臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：從「資訊─社群─行動」框架看競選傳播的社群媒體互動：以2022年台北市長選舉為例
作者：黃暐超
作者(外文)：HUANG, WEI-CHAO
校院名稱：世新大學
系所名稱：傳播研究所(含博士學位學程)
指導教授：秦琍琍
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2023
主題關鍵詞：內容分析；社群媒體；台北市長選舉；「資訊─社群─行動」框架；競選傳播；Content Analysis；Social Media；Taipei City Mayoral Election；Campaign Communication
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:3
本研究探討以人際連結和訊息交換為主體的社群媒體環境中，分析訊息溝通目及其觸發的互動型態為本研究主要核心，本研究援引Lovejoy 與 Saxton（2012）發展出的「資訊─社群─行動」（Information- Community-Action）的分析框架，檢視2022年台北市長選舉三位候選人的Facebook粉絲專頁共1,298則貼文，透過分析不同訊息類型如何影響使用者的互動，也比較選舉日前、後的傳播訊息類型有何差異及其對使用者互動的影響為何。研究結果顯示，三位候選人在三種層級訊息內容上有著各自的偏重，選舉日前的貼文類型，蔣萬安較為偏重「社群」、陳時中「資訊」與「行動」明顯高於「社群」類型，黃珊珊是三位候選人中三類型貼文最平均者，選舉日後，蔣萬安較為偏重「資訊」、陳時中則偏向「社群」與「行動」、黃珊珊則偏向「資訊」與「社群」類型，且選舉日前、後，三位候選人在三種類型的訊息內容偏重也有所轉變，不過三位候選人不論選舉日前、後，並不積極透過社群媒體進行對話溝通。三位候選人Facebook粉絲專頁傳播訊息與使用者的互動程度亦有所差異，選舉日前，陳時中的資訊類型貼文相較於社群與行動類型更易吸引使用者按讚，而社群類型貼文較資訊與行動類型更易獲得留言，黃珊珊則是資訊與行動類型貼文比社群類型更易獲得使用者按讚，而社群類型貼文較資訊與行動類型更易獲得留言，蔣萬安社群類型貼文相較於資訊與行動類型更易吸引使用者留言，而社群類型較資訊與行動類型更易讓使用者分享；選舉日後，蔣萬安三種類型貼文並不影響使用者的按讚、留言與分享；陳時中社群類型貼文較行動類型更易獲得留言；黃珊珊社群類型貼文較資訊類型更易獲得留言。分析比較三位候選人選舉日前、後貼文與使用者互動的結果，選舉日後較選舉日前，三位候選人的貼文更易讓使用者按讚，且陳時中選舉日後的貼文較選舉日前獲得較多留言，黃珊珊則是選舉日前貼文較選舉日後獲得較多留言。選舉日前、後，三位候選人「資訊─社群─行動」三種類型貼文與使用者的互動：蔣萬安選舉日後貼文較選舉日前吸引使用者按讚，使用者較選舉日前，更願意在資訊與行動類型貼文上留言。陳時中選舉日後貼文較選舉日前吸引使用者按讚。黃珊珊選舉日後貼文，資訊與社群類型較選舉日前獲得較高的讚，另，使用者更願意分享選舉日前的資訊類型貼文。
This study delves into the core aspects of message communication objectives and the triggered interactive patterns within a social media environment centered around interpersonal connections and information exchange. Drawing inspiration from Lovejoy and Saxton's (2012) "Information-Community-Action" analytical framework, this research examines a total of 1,298 Facebook posts from the fan pages of three mayoral candidates in the 2022 Taipei City election. The analysis investigates how different types of messages influence user interactions and compares the differences in communication message types before and after the election day, along with their impact on user engagement.
