), 353-376.
Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. (1954). The voter decides. Evanstone: Row Peterson and Company. Communication Research, 31(1), 109-130.
Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chapin, J. R. (2000). Third-person perception and optimistic bias among urban minority at-risk youth. Communication Research, 27(1), 51-81.
Chanpin, J. (2007). Third-person perception about domestic violence among experts. North American of Psychology, 9(3), 463-473.
Chia, S. C., Lu, K. H., & McLeod, D. M. (2004). Sex, lies, and video compact disc－A case study on third-person perception and motivations for media censorship. Communication Research, 31(1), 109-130.
Cohen, J., & Davis, R. G. (1991). Third-person effect and the differential impact in negative political advertising. Journalism Quarterly, 68(4), 680-688.
Craig, S. C., Miemi, R. G., & Silver, G. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12(3), 289-314.
Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1-21.
Davis, R. (1997). Understanding broadcasting political talk. Political Communication, 14(3), 323-332.
Davis, S., & Mares, M. L. (1998). Effects of talk show viewing on adolescents. Journal of Communication. 48(3), 69-86.
Dember, W. N., & Warm, J. S. (1979). Psychology of Perception, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Diefenbach D. L. (2007). Television and attitude toward mental issues: cultivation analysis and the third-person effect. Journal of Communication, 35(2), 181-195.
Duck, J. M., Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (1995). Me, us and team: Political identification and the third-person effect in the 1993 Australian federal election. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(2), 195-215.
Duck, J. M., & Mullin B. A. (1995). The Perceived impact of the mass media: reconsidering the third-person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(1), 77-93
Dodd, D. H., & White, R. M. (1980). Cognition-Mental Structures and Processes﹐Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2004). Right about others, wrong about ourselves? Actual and perceived self-other differences in resistance to persuasion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43(4), 585-603.
Eastin, M.S., & LaRose, R. (2000, September). Internet self-efficacy and psychology of the digital divide. Journal of Computer-medicated Communication, 6(1), Retriever from http://140.119.115.1:1080/search*cht/tJournal+of+Computer-medicated+Communication/tjournal+of+computer+medicated+communication/-3,0,0,B/l856~b2188195&FF=tjournal+of+computer+mediated+communication&1,1,,1,0/indexsort=-
Flynn, L., Leisa, R. F., & Ronald, E. G. (1993). Application of the Personal Involvement Inventory in Marketing, Psychology & Marketing, 10(4), 357-366.
Gunther, A. C. (1991). What we think others think: cause and consequence in the third- person effect. Communication Research, 18(3), 355-372.
Gunther, A. C., & Thorson, E. (1992). Perceived persuasive effects of product commercials and public service announcements: Third-person effect in new domains. Communication Research, 19(5), 574-596.
Gunther, A., & Mundy, P. (1993). Biased optimism and the third-person effect. Journalism Quarterly, 70(1), 57-67.
Gunther, A. C. (1995). Overrating the X-rating: Third-person perception and support for censorship of pornography. Journal of Communication, 45(1), 27-38.
Glynn, C. J., & Ostman, R. E. (1998). Public opinion. Journalism Quarterly, 65(3), 299-306.
Gunther A. C. , Blot D., Borzekowski D. L.G. , Liebhart J.L., & Dillard J. P. (2006). Presumed influence on peer norms: How mass media indirectly affect adolescent smoking. Journal of Communication, 56(1), 52-68.
Henriksen, L., & Flora, J. A. (1999). Third-person perception and children: perceived impact of pro-and anti-smoking Ads. Communication research, 26(6), 643-665.
Himmelstein, H.（1984）. Television Myth and The American Mind. New York: Praeger Scientific.
Hoffner, C., Buchanan, M., Anderson, J. D., Hubbs, L. A., Kamigaki, S. K., Kowalczyk, L., Pastorek, A., Plotkin, R. S., & Silberg, K. J. (1999). Support for cencorship of television violence: The role of the third-person effect and news exposure. Communication Research, 26(6), 726-742.
Hollander, B. A. (1997) Fuel to the fore: Talk radio and the Gamson hypothesis. Political Communication, 12(3), 355-369.
Hoorens, V., & Ruiter, S. (1996). The optimal impact phenomenon: beyond the third-person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26(5): 599-610.
Horowitz, E. (1993). Talk show politics: The match that rekindles American democracy? Paper presented to the Thoery and Metholodgy Division for the AEJ Annual Convention in Kansa City, August.
Huh, J., Delorme, D.E., & Reid, L.N.(2004). The third-person effect and its influence on behavioral outcomes in a product advertising context: The case of direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. Communication Research, 31(5), 568-599.
Innes, J. M., & Zeitz, H. (1988). The public’s view of the mass media: a test of the “third-person” effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 457-463.
Jensen, J. D., & Hurley, R. J. (2005) Third-person effect and the environment: social distance, social desirability, and presumed behavior. Journal of Communication, 55(2), 242-256.
Johansson, B. (2002,July). Images of Media Power: The Third-Person Effect and the Shaping of Political Attitudes. Paper presented at the 23th Conference and General Assembly JAMCR/AIECS/AIERI International Association for Media and Communication Research, Barcelona.
Jones, J. P. (2005). Entertaining politics : New political television and civic culture. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Jost, K. (1994). Talk show democracy. Congressional Quarterly Research, 361-384.
Lambe, L. J. & McLeod, M.D.(2005). Understanding Third-Person Perception Processes: Predicting Perceived Impact on Self and Others for Multiple Expressive Contexts. Journal of Communication,55(2), 277-291.
