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：M型政黨vs.鐘型意識--臺灣國族認同之意識型態及其心理基礎
書刊名：中華心理學刊
作者：黃囇莉 引用關係
作者(外文)：Huang, Li-li
出版日期：2007
卷期：49:4
頁次：頁451-470
主題關鍵詞：國族認同；集體自我；集體意識；右翼權威性人格；社會支配性；National identity；Collective self-identity；Collective consciousness；Right-wing authoritarian；Social dominant orientation
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(4) 博士論文(1) 專書(1) 專書論文(3)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:4
  • 共同引用共同引用:641
  • 點閱點閱:191
先前的研究(Huang, Liu, & Chang, 2004)顯示，台灣人民的國族認同正處於「台灣人認同」與「中國人認同」的雙重認同困境中，而此困境有其歷史根源及在文化與政治上與日俱增的矛盾。為了進一步理解雙重認同的意識型態及其心理，本研究以社會建構論觀點，將國族認同視為意識覺醒與努力後之產物，而新編擬國族意識之測量題目。同時，將國族意識（認知信念）、國族認同的情感及對未來國族的想像（行為傾向），合併而為國族認同之意識型態(ideology)。接著探討此意識型態是否得以有效區辨台灣境內主要的三種類別化之國族認同，同時也具有可區辨之前置心理因子。本研究取樣台灣各地區民眾1368人，2003年間以自陳式問卷進行資料蒐集。問卷中以新編40題項測量國族意識之認知信念，因素分析結果顯示，國族意識有四因子：大中華意識、國民黨正統論、分離獨特意識、台灣小而美；以經本土化修訂後集體自尊(collective selfesteem)量表測量國族認同之情感；以兩岸統一或台灣獨立之支持強度作為對國族未來想像之行為傾向。另外，以強迫選擇方式，將研究參與者區分為「中國人優先」、「台灣人優先」、「祇是台灣人」三種國族認同類型，以作為國族認同意識型態之區辨效標。還有，更進一步以「社會支配性」、「右翼權威性人格」心理態度量表，作為國族認同意識型態之前置因子。資料分析結果顯示，三種不同國族認同者不但在國族意識上有顯著差異，在認同情感、未來想像及社會支配性與右翼權威性格上也有顯著差異。以區辨分析法(discriminant analysis)就三種國族認同類型做區辨分析，結果亦顯示，三種國族認同類型在意識型態上有清楚且可區辨的多元組型，其中「台灣小而美」與「台灣人尊嚴」居於意識型態之中間，且人數最多，而「分離獨特意識」結合「支持獨立」與另一組合「大中華意識」、「國民黨正統論」及「支持統一」各居於兩端，亦即國族認同的意識型態呈現鐘型分布，而藍綠的政黨支持呈現M型雙峰分布。最後，以結構方程模型(Structure Equation Model, SEM)就心理變項與國族意識型態之二階因子(潛在變項)從事正準相關分析，結構模型也顯現三種國族意識型態有不同的心理基礎。
According to Huang, Liu and Chang (2004), national identity in Taiwan is facing a dilemma of double identity, as both Taiwanese identity and Chinese identity are viable. This predicament has deep historical roots, but controversies between political and cultural aspects of identity have been increasing. In order to know more about the substance of double identity and its psychological basis, the present follow up research treated national identity as an awakening national consciousness. Collective self-esteem (affective component) and identity consciousness (cognitive component) combined with imagination of future nationhood (behavioral tendency) to form an ideology of national identity, which was measured using Likert-style items and entered into a discriminant analysis against categorical measures of national identity. 1368 adult participants from all regions in Taiwan completed a self-report questionnaire in 2003. An indigenous revised scale of collective self-esteem measured affective aspects of identity, and forty new items about identity consciousness were developed. The results of factor analysis indicated that national identity consciousness consisted of four sets of beliefs: "Greater Chinese consciousness", "Kuomingtang (KMT) legitimacy", "separation consciousness", and "Taiwanese refinement". Whether participants supported reunification or independence served as the measure of imagined future nationhood. A categorical measure divided participants into three national identities based on forced choice survey responses: "Chinese First", "Taiwanese First", and "Taiwanese Only". These three kinds of national identity were regarded as dependent variables for the ideology of national identity. In addition, personality scales such as "social dominance orientation", "right-wing authoritarian personality" were regarded as antecedent factors of the ideology of national identity. Results demonstrated that people with three types of national identity showed significant differences on four sets of national identity consciousness, collective selfesteem, future imagination and other relevant variables. Discriminant analysis was used to provide a multivariate of analysis of the three types of national identity, and results indicated that "Taiwanese refinement" and "Taiwanese self-esteem" were in the middle of ideology and most people agreed with them, "separation consciousness" combined with "support for independence" on the one pole; and "Greater Chinese consciousness" "KMT legitimacy" and "support for unification" were on the other opposite pole of ideology. In other words, the distribution of the ideology of national identity was bell shaped but political party support was double peaks M shaped. Finally, a Structural Equation Model (SEM) was used to model the influences of psychological factors on the ideology of national identity, and the indicated that the three types of categorical national identity had different psychological bases.