The findings reveal that each of the three candidates places distinct emphasis on the three levels of message content. Leading up to the election day, Wan-An, Chiang focused more on the "Community" type of posts, Shih-Chung, Chen's emphasis on "Information" and "Action" is notably higher than the "Community" type, and Shan-Shan, Huang exhibits a relatively balanced distribution among the three message types. After the election day, Wan-An, Chiang shifts his focus toward "Information," Shih-Chung, Chen leans toward "Community" and "Action," and Shan-Shan, Huang gravitates towards "Information" and "Community." Furthermore, there are variations in the candidates' preferences for message content types before and after election day. However, regardless of the election phase, none of the candidates actively engage in dialogic communication through social media.
Differences are also observed in the level of interaction between the candidates' Facebook fan page content and users. Before the election, Shih-Chung, Chen's "Information" type posts are more likely to garner ‘likes’ compared to "Community" and "Action" types. "Community" posts attract more comments than "Information" and "Action" posts. Shan-Shan, Huang's "Information" and "Action" type posts receive more likes than "Community" posts, and "Community" posts tend to attract more comments than "Information" and "Action" posts. For Wan-An, Chiang, "Community" posts are more effective at eliciting comments than "Information" and "Action" posts, and "Community" posts are shared more often compared to the other types. However, after the election, none of J Wan-An, Chiang's post types significantly influenced the number of likes, comments, or shares. Shih-Chung, Chen's "Community" posts are more likely to receive comments compared to "Action" posts. Shan-Shan, Huang's "Community" posts are more likely to receive comments than "Information" posts.
Analyzing and comparing the interactions between the candidates' posts and users before and after the election reveals that after the election day, the candidates' posts are more likely to receive likes from users than before. Shih-Chung, Chen's posts after the election attracted more comments than those before, while Shan-Shan, Huang's posts before the election received more comments than those after. Before and after the election, the interactions between the three candidates' "Information-Community-Action" type posts and users show that after the election, Wan-An, Chiang's posts attract more likes than before, and users are more willing to leave comments on "Information" and "Action" type posts. Shih-Chung, Chen's posts after the election are more likely to receive likes than before. Shan-Shan, Huang’s posts after the election, particularly "Information" and "Community" types, received more likes. In addition, users are more inclined to share "Information" type posts before the election.
中文部分：
王石番（1991），傳播內容分析法：理論與實證。台北：幼獅。
王光旭、蔡子弘、陳薇丞（2019）。政治人物經營臉書策略之研究: 以第九屆不分區立法委員為例，民主與治理，6(2): 1-45。https://doi.org/10.3966/2311505X2019080602001
王泰俐（2003）。誰的互動性網站? —從2000年和2002年選舉看台灣選舉網站互動性概念的演進，新聞學研究，77: 107-41。https://doi.org/10.30386/MCR.200310_(77).0004