Lane, R E. (1959). Political life: why people get involved in politics? Glencoe, III.: The Free Press.
Lasorsa, D. L. (1989). Real and perceived effects of Amerika. Journalism Quarterly, 66(3), 373-378, 529.
Lee, B., & Tamborini, R. (2005). Third-person effect and Internet pornography: The influence of collectivism and Internet self-efficacy. Journal of Communication, 55(2), 292-310.
Leigh, J. H., & Menon, A. (1987). Audience involvement effects on the information processing of umbrella print advertisements. Journal of advertisements, 16(3), 3-12.
Lo, V. H., & Paddon, A. R. (1999, August) How sexual strategies theory, gender, and the third-person effect explain attitudes about pornography. Paper accepted for presentation at the annual convention of the Association for Journalism and Mass Communication, New Orleans, LA.
Liebes, T. (1999). Displacing the news: the israeli talk show as public space. International Communication Gazette, 61(2), 113-125.
Livingstone, S., & Lunt, P. (1994). Talk on television: Audience participation and public debate. London and New York: Routledge.
Lo, V. H., & Wei, R. (2002). Third-person effect, gender and support for restriction of
pornography on the Internet. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46(1), 13-33.
McLeod, D. M., Eveland, W. P. Jr., & Nathanson, A. I. (1997). Support for censorship of violent and misogynic rap lyrics: A analysis of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 24(2), 153-174.
Mcleod, D. M., Detenber, B. H., & Eveland, W. P. (2001). Behind the third-person effect: Differentiating perceptual processes for self and other. Journal of
Communication, 51(4), 678-695.
Meirick P. C. (2005). Rethinking the target corollary: The effects of social distance, perceived exposure, and perceived predispositions on first-person and third-person perceptions. Communication Research, 32(6), 822-843.
Milbrath, L. W. & Goel, M. L. (1977). Political participation: how and why do people get involved in politics? Chicago: Rand McNally.
Millar, M.G., & Millar, K.U. (2000). Promoting safe driving behaviors: The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(4), 853-866.
Munson, W. (1993). All talk: The talk show in media culture. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Mutz, D. C. (1989). The influence of perceptions of media influence: Third-person effects and the public expression of opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 1(1), 3-23.
Neuwirth, Frederick & Mayo (2002). Person-effects and heuristic-systematic processing. Communication Research, 29(3), 320-359.
Paek, H., Pan, Z., Sun, Y., Abisald, J., & Houden, D.(2005). The third-person perception as social judgment: An exploration of social distance and uncertainty in perceived effects of political attack ads. Communication Research, 32(2), 143-170.
Park, H. S., & Salmon, C. T. (2005). A test of the third-person effect in public relations: Application of social comparison theory. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(1), 25-43.
Peiser, W., & Peter, J. (2000). Third-person perception of television-viewing behavior. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 24-45.
Peiser, W., & Peter, J. (2001). Explaining individual differences in third-person perception: A limits/possibilities perspective. Communication Research, 28(2), 156-180.
Perloff, L. S., & Fetzer,B. K. (1986). Self-other judgements and perceived vulnerability to victimisation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 502-510.
Perloff, R. M. (1989). Ego-involvement and the third person effect of televised news coverage. Communication Research, 16(2), 236-267.
Perloff, R. M. (1993). Third-person effect research 1983-1992: A review and synthesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 5(2), 167-184.
Perloff, R. M. (1999). The third-person effect: A critical review and synthesis. Media Psychology, 1(4), 353-378.
Perloff, R. M. (2002). The third-person effect. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed.) (pp 489-506). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pinkleton, B., Austin, E., & Fortman, K. (1998). Relationships of media use and political disaffection to political efficacy and voting behavior. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(1), 34-49.
Priest, P. J. (1995). Public intimacies: Talk show participants and tell-all TV. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Reid, S. A., & Hogg, M. A. (2005). A self-categorization explanation for the third-person effect. Human Communication Research, 31(1), 129-161.
Rossler, P., & Brosius, H. B.(2001).Do talk shows cultivate adolescents` views of the world? A prolonged-exposure experiment. Journal of Communication, 51(1), 143-163.
Rucinski, D., & Salmon, C. T. (1990). The other as the vulnerable voter: A study of the third-person effect in the 1998 U.S. presidential campaign. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2(4), 345-366.
Rojas, H., Shah, D. V., & Faber, R. J. (1996). For the good of others: Censorship and the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8(2), 163-186.
Rose, B. G. (1985). TV genres: A handbook and reference guide. Westport, Conn.:
Greenwood Press.
Salmon, C. T. (1986). Perspectives on involvement in consumer and communication research. In B. Dervin & M. Viogt (Eds.) Progress In Communication Sciences (pp.243-268). NJ: Ablex.
Salwen, M. B., & Driscoll, P. D. (1997). Consequences of third-person perception in support of press restrictions in the O. J. Simpson trial. Journal of Communication, 47(2), 60-78.
Salwen, M. B. (1998). Perceptions of media influence and support for censorship: The third-person effect in the 1996 Presidential election. Communication Research, 25(3), 259-285.
Shah, D. V., Faber, R. J., & Youn, S. (1999). Susceptibility and severity. Communication Research, 26(2), 240-267.
Shen, M. C. H.(1999). Participatotory current-affairs talkshows: Public communication revitalized on television. Taipei: author.
Singles, E. D. (1981). Black consciousness and political participation: The missing link. American Political Science Review, 75(1), 76-91.
Svenson, O. (1981). Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers? Acta psychological ,47(2), 143-148.