期刊論文
1.Anderson, Perry、王超華(20040900)。南中國海上的藍與綠。臺灣社會研究，55，225-242。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.黃俊傑(20061200)。論中國經典中「中國」概念的涵義及其在近世日本與現代臺灣的轉化。臺灣東亞文明研究學刊，3(2)，91-100。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.Huang, L. L.、Liu, J. H.、Chang, M.(2004)。The "Double Identity" of Taiwanese Chinese: A Dilemma of Politics and Culture Rooted in History。Asian Journal of Social Psychology，7(2)，149-168。  new window
4.黃囇莉、黃光國(19790900)。權威及獨斷人格對中美斷交事件知覺的影響。中央研究院民族學研究所集刊，48，155-196。  延伸查詢new window
5.Gurin, Patricia、Miller, Arthur H.、Gurin, Gerald(198003)。Stratum Identification and Consciousness。Social Psychology Quarterly，43(1)，30-47。  new window
6.Luhtanen, R.、Crocker, J.(1992)。A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one's identity。Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin，18(3)，302-318。  new window
7.李美枝(20031200)。臺灣地區族群與國族認同的顯性與隱性意識。本土心理學研究，20，39-71。new window  延伸查詢new window
8.張茂桂、蕭新煌、章英華(19871010)。大學生的「中國結」與「臺灣結」：自我認定與通婚觀念的分析。中國論壇，25(1)=289，34-55。  延伸查詢new window
9.Downing, N. E.、Roush, K. L.(1985)。From passive acceptance to active commitment: A model of feminist identity development for women。The Counseling Psychologist，13(4)，695-709。  new window
10.吳乃德(19960700)。自由主義和族群認同：搜尋臺灣民族主義的意識形態基礎。臺灣政治學刊，1，5-39。new window  延伸查詢new window
11.李美枝、李怡青(20031200)。我群與他群的分化：從生物層次到人的層次。本土心理學研究，20，3-38。new window  延伸查詢new window
12.高恆信、李美枝(20000600)。臺灣地區人民之省籍、黨籍與政治意識型態在政治群體認同中的糾結。本土心理學研究，13，231-276。new window  延伸查詢new window
13.吳乃德(20021200)。認同衝突和政治信任：現階段臺灣族群政治的核心難題。臺灣社會學，4，75-118。new window  延伸查詢new window
14.Bargad, A.、Hyde, J. S.(1991)。A Study of Feminist Identity Development in Women。Psychology of Women Quarterly，15，181-201。  new window
15.Liu, J. H.、Hilton, D. J.(2005)。How the Past Weighs on the Present?: Social Representations of History and Their Impact on Identity Politics。British Journal of Social Psychology，44，537-556。  new window
16.Huang, L. L.、Liu, J. H.(2005)。Personality and Social Structural Implications of the Situational Priming of Social Dominance Orientation。Personality and Individual Differences，38(2)，267-276。  new window
17.Whitley, B. E.(1999)。Right-wing Authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation, and Prejudice。Journal of Personality and Social Psychology，77(1)，126-134。  new window
18.Pratto, F.、Sidanius, J.、Stallworth, L. M.、Malle, B. F.(1994)。Social Dominance Orientation: A Personality Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes。Journal of Personality and Social Psychology，67，741-763。  new window
19.Liu, J. H.、Wilson, M. W.、McClure, J.、Higgins, T. R.(1999)。Social Identity and the Perception of History: Cultural Representations of Aotearoa/New Zealand。European Journal of Social Psychology，29，1021-1047。  new window
20.Altemeyer, B.(1998)。The Other "Thoritarian Personality"。Advances in Experimental Social Psychology，30，47-92。  new window
21.Richard, K. M.(1989)。The Relationship of Self-monitored Dating Behaviors to Level of Feminist Identity on the Feminist Identity Scale。Sex Roles，20，213-226。  new window
22.Ray, J. J.(1989)。The Scientific Study of Ideology is Too Often More Ideological than Scientific。Personality and Individual Differences，10(3)，331-336。  new window
會議論文
1.施正鋒(1999)。臺灣意識的探索。中國意識與臺灣意識：一九九九澳門學術研討會。臺北：海峽學術出版社。  延伸查詢new window