王泰俐（2013）。「臉書選舉」?2012年台灣總統大選社群媒體對政治參與型為的影響，東吳政治學報，31: 1-52。
王嵩音（2017）。社交媒體政治性使用行為與公民參與之研究，資訊社會研究，32: 83-112。https://doi.org/10.29843/JCCIS.201701_(32).0004
王儷臻（2013）。政治人物經營粉絲專頁成功關鍵策略之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。中原大學資訊管理系。
沈有忠、陳宥辰（2020）。社群媒體中的選舉策略：2018年臺灣縣市長選舉的實證分析，國家發展研究，19(2): 129-154。https://doi.org/10.6164/JNDS.202006_19(2).0004
何家霖（2020）。政策溝通懶人包初探性研究-以「非洲豬瘟」為案例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。世新大學口語傳播研究所。
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
周明諺（2007）。從公共關係概念探討競選網站、競選部落格互動性功能建置─以2008總統大選為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。輔仁大學大眾傳播學研究所。
高閔琳（2011）。社群網站與台灣地方選舉之關係—以2010 年高雄市長候選人陳菊Facebook 經營個案為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。臺灣大學國家發展研究所。
徐承群（2009）。網路選戰策略研究－以民進黨2009~2010台灣地方選舉為例〔未出版之博士論文〕。世新大學傳播研究所。
莊伯仲（2019）。2016年總統大選候選人臉書粉絲專頁之經營績效與訊息策略分析，傳播管理學刊，20 (1): 21-52。
莊伯仲（2022）。候選人與臉書粉絲之互動分析: 以 2016 年總統大選為例，資訊社會研究，42: 87-122。https://doi.org/10.29843/JCCIS.202201_(42).0004 10.6612/tjes.201905_26(1).0004
莊伯仲、王唯至（2004）。競選網站評估指標建構之初探─以2004年總統大選為個案，「2004年總統選舉：傳播、策略、方法」學術研討會，台北。
莊伯仲、金志聿（2019）。候選人臉書經營和選舉結果之關聯分析：以2016年區域立法委員選舉為例，選舉研究，26(1): 89-121。https://doi.org/10.6612/tjes.201905_26(1).0004
陳憶寧（2016）。臉書使用者的社會資本及政治參與，傳播與社會學刊，35: 141-183。https://doi.org/10.30180/CS.201601_(35).0006
陳國明、彭文正、葉銀嬌、安然（2010）。傳播研究方法，新北：忽視慢文化。
游美惠（2000）。內容分析、文本分析與論述分析在社會研究的運用，調查研究，8：5-42。
陳昀（2022 年 7 月 10日）。〈獲民進黨徵召參選台北市長 陳時中：責任來我就扛！〉，《自由時報》。取自 https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/3987816
陳燕珩（2022 年 8 月 28日）。〈準備24年！黃珊珊「一身白」宣布參選台北市長　拚擺脫藍綠、市民抬頭〉，《上報》。取自https://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?Type=24&SerialNo=152848
晏明強（2022 年 5 月 25日）。〈國民黨正式提名角逐台北市長　蔣萬安：一定會讓北市藍天再現〉，《風傳媒》。取自https://www.storm.mg/article/4349922
張瀞文（2017 年 2 月 8 日）。〈新衛福部長陳時中「鎮」得住「社福派」？〉，《信傳媒》。取自 https://www.cmmedia.com.tw/home/articles/2655
張國仁（2014 年 6 月 22日）。〈蔣萬安 樂當法律人〉，《中時新聞網》。取自 https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20140622000916-260202?chdtv
黃毓茹（2006）。2005年縣長與縣市議員選舉候選人網站與部落格分析〔未出版之碩士論文〕。政治大學廣告研究所。
黃毓超、秦琍琍（2015年11月14日）。2014年臺北市市長選舉候選人之臉書粉絲專頁訊息內容分析〔口頭發表〕。臺灣資訊社會研究學會年度研討會，新竹市，台灣。
黃天如（2017 年 2 月 8 日）。〈陳時中接任衛福部長 「無縫」扮演防疫戰士〉，《風傳媒》。取自 https://web.archive.org/web/20201201160622/https://www.storm.mg/article/221208
黃麗芸（2022 年 8 月 28日）。〈黃珊珊宣布參選台北市長 9月公布政策主軸〉，《中央社》。取自https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/202208280018.aspx
彭懷恩（2002）：政治傳播與溝通。台北：風雲論壇出版社。
彭懷恩（2005）。競選傳播。台北：風雲論壇出版社。
趙玉娟（2015）。政治網路口碑的情感分析：語意關連性之觀點〔未出版之碩士論文〕。交通大學傳播研究所。
鄭自隆（2011）。競選傳播：策略與管理。台北：華泰。
鄭自隆（2004）。競選傳播與台灣社會。台北：揚智文化。
劉坤鱧（2015）。翻轉選戰的流浪狗團隊：柯文哲核心幕僚談勝選關鍵。藍海文化。
劉秀敏（2022 年 7 月 22 日）。〈從「人與人的連結」到「疫苗不是用吞的」陳時中金句連發聲量暴漲，網友成立「金句指揮官」粉專記錄！〉，《放．新聞》。取自 https://www.fountmedia.io/article/158061
蔡亞樺（2015 年 5 月 21日）。〈王子復仇 蔣萬安民調大勝羅淑蕾〉，《自由時報》。取自https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/paper/882210
蔡鴻濱（2016）。初探數位語藝-理論與方法的檢視與重建，中華傳播學會期1-13。
韓意慈、徐煒勛（2018）。誰在虛擬社會中做什麼？非營利組織資源與官網資訊的內容分析，公共行政學報，55: 37-71。https://doi.org/10.30409/JPA.201809_(55).0002
譚躍（2019）。候選人臉書粉絲專頁的使用, 決定因素和影響：以 2016 年臺灣區域立委選舉為例，中華傳播學刊，36: 81-115。https://doi.org/10.3966/172635812019120036003
蘇郁涵（2007）。候選人部落格的使用與滿足研究－以「2006年台北市市長選舉」為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。輔仁大學大眾傳播學研究所。

英文部分：