Tafarodi, R. W., & Swann, W. B. (1995). Self-liking and self-competence as dimensions of global Self-esteem : Initial validation of a measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65 (2), 322-342.
Tewksbury, D. (2002). The role of comparison group size in the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14(3), 248-263.
Tiedge, J. T., Silverblatt, A., Havice, M. J. & Rosenfeld, R. (1991). Discrepancy between perceived first-person and perceived third-person mass media effect. Journalism Quarterly, 68(1), 141-154.
Timberg, B. A. (2002). Television talk: A history of the TV talk show. Texas: University of Texas Press.
Weinstein , N. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 806-820.
Weinstein, N. (1989). Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science, 246, 1232-1233.
Wei, R., Lo, V. H., & Lu, H. Y. (2007).Reconsidering the relationship between the third-person perception and optimistic bias. Communication Research, 34(6): 665-684.
White, H. A., & Dillon, J. F. (2000). Knowledge about other’s reaction to a public service announcement: The impact on self persuasion and third-person perception. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(4), 788-803.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited: The motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory. Journal of Personality, 47(2), 245-287.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
新聞研究所
95451026
97
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095451026
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 羅文輝zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Lo, Ven-Hweien_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 吳倩慧zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Wu, Chien-Huien_US
dc.creator (作者) 吳倩慧zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Wu, Chien-Huien_US
dc.date (日期) 2008en_US
dc.date.accessioned 18-Sep-2009 19:48:35 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 18-Sep-2009 19:48:35 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 18-Sep-2009 19:48:35 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0095451026en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/36824-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 新聞研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 95451026zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 97zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 　　本研究探討「電視政論性談話節目」的第三人效果。第三人效果假說指出，人們會傾向認為，媒介訊息對自己的影響較小，對他人的影響較大。當媒介訊息產生第三人效果認知時，會使人們採取對應行動，為保護自己或他人不受訊息的負面影響而支持限制媒介，因此本研究的主要目的，在探討一般人對電視政論性談話節目的認知與態度，是否存在第三人效果（third-person effect），以及第三人效果是否會導致人們支持限制電視政論性談話節目。

　　本研究除了探討電視政論性談話節目是否會產生第三人效果外；並採用人口變項、電視政論性談話節目的社會需要性、政治注意及政治自我能等變項，來預測電視政論性談話節目的第三人效果認知，同時也進一步採用第三人效果認知來預測人們是否支持對電視政論性談話節目進行限制。

　　本研究的資料來自中央研究院2008 年台灣地區社會變遷調查計畫第五期第四次大眾傳播組的數據，這項研究共有1980 份有效問卷。資料分析顯示，電視政論性談話節目對台灣民眾會產生第三人效果，受訪民眾普遍認為電視政論性談話節目對於一般民眾產生的負面影響，大於對自己的負面影響。

　　其次，在電視政論性談話節目的社會需要性方面，受訪者認為社會越不需要電視政論性談話節目，第三人效果認知差距越大。對於政治的注意程度方面，研究結果發現，受訪者對政治注意程度較高，越傾向認為對自己和其他人的負面影響較大。同時，受訪者認為電視政論性談話節目的負面影響越大，也就越傾向支持對電視政論性談話節目進行限制；電視政論性談話節目「對自己的負面影響」、「對其他人的負面的影響」和第三人效果認知差距三變項，均是預測支持政府限制電視政論性談話節目的顯著變項。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) The research is about “third person effect” of political call-in program. The“third-person effect” hypothesis states that mass media have geater effect on others than on himself or herself. When “third person effect” occurs, people tend to protectthemselves or others from being influenced negatively by media, which lead them to favor the restriction of media. Therefore, the purpose of the research is to analyze the　existence of “third- person effect” among general pereception and attitude toward　television political call-in program and whether “third preson effect” would lead people to favor political call-in program.

In addition to the analysis of third person effect of political call-in program, demographic variable, desirability of TV political call-in program, political attentionand external political self-efficacy are all adopted to predict the third person effect of political call-in program. In the mean while, the result of third person effect is used topredict whether people favor the restriction of political call-in program.

The data of research comes from Academia Sinica, project of the Taiwan Social Change Survey, 2008 issue fifth, fourth time, section of mass communication. This
research includes 1980 valid samples. The result of data analysis indicates that TV political call-in programs have effects on interviewees generally believe that TV political program have greater negative effects on others than on themselves.

