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：「92共識」對2012年臺灣總統大選的議題效果：「傾向分數配對法」的應用與實證估算
書刊名：選舉研究
作者：蒙志成 引用關係
作者(外文)：Meng, Chih-cheng
出版日期：2014
卷期：21:1
頁次：頁1-45
主題關鍵詞：92共識；2012總統選舉；議題投票；傾向分數配對；兩岸關係；92 consensus；2012 Taiwan presidential election；Issue voting；Propensity score matching；Cross-strait relations
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(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:4
  • 共同引用共同引用:248
  • 點閱點閱:135
2012年總統大選後，許多輿論均評論此次的大選結果與「 92共識」此一有關兩岸關係的議題，有莫大關係。本文旨在探究 92共識對 2012選民投票抉擇的影響程度。本文重新疏理了「議題投票」理論的核心定義、適用範圍與分析方法，以 92共識的議題效果為研究焦點，依其議題性質假定了「議題內生於政黨認同」的關係，且準於「由因視果」的分析途徑，根據「 2012台灣選舉與民主化調查」的電訪 (TEDS2012-T)與面訪 (TEDS2012)資料，運用「傾向分數配對法」，來估算 92共識對台灣選民投票抉擇的影響。 本文研究發現：在競選期間， 92共識對馬吳配的支持度約有 2成的影響，對蔡蘇配約有 1.3成；至選後， 92共識對馬吳配的議題效果大幅降至約 1成的影響，對蔡蘇配則略降為 1.2成。這項控制「內在選因」後的實證發現，有效且精確地估算出 2012競選期間， 92共識對選民投票行為的議題影響效果。此外，透過不同時間點的估算，資料亦證明了， 92共識的確在競選期間成功地被轉化為藍綠選民所注意的顯著性議題，對選舉結果具有一定程度的影響。
News and many public comments indicate that the “92 consensus” was the crucial issue to affect the result of Taiwan 2012 presidential election. This paper aims to study the effect of the 92 consensus on voters’ choices in 2012. This paper reviews the core assumptions, boundary of application and analytical methods of the “issue voting” theory. Moreover, it focus on studying the impacts of the 92 consensus that are presumed to be endogenously correlated with party identification. Based on the approach of “studying the effects of a cause”, as well as using the “2012 Taiwan’s Election and Democratization Study” dataset (TEDS2012-T and TEDS2012), this paper applies “propensity score matching” (PSM) method to investigate the issue effect of the “92 consensus” on voting choices during 2012 election. The results from the data analysis demonstrate that positions supportive of the “92 consensus” account for about twenty percent of supporting rates to pro-Ma voters in the period of the electoral campaign; meanwhile, positions oppositional to the “92 consensus” would contribute about thirteen percent of supporting rates for pro-Tsai voters. After the election the influential probability of the “92 consensus” was dramatically downsized to ten percent of supporting rates to pro-Ma voters; however, the percentage for pro-Tsai voters was slightly reduced to twelve percent. These findings provide more valid and credible estimates toward the influential probability of the “92 consensus” issue during the 2012 elections. Moreover, the statistical findings over various time-points also verify the successful transformation of the “92 consensus” to be identified as a salient issue across pro-Ma and pro-Tsai voters. It indeed achieved substantial influences toward the processes and result of 2012 presidential election.
期刊論文
1.Rubin, Donald B.(1974)。Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies。Journal of Educational Psychology，66(5)，688-701。  new window
2.Rubin, Donald B.(1980)。Comment on 'Randomization Analysis of Experimental Data: The Fisher Randomization Test, 'by D. Basu。Journal of the American Statistical Association，75，591-593。  new window
3.Holland, Paul W.(1986)。Statistics and Causal Inference。Journal of the American Statistical Association，81(396)，945-960。  new window
4.Wang, Ding-ming(2001)。The Impact of Policy Issues on Voting Behavior in Taiwan: A Mixed Logit Approach。Journal of Electoral Studies，8(2)，95-123。new window  new window
5.Xie, Yu、Wu, Xiaogang(2005)。Reply: Market Premium, Social Process and Statisticism。American Sociological Review，70(5)，865-870。  new window
6.Lau, R. R.,、Redlawsk, D. P.(2001)。Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making。American Political Science Review，45(4)，951-971。  new window
7.Rabinowitz, G.、MacDonald, S. E.(198903)。A Directional Theory of Issue Voting。American Political Science Review，83(1)，93-121。  new window
8.劉從葦(20040300)。單一行動者預設與政黨、派系競爭理論的建立--以單記非讓渡投票制下的選舉為例。人文及社會科學集刊，16(1)，151-195。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.Stokes, Donald E.(1963)。Spatial Models of Party Competition。American Political Science Review，57(2)，368-377。  new window