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211-36. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
Ancu, M., & Cozma, R. (2009). MySpace politics: Uses and gratifications of befriending candidates. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(4), 567-583. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838150903333064
Ariel, Y. & Avidar, R. (2015). Information, interactivity, and social media. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 23, 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2015.972404
Benoit, P. J. & Benoit, W. L. (2005). Criteria for evaluating political campaign webpages. Southern Communication Journal, Vol(70), No.3, pp.230-247.
Bimber, B., & Davis, R. (2003). Campaigning online: The Internet in U.S. Elections. New York: Oxford University Press.
Blassnig, S., Udris, L., Staender, A., & Vogler, D. (2021). Popularity on Facebook during election campaigns: An analysis of issues and emotions in parties’ online communication. International Journal of Communication, 15, 4399-4419. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-207868
Blumler, J. G. (2016). The fourth age of political communication. Politiques de Communication, 6, 19-30. https://doi.org/10.33112/nm.11.3.8
Blumler, J. G., & Kavanagh, D. (1999). The third age of political communication. Political Communication, 16(3), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846099198596
Boulianne, S., & Larsson, A. O. (2023). Engagement with candidate posts on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook during the 2019 election. New Media & Society, 25(1), 119-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211009504
boyd, m. d. & Ellison, N. B. (2017). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
Bright, J., Hale, S., Ganesh, B., Bulovsky, A., Margetts, H., & Howard, P. (2020). Does campaigning on social media make a difference? Evidence from candidate use of Twitter during the 2015 and 2017 U.K. elections. Communication Research, 47(7), 988-1009. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219872394
Bronstein, J. (2013). Like me! Analyzing the 2012 presidential candidates’ Facebook pages. Online Information Review, 37(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-01-2013-0002
Busy, E. P. (2004). Interactivity in society: Locating an elusive concept. The Information Society, 20, 373-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240490508063
Carlson, M. (2020). Fake news as an informational moral panic: the symbolic deviancy of social media during the 2016 US presidential election. Information, Communication & Society, 23(3), 374-388. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1505934
Chaffee, (1996). Thinking about theory. In M. B. Salwen & D. W. Stacks (Eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory and research (pp. 15-32). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Datareportal (2022). Digital 2022: Taiwan. retrieved from http://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2022-taiwan
Davis, R., Baumgartner, J. C., Francia, P. L., & Morris, J. S. (2010). The internet in U.S. election campaigns. In A. Chadwick & P. N. Howard (Eds.), Routledge handbook of Internet politics (pp. 13-24). Abingdon: Routledge.