In addition, as to the desirability of TV political call-in program, interviewees think that less desirability of TV political call-in program lead to greater gap of the
perception toward third person effect. As for the political attention, the result indicates that the higher political attention of interviewee, the high tendency for people to think greater third person effect on others and themselves. Mean while, interviewees think that the greater negative influence of political call-in program, there is higher
tendency for them to favor the restriction of political call-in program. The influence of political call-in program on oneself, the others and third-person perception, the three significant variables are all favorable to the restriction of TV political call-in program.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章　研究動機與目的…………………………………………………………1

第二章　文獻探討…………………………………………………………………10

第一節　電視談話節目的發展……………………………………………………10
第二節　第三人效果………………………………………………………………49
第三節　影響第三人效果強弱的中介因素………………………………………59
第四節　第三人效果與支持限制電視政論性談話節目…………………………73

第三章　研究方法…………………………………………………………………77
第一節　抽樣方法及問卷調查……………………………………………………77
第二節　研究變項…………………………………………………………………83

第四章　研究結果………………………………………………………………102
第一節　樣本結構………………………………………………………………102
第二節　假設檢驗………………………………………………………………104

第五章　結論……………………………………………………………………120
第一節　重要研究發現…………………………………………………………120
第二節　研究發現的意涵………………………………………………………127
第三節　研究限制………………………………………………………………131
第四節　對未來研究的建議……………………………………………………134

參考文獻…………………………………………………………………………136
壹、中文部份……………………………………………………………………136
貳、英文部分……………………………………………………………………142

附錄
台灣地區社會變遷調查計畫第五期第四次大眾傳播組問卷（部分）………152


圖表目錄
表2-1：電視政論性談話節目的定義……………………………………………16
表2-2：電視政論性談話節目的收視狀況………………………………………42
表3-1：2008年社會變遷調查計畫調查第五期第四次各鄉鎮樣本數分配表…79
表3-2：2008年台灣地區社會變遷調查計畫調查第五期第四次大眾傳播組樣本代表性檢定結果……………………………………………………………………81
表3-3：測量媒介收視狀況之平均數、標準差…………………………………84
表3-4：測量電視政論性談話節目收視狀況之平均數、標準差………………85
表3-5：電視政論性談話節目對自己、其他人的負面影響之平均數、標準差88
表3-6：測量電視政論性談話節目「對自己的負面影響」認知題項的主成分因素分析………………………………………………………………………………89
表3-7：測量電視政論性談話節目「對其他人的負面影響」認知題項的主成分因素分析……………………………………………………………………………90
表3-8：測量電視政論性談話節目的社會需要性之平均數、標準差…………91
表3-9：政治注意程度之平均數、標準差………………………………………93
表3-10：測量政治注意程度題項之主成分因素分析…………………………94
表3-11：政治自我效能感的主成分因素分析（用varimax轉軸）…………96
表3-12：政治自我效能感的主成分因素分析（用varimax轉軸）…………97
表3-13：內在政治自我效能感之平均數、標準差……………………………98
表3-14：外在政治自我效能感之平均數、標準差……………………………98
表3-15：測量受訪者支持政府採取媒介管制題項之平均數、標準差………100
表3-16：測量受訪者支持政府採取媒介管制題項之主成分因素分析………100
表4-1：2008年台灣地區社會變遷調查計畫調查第五期第四次樣本分析…103
表4-2：電視政論性談話節目對自己、其他人的負面影響之paired t檢定105
表4-3：電視政論性談話節目的社會需要性與第三人效果認知之相關矩陣106
表4-4：政治注意程度與第三人效果變項（對自己的負面影響、對其他人的負面影響）的相關矩陣……………………………………………………………107
表4-5：第三人效果變項（對自己的負面影響、對其他人的負面影響和第三人效果認知）與政治自我效能感的相關矩陣……………………………………109
表4-6：人口變項、媒介收視變項、電視政論性談話節目的社會需要性、政治注意程度及政治自我效能感對第三人效果變項和第三人效果認知的階層迴歸分析…………………………………………………………………………………113
表4-7：第三人效果變項（對自己的負面影響、對其他人的負面影響）、第三人效果認知與支持限制電視政論性談話節目的相關矩陣……………………115
表4-8：人口變項、媒介收視變項、電視政論性談話節目的社會需要性、政治注意程度、政治自我效能感及第三人效果變項對支持限制電視政論性談話節目的階層迴歸分析…………………………………………………………………119		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 93190 bytes-
dc.format.extent 132503 bytes-
dc.format.extent 116408 bytes-
dc.format.extent 116607 bytes-
dc.format.extent 199464 bytes-
dc.format.extent 522333 bytes-
dc.format.extent 215031 bytes-
dc.format.extent 172620 bytes-
dc.format.extent 198514 bytes-
dc.format.extent 320830 bytes-
dc.format.extent 130112 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095451026en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 第三人效果zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 電視政論性談話節目zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Third-person effecten_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Political call-in programen_US
dc.title (題名) 電視政論性談話節目的第三人效果研究zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The Third-person Effect of Political Call-in Programsen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 壹、中文部份zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 王旭（1996）。〈民意調查的效果與反效果—選舉期間民意調查報導在民眾心目中的觀感及其潛在影響〉，梁世武（編），《民意調查：一九九六年總統選舉預測》，頁147-184。台北：華泰。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 王浩然（2001）。《電視犯罪新聞的第三人效果研究》。國立政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 台灣媒體觀察教育基金會（2002）。《2002第四季暨年度劣質節目評鑑報告》。台北：作者。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 江子芽（2001）。〈李濤會把台灣帶到哪裡去〉，《財訊》，236: 150-154。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 江聰明〈2003年12月5日〉。〈政論性節目　早已「各自表述」〉，《聯合報》，D2娛樂大搜查版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 李祖琛（1985）。《七Ｏ年代台灣鄉土文學運動析論》。國立政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 李清如（1999）。〈總統大選call-in名嘴排行榜出爐〉，《新新聞周報》，640: 21-25。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 吳重禮、湯京平、黃紀（2000）。〈我國「政治功效意識」測量之初探〉，《選舉研究》，6(2): 23-44。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 李岷愷（2004）。〈台灣電視新聞性節目多元化之研究－以談話性新聞節目為例〉。中國文化大學新聞研究所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 李濠仲（2004）。〈從街頭到巷尾　大家都在談這個節目〉，《新新聞周報》，881/882: 44-45。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 李雪莉（2006）。〈媒體主持人陳文茜　用知識魅力顛覆主流〉，《天下雜誌》，342: 178-179。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 宋德貞（2007）。《反菸廣告的第三人效果》。世新大學傳播管理學研究所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 林雅夫（2003）。〈不是富公，就是富婆〉，《財訊》，261: 124-129。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 林瑩秋（2003年12月）。〈台灣七大政治談話節目──收視低於一、成本低、鈔票選票利益都不低〉，《財訊》，261, 130-132+134。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 林博文（2004）。〈美國名嘴破滅的神話〉，《亞洲週刊》，18(33): 34-35。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 林麗雲（2004年5月5、6日）。〈是民主的論壇，還是祭壇？透視政論性節目〉，《台灣日報》，8，名家論壇版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 林雪紅（2005）。〈李濤讓最長壽的叩應節目由黑翻紅〉，《商業周刊》，937: 46+48。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 林瑩秋（2005）。〈熱愛「指導棋」的陳文茜〉，《財訊》，276: 38-40+42。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 周鑫（2008年1月18日）。〈觀眾隨政論節目起舞〉，《中國時報》，A22時論廣場版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 林照真（2008年4月1日）。〈談話節目偏頗　選民皆輸〉，《中國時報》，A15時論廣場版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 林冠晨（2008年11月29日）。〈政論節目應轉型〉，《中國時報》，A14版時論廣場。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 林政谷（2008）。《政論性叩應節目收視情形與政黨傾向關聯性之研究》。國立政治大學政治學研究所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 翁秀琪（1993），〈台灣地下媒體〉，《解構廣電媒體》，台北：澄社。