10.楊婉瑩、林珮婷(20100500)。她們為什麼投給馬英九？探討2008年總統大選的性別差距。選舉研究，17(1)，91-128。new window  延伸查詢new window
11.Lin, Tse-min、Chu, Yun-han、Hinich, Melvin J.(199607)。Conflict Displacement and Regime Transition in Taiwan: A Spatial Analysis。World Politics，48(4)，453-482。  new window
12.關秉寅、李敦義(20081200)。補習數學有用嗎？--一個「反事實」的分析。臺灣社會學刊，41，97-148。new window  延伸查詢new window
13.鄭夙芬(20091100)。族群、認同與總統選舉投票抉擇。選舉研究，16(2)，23-49。new window  延伸查詢new window
14.盛杏湲(20020500)。統獨議題與臺灣選民的投票行為：一九九〇年代的分析。選舉研究，9(1)，41-75。new window  延伸查詢new window
15.劉從葦(20061200)。臺灣政黨的政策位置：非介入式與介入式測量的比較研究。臺灣政治學刊，10(2)，3-62。new window  延伸查詢new window
16.Rosenbaum, Paul R.、Rubin, Donald B.(1983)。The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects。Biometrika，70(1)，41-55。  new window
17.黃紀(20080400)。因果推論與觀察研究：「反事實模型」之思考。社會科學論叢，2(1)，2-22。new window  延伸查詢new window
18.吳親恩、林奕孜(20121100)。經濟投票與總統選舉：效度與內生問題的分析。臺灣政治學刊，16(2)，175-232。new window  延伸查詢new window
19.Morgan, Stephen L.、Harding, David J.(2006)。Matching estimators of causal effects: Prospects and pitfalls in theory and practice。Sociological Methods and Research，35(1)，3-60。  new window
20.黃紀(20101100)。因果推論與效應評估：區段識別法及其於「選制效應」之應用。選舉研究，17(2)，103-134。new window  延伸查詢new window
21.陳陸輝、耿曙、王德育(20091100)。兩岸關係與2008年臺灣總統大選：認同、利益、威脅與選民投票取向。選舉研究，16(2)，1-22。new window  延伸查詢new window
22.俞振華、蔡佳泓(20111000)。社會公平與經濟發展：臺灣民眾的政策意向之初探。社會科學論叢，5(2)，136-174。new window  延伸查詢new window
23.Rosenbaum, Paul R.、Rubin, Donald B.(1985)。Constructing a Control Group Using Multivariate Matched Sampling Methods That Incorporate the Propensity Score。American Statistician，39(1)，33-38。  new window
研究報告
1.Duvendack, M.(2011)。High Noon for Microfinance Impact Evaluations: Re-Investigating the Evidence from Banglades。  new window
圖書
1.Borre, Ole(2001)。Issue Voting: An Introduction。Denmark：Aarhus University Press。  new window
2.Andrea, Volkens、Judith, Bara、Eric, Tanenbaum(2001)。Mapping Policy Preferences。Oxford：Oxford University Press。  new window
3.Rosenbaum, Paul R.(2010)。Design of Observational Studies。New York：Springer。  new window
4.Kahneman, Daniel、Slovic, Paul、Tversky, Amos(1982)。Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristic and Biases。Cambridge：Cambridge University Press。  new window
5.Rosenbaum, Paul R.(2002)。Observational Studies。New York：Springer-Verlag。  new window
6.Morgan, Stephen L.、Winship, Christopher(2007)。Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research。Harvard University Press。  new window
7.邵宗海(2011)。新形勢下的兩岸政治關係。臺北：五南。new window  延伸查詢new window
8.Enelow, James M.、Hinich, Melvin J.(1984)。The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction。Cambridge University Press。  new window
9.Downs, Anthony J.(1957)。An Economic Theory of Democracy。New York：Harper and Row。  new window
10.King, Gary、Keohane, Robert O.、Verba, Sidney(1994)。Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific inference in Qualitative Research。Princeton University Press。  new window
11.Przeworski, Adam、Teune, Henry(1970)。The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry。John Wiley & Sons, Inc.。  new window
12.Campbell, Angus、Converse, Philip E.、Miller, Warren E.、Stokes, Donald E.(1960)。The American Voter。The University of Chicago Press。  new window
其他
1.林獨水(2012)。DPP的轉型問題，http://www.taiwansig.tw/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4060&Itemid=136， 2012/10/31。  new window
圖書論文
1.Bartle, John、Crewe, Ivor(2002)。The Impact of Party Leaders in Britain: Strong Assumptions, Weak Evidence。Leadership Personalities and the Outcomes of Democratic Elections。Oxford：Oxford University Press。  new window
2.盛杏湲(2009)。經濟與福利議題對台灣選民投票行為的影響：2008年總統選舉的探索。2008年總統選舉：論二次政黨輪替之關鍵選舉。臺北：五南。  延伸查詢new window
3.Winship, Christopher、Sobel, Michael(2004)。Causal Inference in Sociological Studies。The Handbook of Data Analysis。Sage。  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：649（臺灣：624，外國：25） ／ 本年度總使用人次：950410 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：66748980
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