DiGrazia, J., McKelvey, K., Bollen, J., & Rojas, F. (2013). More Tweets, More Votes: Social media as a quantitative indicator of political behavior. PLOS ONE, 8(11), e79449. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079449
Ellison, N. B., & boyd, D. (2013). Sociality through social network sites. In Dutton, W. H. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 151-172). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Fernandes, J., Giurcanu, M., Bowers, K. W., & Neely, J. C. (2010). The writing on the wall: A content analysis of college students’ Facebook group for the 2008 presidential election. Mass Communication and Society, 13, 653-675. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2010.516865
Freelon, D. (2017). Campaigns in control: Analyzing controlled interactivity and message discipline on Facebook. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 14(2), 168-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2017.1309309
Guo, C., & Saxton, G. D. (2014). Tweeting Social Change: How Social Media Are Changing Nonprofit Advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 57-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012471585
Gerodimos, R., & Justinussen, J. (2015). Obama’s 2012 Facebook campaign: Political communication in the age of the like button. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12(2), 113-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2014.982266
Ghose, S., & Dou, W. (1998). Interactive Functions and Their Impacts on the Appeal of Internet Presence Sites. Journal of Advertising Research (March/April), pp29-43.
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Jung, N., & Valenzuela, S. (2012). Social media use for news and individuals' social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 17(3), 319-336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x
Graham, T., Broersma, M., Hazelhoff, K., & van't Haar, G. (2013). Between broadcasting political messages and interacting with voters: The use of Twitter during the 2010 UK general election campaign. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 692-716. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.785581
Grinberg, N., Joseph, K., Friedland, L., Swire-Thompson, B., & Lazer, D. (2019). Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Science, 363(6425), 374-378. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau2706
Ha, L., & James, E. L. (1998). Interactivity Reexamined: A Baseline Analysis of Early Business Web Sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, V42(4), pp457 –474.
Johnson, T. J., & Perlmutter, D. D. (2010). Introduction: the Facebook election. Mass Communication and Society, 13(5), 554-559. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2010.517490
Kent & Taylor (1998). Building dialogic relationship through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24(3): 321. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80143-X
Kruikemeier, S. (2014). How political condidates use Twitter and the impact on votes. Computer in Human Behavior, 34, 131-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.025
Horton, D., & Richard Wohl, R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. psychiatry, 19(3), 215-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049

Huang, Y.-C., Lin, Y.-P., & Saxton, G. D. (2016). Give me a like: How HIV/AIDS nonprofit organizations can engage their audience on Facebook. AIDS Prevention and Education, 28(6), 539-556. https://doi.org/10.1521/aeap.2016.28.6.539
Hyun, K. D., & Kim, J. (2015). Differential and interactive influences on political participation by different types of news activities and political conversation through social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 328-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.031
Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas (pp. 37-51).
Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 17(3), 337-353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01576.x
Magin, M., Podschuweit, N., Haßler, J., & Russmann, U. (2017). Campaigning in the fourth age of political communication. A multi-method study on the use of Facebook by German and Austrian parties in the 2013 national election campaigns. Information, Communication & Society, 20(11), 1698-1719. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1254269
Mahood, C., Kalyanaraman, S., & Sundar, S. S. (2000). The effects of erotica and dehumanizing pornography in an online interactive environment. Paper presented at the 83rd annual convention of the Association for Journalism and Mass Communication, Phoenix, AZ.
Manetti, G., Bellucci, M., & Bagnoli, L. (2017). Stakeholder engagement and public information through social media: A study of Canadian and American public transportation agencies. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(8), 991-1009. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016649260
McMillian, S. J. (2002). Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions: Users, documents and systems. In Lievrouw, L. A. & Lingstone, S. (Eds.), Handbook of new media: Social shaping & consequences of ICTs (pp. 162-182). Sage Publication.
McNair, B. (1997). Introduction to Political Communication. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.
Metz, M., Kruikemeier, S., & Lecheler, S. (2019). Personalization of politics on Facebook: Examining the content and effects of professional, emotional, and private self-personalization. Information, Communication & Society, 23(10), 1481-1498. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1581244
Morris, M. & Ogan, C. (1996). The internet as mass audience. Journal of Communication, 46(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1996.tb00174.x
Nelimarkka, M., Laaksonen, S. M., Tuokko, M., & Valkonen, T. (2020). Platformed interactions: how social media platforms relate to candidate–constituent interaction during Finnish 2015 election campaigning. Social Media+ Society, 6(2), 2056305120903856.