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 苗棣譯（1999）。《脫口秀－－廣播電視談話節目的威力與影響》。北京：新華。（原書：Scott, G. G. [1996]. Can We Talk? the power and influence of talk shows. New York: Insight Books.）zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 紀淑芳（2003a）。〈什麼都能講！台灣政論名嘴驚奇錄〉，《財訊》，261: 111-115。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 紀淑芳（2003b）。〈飛碟幫是政論界最大勢力〉，《財訊》，261: 116-122。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 苗志勵（2004）。〈台灣心聲　嗆聲有理〉，《Taiwan News 財經、文化周刊》，121: 24-27。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 〈政論節目多　台灣奇蹟〉（2004年12月22日）。《民生報》，A2新聞前線版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 紀佩君（2005）。《台灣政論節目的考古與拓璞－－談十年流變與初探大選期間集體收視升降的文化解釋》。國立政治大學社會學研究所項士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 姚人多（2006年4月15日），〈二一ＯＯ，請再三思！〉，《中國時報》，A19時論廣場版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 洪皓唐（2007年7月21日）。〈唇槍舌劍到同仇敵愾〉，《蘋果日報》，A15論壇版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 姚盈如（2007年7月18日）。〈選罷法修正，朝野達共識──政論節目不公，最高罰兩百萬〉，《中國時報》，A11政經綜合版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 洪雅慧（2007）〈網路電子郵件之「第三人效果」與「第一人效果」──以台灣「319槍擊疑雲」電子郵件散播為例〉，《新聞學研究》，90: 1-42。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 姚人多（2008年1月17日）。〈最大亂源監督次大亂源〉。《中國時報》，A19版時論廣場。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 〈政論節目偏頗　可罰200萬〉（2008年2月23日）。《蘋果日報》，A10 2008總統大選版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 姚人多（2008）。〈台灣政論節目的三重虛偽性格〉，《財訊》，312: 118+120。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 高瑞松（1996）。《政治性叩應電視節目內容的節構分析──以2100全民開講大選大家談為例》。國立交通大學傳研所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 高有智（2004年12月6日）。《拒上．拒看．拒聽──民間團體三拒運動，抵制汪、趙節目》，《中國時報》，A5焦點新聞版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 康紀漢（2002）。《電視談話節目的內容與收視率之關聯性分析》。文化大學新聞研究所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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: 163-204。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 張世嘉（2004）。〈三年牢獄三部小說　他看到了另一個台灣〉，《新新聞周報》，881/882: 42-43。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 張景為（2008年11月25日）。〈名嘴、媒體、潛規則〉，《中國時報》，A15版時論廣場。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 張卿卿、羅文輝（2009）。〈政論性談話節目影響之探討〉，《新聞學研究》，98: 47-91。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 馮建三（1995）。〈異議媒體的停滯與流變之初探：從政論雜誌到地下電台〉，《廣電資本運動的政治經濟學：析論1990年代臺灣廣電媒體的若干變遷》，台北：台灣社會硏究社。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 彭芸（1996）。〈談話性節目、叩應與民主政治〉，《美歐月刊》，11(8): 61-80。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 邱紫穎譯（1997）。《日間電視節目的編排》。台北：廣電基金會。（原書Matelski M. J. [1991]. Daytime Television Programming. Boston: Focal Press.）zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 胡幼偉（1997年6月）。〈選舉新聞的第三者效果〉，「1997中華傳播學會論文研討會」，台北縣深坑。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 胡幼偉（1998）。《傳播訊息的第三者效果—理論探源與實證研究》。台北：五南。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 胡幼偉、蔡炯青、謝佳珍（2000年6月）。〈選舉民調：誰在意？誰相信？影響誰？〉，「2000中華傳播學會研討會」，台北縣深坑。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 彭芸（2001）。《新媒介與政治》。台北：五南。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 游明儀（2003）。《新聞談話性節目的內容分析暨其節目中記者專業意理實踐之研究：以新聞駭客News98為例》。國立台灣大學新聞研究所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 黃莉雅（2007）。《政論節目之論辯語藝分析：以2100全民開講與大話新聞為例》。世新大學口語傳播研究所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 楊軍良（1997）。《出賣李濤──2100全民開講幕後秘辛》。台北：商智文化。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 楊意菁（2002）。《公共／眾，民意與媒體再現：以民調報導與談話性節目為例》。國立政治大學新聞研究所博士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 楊意菁（2004）。〈民意與公共性：批判解讀台灣電視談話節目〉，《新聞學研究》，79: 1-47。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 揭陽（2004）。〈政治談話節目的墮落與悲哀〉，《Taiwan News 財經、文化周刊》121: 32-33。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 楊孟瑜（2006年7月13日）。〈台灣來鴻：發趙建銘財〉，BBC新聞。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 管中祥（2002）。〈為民喉舌還是口水大戰？〉，《目擊者》，27: 26-33。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 歐陽聖恩（1985）。《無黨籍人士所辦政論雜誌在我國政治環境中角色功能之研究》。中國文化大學政治研究所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 劉伯姬（2004）。〈汪笨湖開講　南台灣最高音〉，《新新聞周報》，881/882: 34-38。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 陳昭如（1994）。《Call-in！地下電台：台灣新傳播文化的震撼與迷思》，台北：日臻。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 陳炳宏（2004年4月7日）。〈都是媒體惹的禍〉，《蘋果日報》，A15論壇版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 陳潔寧（2004）。《支持監督犯罪新聞報導研究：傷害性影響與第三人效果之作用—以政策制定者以及執法人員為例》。輔仁大學大眾傳播學研究所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 陳瑞南（2006）。《警政負面新聞第三人效果之研究》。國立政治大學傳播學院碩士在職專班碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 陳宗逸（2006）。〈年度風雲人物　【大話新聞】撫慰本土心靈〉，《新台灣新聞週刊》，562。取自http://www.newtaiwan.com.tw/bulletinview.jsp?bulletinid=65994zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 鍾新（2000）。〈美國電視談話節目運作特色分析〉。《中國記者》，2000年第10期：54。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 蔡宜倩（2003）。《同性戀新聞中第三人效果研究》，南華大學傳播管理學系碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 簡余晏（2005年11月30日）。〈從「台灣心聲」看政論節目變化〉，《廣播電視資料館館訊》，取自http://library.bdf.org.tw/articles/f051130.pdf。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 簡余晏（2005年11月2日）。〈政論節目從對話到激化〉，《蘋果日報》，A15論壇版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 簡余晏（2006）。《台灣心聲現象之解析》。國立政治大學新聞學系碩士在職專班碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 盧非易（1995）。《有線（限）電視無限（線）文化》。台北：幼獅。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 盧世祥（2004）。《透視政論節目：廣電基金政論談話性節目觀察研究》，台北：財團法人廣播電視事業發展基金。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 〈離譜　立委提限播政論節目〉（2008年11月28日）。《蘋果日報》，A10政治版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 羅文輝（2000a）。〈性策略理論、性別、第三人效果與支持限制色情媒介〉，《新聞學研究》，63: 201-222。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 羅文輝（2000b）。〈負面內容與社會距離對第三人效果認知的影響〉，《新聞學研究》，65: 95-129。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 羅文輝、牛隆光（2003）。〈自尊、第三人效果與對限制媒介支持度的關連性研究〉，《新聞學研究》，75: 141-167。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 羅廣仁（2004年12月5日）。《部分團體籲拒上拒看拒聽汪笨湖趙少康節目》，中央社新聞。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 貳、英文部分zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Abramson, P. R., & Aldrich, J. (1982). The decline of electoral participation in America. American Political Science Review, 76 (3),502-521.