2.黃麗生(1999)。正史中分裂時代的「中國」。臺北市。146-206。  延伸查詢new window
3.白翠琴(1999)。略論中國意識的內涵及特色。臺北市。207-223。  延伸查詢new window
4.江政寬(1999)。臺灣歷史中的反抗精神。臺北市。287-331。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.黃沛榮(2009)。部件教學法的運用及其局限。漢字教學的理論和實踐。臺北：樂學書局。  延伸查詢new window
2.Sidanius, J.、Pratto, F.(1999)。Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression。Cambridge University Press。  new window
3.施正鋒、施正峰(2003)。臺灣民族主義。臺北市：前衛。  延伸查詢new window
4.Searle-White, Joshua(2001)。The Psychology of Nationalism。New York：Palgrave。  new window
5.Stanley, L.、Wise, S.(1993)。Breaking out again: Feminist ontology and epistemology。New York。  new window
6.盧建榮(19990000)。分裂的國族認同：1975-1997。臺北：麥田。new window  延伸查詢new window
7.江宜樺(19980000)。自由主義、民族主義與國家認同。臺北：揚智文化。new window  延伸查詢new window
8.Hobsbawm, Eric J.(1990)。Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality。Cambridge University Press。  new window
9.Malinowski, B.(1926)。Myth in Primitive Psychology。Myth in Primitive Psychology。London, UK。  new window
10.Adonor, T. W.、Frenkel-Brunswik, E.、Levinson, D. J.、Sanford, R. N.(1950)。The Authoitarian Personality。The Authoitarian Personality。New York, NY。  new window
11.Reicher, S.、Hopkins, N.(2001)。Self and Nation。Self and Nation。London, UK。  new window
12.(2004)。Political Psychology。Political Psychology。New York, NY。  new window
13.張灝(2002)。關於中國近代史上的民族主義的幾點省思。百年來兩岸民族主義的發展與反省。臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
14.Sidanius, J.、Pratto, F.(2004)。Social Dominance Theory: A New Synthesis。Political Psychology。New York, NY。  new window
15.Conover, P. J.、Feldman, S.(2004)。The Origins and Meaning of Liberal/Conservative Self-identifications。Political Psychology。New York, NY。  new window
16.Jost, J.、Banaji, M.(2004)。The Role of Stereotyping in System Justification and the Production of False Consciousness, 294-514。Political Psychology。New York, NY。  new window
17.Li, M. C.、Liu, J. H.、Huang, L. L.、Chang, M.(2007)。Categorization Cues and the Differentiation of Ingroup-outgroup in Taiwan: From Past to Present。The Self, Relationships, and Subjective Well-being in Asia: Psychological, Social, and Cultural Perspectives。South Korea。  new window
其他
1.黃囇莉(2003)。「中國人」、「臺灣人」認同之先後秩序與意涵之變化，0。  延伸查詢new window
2.Liu, J. H.，Huang, L. L.，McFefries, C.(2007)。Cross-sectional and Longitudinal Differences in Social Dominance Orientation and Right Wing Authoritarianism as a Function of Political Power and Social Change，0。  new window
圖書論文
1.Dittmer, Lowell、Kim, Samuel S.(1993)。In Search of a Theory of National Identity。China's Quest for National Identity。Ithaca, N.Y.：Cornell University Press。  new window
2.吳乃德(1993)。省籍意識、政治支持和國家認同--臺灣族群政治理論的初探。族群關係與國家認同。臺北：業強。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.Knight, K.(1999)。Liberalism and Conservatism。Measures and Political Attitudes。Academic Press。  new window
4.黃俊傑(2000)。論「臺灣意識」的發展及其特質--歷史回顧與未來展望。臺灣意識與臺灣文化。臺北市：正中書局。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.黃俊傑(2007)。戰後臺灣變遷的主要方向：個體性的覺醒及其問題。臺灣意識與臺灣文化。臺北市：國立臺灣大學出版中心。new window  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
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：617（臺灣：611，外國：6） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2516201 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：68310824
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