Newhagen, J. E., Codes, J. W., & Levy, M. R. (1998). Nightly @ NBC.Com: Audience Scope and the Internet. Journal of Communication, V45(3),pp 164-175.
Norris, Pippa. 2000. The Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pennington, N., Winfrey, K. L., Warner, B. R., & Kearney, M. W. (2015). Linking Obama and Romney (on Facebook): An experimental evaluation of political engagement and efficacy during the 2012 general election. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 279-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.032
Perloff, Richard M., 1998, Political Communication: Parties, Press, and Public in American. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. Hawkins, J. Weimann, & Pingree (Eds.), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal process (pp. 124-181). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rossini, P., Stromer-Galley, J., & Zhang, F. (2021). Exploring the relationship between campaign discourse on facebook and the public’s comments: A case study of incivility during the 2016 US presidential election. Political Studies, 69(1), 89-107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719890818
Rybalko, S. & Seltzer, T. (2010). Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less: How Fortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using Twitter. Public Relations Review, 36, 336-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.08.004
Saxton, G. D., & Waters, R. D. (2014). What do stakeholders like on Facebook? Examining public reactions to nonprofit organizations’ informational, promotional, and community-building messages. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(3), 280-299. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1062726X.2014.908721
Stetka, V., Surowiec, P., & Mazák, J. (2018). Facebook as an instrument of election campaigning and voters’ engagement: Comparing Czechia and Poland. European Journal of Communication, 34(2), 121-141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323118810884
Steuer, J. (1992).Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence. Journal of Communication, V42(4), pp 73-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x
Stier, S., Bleier, A., Lietz, H., & Strohmaier, M. (2018). Election campaigning on social media: Politicians, audiences, and the mediation of political communication on Facebook and Twitter. Political Communication, 35(1), 50-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1334728
Stromer-Galley, J. (2000). Online interaction and why candidates avoid it. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02865.x
Stromer-Gally, J. (2004). Interactivity-as-product and interactivity-as-process. The Information Society, 20, 391-4. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240490508081
Sundar, S. S., Kalyanaraman, S., & Brown, J. (2003). Explicating website interactivity: Impression-formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research 30(1):30-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202239025
Sweetser, K. & Lariscy, R. W. (2008). Candidates Make Good Friends: An Analysis of Candidates' Uses of Facebook . International Journal of Strategic Communication, 2, 175-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/15531180802178687
Talbot, D. (2008). How Obama really did it: Social technology helped bring him to the brink of the presidency. Technology Review, 111(5), 78-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02688.x
Tedesco, J. C., Miller, J. L., & Spiker, J. A. (1999). Presidential campaigning on the information superhighway: An exploration of content and form. In Kaid, L. L., & Bystrom, D. (Eds.), The electronic election: Perspectives on the 1996 campaign communication (pp. 51-63). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Trent, J. S. &; Friedenberg, R. V. (2008). Political campaign communication: Principles and practices, 6th ed. Westport, CT: praeger.
Vitak, J., Zube, P., Smock, A., Carr, C. T., Ellison, N., & Lampe, C. (2011). It’s complicated: Facebook users’ political participation in the 2008 election. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 107-114. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0226
Walther, J. B., Gay, G. & Hancock, J. T. (2005). How do communication and technology researchers study the Internet? Journal of Communication, 55(3), 632-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02688.x
Whillock, R. K. (1997). Cyber-politics: The online strategies of ‘96. American Behavioral Scientist, V40(8), pp1208-1225.
Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics. New York: Wiley.
Williams, F., Rice, R. E., & Rogers, E. M. (1988). Research methods and the new Media. New York: Free Press.



 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關博士論文
 
無相關書籍
 
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：1326（臺灣：1296，外國：30） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1972506 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67784735
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上