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture. N. J.: Princeton University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Andrews, J. C., Durvasula, S., & Akhter, S. H. (1990). A framework for conceptualizing and measuring the involvement construct in advertising research. Journal of Advertising Research, 19(4), 27-40.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Atwood, L. E. (1994). Illusions of media power: The third-person effect. Journalism Quarterly, 71(2), 269-281.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Balch, George I. (1974). Multiple indicators in survey research: The concept ‘sense of political efficacy’. Political Methodology, 1(1): 1-43.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Branden, N. (1969). The psychology of self-esteem. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Branden, N. (1994). Six pillars of self-esteem. New York: Bantam.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Brown, J. D. (1986). Evaluations of self and others: selfenchancement biases in social judgments. Social Cognition, 4(4), 353-376.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. (1954). The voter decides. Evanstone: Row Peterson and Company. Communication Research, 31(1), 109-130.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Chapin, J. R. (2000). Third-person perception and optimistic bias among urban minority at-risk youth. Communication Research, 27(1), 51-81.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Chanpin, J. (2007). Third-person perception about domestic violence among experts. North American of Psychology, 9(3), 463-473.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Chia, S. C., Lu, K. H., & McLeod, D. M. (2004). Sex, lies, and video compact disc－A case study on third-person perception and motivations for media censorship. Communication Research, 31(1), 109-130.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cohen, J., & Davis, R. G. (1991). Third-person effect and the differential impact in negative political advertising. Journalism Quarterly, 68(4), 680-688.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Craig, S. C., Miemi, R. G., & Silver, G. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12(3), 289-314.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1-21.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Davis, R. (1997). Understanding broadcasting political talk. Political Communication, 14(3), 323-332.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Davis, S., & Mares, M. L. (1998). Effects of talk show viewing on adolescents. Journal of Communication. 48(3), 69-86.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Dember, W. N., & Warm, J. S. (1979). Psychology of Perception, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Diefenbach D. L. (2007). Television and attitude toward mental issues: cultivation analysis and the third-person effect. Journal of Communication, 35(2), 181-195.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Duck, J. M., Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (1995). Me, us and team: Political identification and the third-person effect in the 1993 Australian federal election. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(2), 195-215.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Duck, J. M., & Mullin B. A. (1995). The Perceived impact of the mass media: reconsidering the third-person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(1), 77-93zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Dodd, D. H., & White, R. M. (1980). Cognition-Mental Structures and Processes﹐Boston: Allyn and Bacon.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2004). Right about others, wrong about ourselves? Actual and perceived self-other differences in resistance to persuasion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43(4), 585-603.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Eastin, M.S., & LaRose, R. (2000, September). Internet self-efficacy and psychology of the digital divide. Journal of Computer-medicated Communication, 6(1), Retriever from http://140.119.115.1:1080/search*cht/tJournal+of+Computer-medicated+Communication/tjournal+of+computer+medicated+communication/-3,0,0,B/l856~b2188195&FF=tjournal+of+computer+mediated+communication&1,1,,1,0/indexsort=-zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Flynn, L., Leisa, R. F., & Ronald, E. G. (1993). Application of the Personal Involvement Inventory in Marketing, Psychology & Marketing, 10(4), 357-366.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Gunther, A. C. (1991). What we think others think: cause and consequence in the third- person effect. Communication Research, 18(3), 355-372.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Gunther, A. C., & Thorson, E. (1992). Perceived persuasive effects of product commercials and public service announcements: Third-person effect in new domains. Communication Research, 19(5), 574-596.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Gunther, A., & Mundy, P. (1993). Biased optimism and the third-person effect. Journalism Quarterly, 70(1), 57-67.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Gunther, A. C. (1995). Overrating the X-rating: Third-person perception and support for censorship of pornography. Journal of Communication, 45(1), 27-38.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Glynn, C. J., & Ostman, R. E. (1998). Public opinion. Journalism Quarterly, 65(3), 299-306.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Gunther A. C. , Blot D., Borzekowski D. L.G. , Liebhart J.L., & Dillard J. P. (2006). Presumed influence on peer norms: How mass media indirectly affect adolescent smoking. Journal of Communication, 56(1), 52-68.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Henriksen, L., & Flora, J. A. (1999). Third-person perception and children: perceived impact of pro-and anti-smoking Ads. Communication research, 26(6), 643-665.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Himmelstein, H.（1984）. Television Myth and The American Mind. New York: Praeger Scientific.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hoffner, C., Buchanan, M., Anderson, J. D., Hubbs, L. A., Kamigaki, S. K., Kowalczyk, L., Pastorek, A., Plotkin, R. S., & Silberg, K. J. (1999). Support for cencorship of television violence: The role of the third-person effect and news exposure. Communication Research, 26(6), 726-742.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hollander, B. A. (1997) Fuel to the fore: Talk radio and the Gamson hypothesis. Political Communication, 12(3), 355-369.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hoorens, V., & Ruiter, S. (1996). The optimal impact phenomenon: beyond the third-person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26(5): 599-610.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Horowitz, E. (1993). Talk show politics: The match that rekindles American democracy? Paper presented to the Thoery and Metholodgy Division for the AEJ Annual Convention in Kansa City, August.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Huh, J., Delorme, D.E., & Reid, L.N.(2004). The third-person effect and its influence on behavioral outcomes in a product advertising context: The case of direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. Communication Research, 31(5), 568-599.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Innes, J. M., & Zeitz, H. (1988). The public’s view of the mass media: a test of the “third-person” effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 457-463.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jensen, J. D., & Hurley, R. J. (2005) Third-person effect and the environment: social distance, social desirability, and presumed behavior. Journal of Communication, 55(2), 242-256.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Johansson, B. (2002,July). Images of Media Power: The Third-Person Effect and the Shaping of Political Attitudes. Paper presented at the 23th Conference and General Assembly JAMCR/AIECS/AIERI International Association for Media and Communication Research, Barcelona.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jones, J. P. (2005). Entertaining politics : New political television and civic culture. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jost, K. (1994). Talk show democracy. Congressional Quarterly Research, 361-384.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lambe, L. J. & McLeod, M.D.(2005). Understanding Third-Person Perception Processes: Predicting Perceived Impact on Self and Others for Multiple Expressive Contexts. Journal of Communication,55(2), 277-291.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lane, R E. (1959). Political life: why people get involved in politics? Glencoe, III.: The Free Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lasorsa, D. L. (1989). Real and perceived effects of Amerika. Journalism Quarterly, 66(3), 373-378, 529.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lee, B., & Tamborini, R. (2005). Third-person effect and Internet pornography: The influence of collectivism and Internet self-efficacy. Journal of Communication, 55(2), 292-310.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Leigh, J. H., & Menon, A. (1987). Audience involvement effects on the information processing of umbrella print advertisements. Journal of advertisements, 16(3), 3-12.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lo, V. H., & Paddon, A. R. (1999, August) How sexual strategies theory, gender, and the third-person effect explain attitudes about pornography. Paper accepted for presentation at the annual convention of the Association for Journalism and Mass Communication, New Orleans, LA.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Liebes, T. (1999). Displacing the news: the israeli talk show as public space. International Communication Gazette, 61(2), 113-125.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Livingstone, S., & Lunt, P. (1994). Talk on television: Audience participation and public debate. London and New York: Routledge.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lo, V. H., & Wei, R. (2002). Third-person effect, gender and support for restriction ofzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) pornography on the Internet. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46(1), 13-33.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) McLeod, D. M., Eveland, W. P. Jr., & Nathanson, A. I. (1997). Support for censorship of violent and misogynic rap lyrics: A analysis of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 24(2), 153-174.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Mcleod, D. M., Detenber, B. H., & Eveland, W. P. (2001). Behind the third-person effect: Differentiating perceptual processes for self and other. Journal ofzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Communication, 51(4), 678-695.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Meirick P. C. (2005). Rethinking the target corollary: The effects of social distance, perceived exposure, and perceived predispositions on first-person and third-person perceptions. Communication Research, 32(6), 822-843.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Milbrath, L. W. & Goel, M. L. (1977). Political participation: how and why do people get involved in politics? Chicago: Rand McNally.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Millar, M.G., & Millar, K.U. (2000). Promoting safe driving behaviors: The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(4), 853-866.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Munson, W. (1993). All talk: The talk show in media culture. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Mutz, D. C. (1989). The influence of perceptions of media influence: Third-person effects and the public expression of opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 1(1), 3-23.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Neuwirth, Frederick & Mayo (2002). Person-effects and heuristic-systematic processing. Communication Research, 29(3), 320-359.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Paek, H., Pan, Z., Sun, Y., Abisald, J., & Houden, D.(2005). The third-person perception as social judgment: An exploration of social distance and uncertainty in perceived effects of political attack ads. Communication Research, 32(2), 143-170.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Park, H. S., & Salmon, C. T. (2005). A test of the third-person effect in public relations: Application of social comparison theory. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(1), 25-43.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Peiser, W., & Peter, J. (2000). Third-person perception of television-viewing behavior. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 24-45.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Peiser, W., & Peter, J. (2001). Explaining individual differences in third-person perception: A limits/possibilities perspective. Communication Research, 28(2), 156-180.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Perloff, L. S., & Fetzer,B. K. (1986). Self-other judgements and perceived vulnerability to victimisation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 502-510.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Perloff, R. M. (1989). Ego-involvement and the third person effect of televised news coverage. Communication Research, 16(2), 236-267.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Perloff, R. M. (1993). Third-person effect research 1983-1992: A review and synthesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 5(2), 167-184.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Perloff, R. M. (1999). The third-person effect: A critical review and synthesis. Media Psychology, 1(4), 353-378.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Perloff, R. M. (2002). The third-person effect. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed.) (pp 489-506). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Pinkleton, B., Austin, E., & Fortman, K. (1998). Relationships of media use and political disaffection to political efficacy and voting behavior. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(1), 34-49.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Priest, P. J. (1995). Public intimacies: Talk show participants and tell-all TV. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Reid, S. A., & Hogg, M. A. (2005). A self-categorization explanation for the third-person effect. Human Communication Research, 31(1), 129-161.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Rossler, P., & Brosius, H. B.(2001).Do talk shows cultivate adolescents` views of the world? A prolonged-exposure experiment. Journal of Communication, 51(1), 143-163.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Rucinski, D., & Salmon, C. T. (1990). The other as the vulnerable voter: A study of the third-person effect in the 1998 U.S. presidential campaign. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2(4), 345-366.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Rojas, H., Shah, D. V., & Faber, R. J. (1996). For the good of others: Censorship and the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8(2), 163-186.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Rose, B. G. (1985). TV genres: A handbook and reference guide. Westport, Conn.:zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Greenwood Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Salmon, C. T. (1986). Perspectives on involvement in consumer and communication research. In B. Dervin & M. Viogt (Eds.) Progress In Communication Sciences (pp.243-268). NJ: Ablex.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Salwen, M. B., & Driscoll, P. D. (1997). Consequences of third-person perception in support of press restrictions in the O. J. Simpson trial. Journal of Communication, 47(2), 60-78.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Salwen, M. B. (1998). Perceptions of media influence and support for censorship: The third-person effect in the 1996 Presidential election. Communication Research, 25(3), 259-285.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Shah, D. V., Faber, R. J., & Youn, S. (1999). Susceptibility and severity. Communication Research, 26(2), 240-267.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Shen, M. C. H.(1999). Participatotory current-affairs talkshows: Public communication revitalized on television. Taipei: author.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Singles, E. D. (1981). Black consciousness and political participation: The missing link. American Political Science Review, 75(1), 76-91.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Svenson, O. (1981). Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers? Acta psychological ,47(2), 143-148.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Tafarodi, R. W., & Swann, W. B. (1995). Self-liking and self-competence as dimensions of global Self-esteem : Initial validation of a measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65 (2), 322-342.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Tewksbury, D. (2002). The role of comparison group size in the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14(3), 248-263.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Tiedge, J. T., Silverblatt, A., Havice, M. J. & Rosenfeld, R. (1991). Discrepancy between perceived first-person and perceived third-person mass media effect. Journalism Quarterly, 68(1), 141-154.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Timberg, B. A. (2002). Television talk: A history of the TV talk show. Texas: University of Texas Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Weinstein , N. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 806-820.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Weinstein, N. (1989). Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science, 246, 1232-1233.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Wei, R., Lo, V. H., & Lu, H. Y. (2007).Reconsidering the relationship between the third-person perception and optimistic bias. Communication Research, 34(6): 665-684.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) White, H. A., & Dillon, J. F. (2000). Knowledge about other’s reaction to a public service announcement: The impact on self persuasion and third-person perception. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(4), 788-803.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited: The motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory. Journal of Personality, 47(2), 245-287.zh_TW