台灣心智障礙社群之媒介圖像的社會形象探究

Social Imagery of the Developmentally Disabled in Taiwanese Media

曾榮梅(Jung-Mei Tsen)

心智障礙社群 ； 社會形象 ； 隱喻抽取技術 ； 心智模式 ； Developmentally Disabled Community ； Social Image ； ZMET ； Mental Model

設計學報

19卷3期（2014 / 09 / 01）

23 - 40

繁體中文

本文主要探究台灣心智障礙者家長團體使用正向、溫暖圖像的媒體策略，在建立社會大眾眼中的心智障礙社群形象上所展現的效益。針對此議題，本文研究的重點放在挖掘、比較家長團體與社會大眾兩群體的認知模式。在研究方法上採用隱喻抽取技術（ZMET）先進行質化研究，再以結構方程模式進行量化操作。研究結果顯示，家長團體形塑心智障礙者的社會媒體形象的概念模式，包含有「社會認同」、「教育學習」與「社會關懷」三個主要面向的心智因素，而在相較家長團體形塑出的概念模式與一般大眾所認知到的媒體形象，在「社會認同」的感受程度，社會大眾展現較家長團體為高，在「教育學習」與「社會關懷」兩個因素的感受認知上則是沒有差異，這結果證實了過去多年來家長團體製作正向的圖像文宣，有助於社會大眾對弱勢社群集體形象訴求的了解，而這結果也補足了前人以採訪調查方式所未能盡到的對家長團體在圖像媒介使用情形的研究。

This study attempts to investigate the public views on the way of rendering positive and warm types of media images by parent groups for the mentally impaired. This study is focused on the mental model of parent groups in terms of the images for the developmentally disabled in media campaigns. Furthermore, this study investigates the perception of the public toward the media images portrayed by these organizations. To obtain and compare the conceptual models of these two groups, this study utilizes the Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique (ZMET) to conduct qualitative and quantitative research by using structural equation modeling. The results of this study indicate that current parent group campaigns include the implicit mental elements of ＂social recognition,＂ ＂educational learning,＂ and ＂social support,＂ largely matching the messages received by the public. Moreover, the campaign images produced by parent groups contribute to an extent in correcting the impression of the public upon disadvantaged groups, however which finding was failed to fulfill by previous interview survey studies.

1. 許靜波 （ 2013 年10 月15 日） 。社會認同的生成機制。光明日報。取自：http://theory.people.com.cn/BIG5/n/2013/1015/c49156-23202977.html Xu, J. B. (2013). The formation mechanism of social identity. Guang Ming Daily. Retrieved from http://theory.people.com.cn/BIG5/n/2013/1015/c49156-23202977.html [in Chinese, semantic translation]
2. Bagozzi, R. P.,Yi, Y.(1988).On the evaluation of structure equations models.Academic of Marketing Science,16(1),76-94.
3. Barnes, C.(Ed.)(2002).Disability studies today.Cambridge, England:Polity Press.
4. Barrett, P.(2007).Structural equation modeling: Adjudging model fit.Personality and Individual Differences,42(5),815-824.
5. Bollen, K. A.(Ed.),Long, J. S.(Ed.)(1993).Testing structural equation models.Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
6. Catching-Castello, G.(2000).The ZMET alternative.Marketing Research,12(2),6-12.
7. Coulter, R.,Zaltman, G.(1994).Using the Zaltman metaphor elicitation technique to understand brand images.Advances in Consumer Research,21,501-507.
8. Eayrs, C. B.,Ellis, N.(1990).Charity advertising: For or against people with a mental handicap?.British Journal of Social Psychology,29,349-360.
9. Evans, J.(1988).The iron cage of visibility: A critique of dominant representations of mental handicap.Ten.8 International Photography Journal,29,38-51.
10. Fornell, C.,Larcker, D.(1981).Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.Journal of Marketing Research,18(1),39-50.
11. Hair, J. F.,Anderson, R. E.,Tatham, R. L.,Black, W. C.(1998).Multivariate data analysis.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.
12. Hair, J. F.,Black, W. C.,Babin, B. J.,Anderson, R. E.,Tatham, R. L.(2006).Multivariate data analysis.Englewood Cliffs, N J:Prentice-Hall.
13. Hu, L. T.,Bentler, P. M.(1999).Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance.Structural Equation Modeling,6(1),1-55.
14. Jöreskog, K. G.,Sörbom, D.(1984).Lisrel 6: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood, instrument variables, and least squares methods.Mooreville, IN:Scientific software.
15. Jöreskog, K. G.,Sörbom, D.(1989).Lisrel 7: A guide to the program and applications.Chicago, IL:SPSS Inc..
16. Kenny, D. A.(1979).Correlation and causality.New York, NY:Willey.
17. Kline, R. B.(1998).Principles and practice of structural equation modeling.New York, NY:Guilford Press.
18. Liggett, H.(1988).Stars are not born: an interpretive approach to the politics of disability.Disability and Society,3(3),263-275.
19. Lincoln, Y. S.,Guba, E. G.(1985).Naturalistic inquiry.Beverly Hills, CA:Sage Publications.
20. Longmore, P. K.(Ed.),Umansky, L.(Ed.)(2001).The new disability history: American perspectives.New York, NY:New York University Press.
21. Miles, M. B.,Huberman, M.(1984).Qualitative date analysis: A new sourcebook of methods.Beverly Hills, CA:Sage Publications.
22. Miller, B.,Jones, R.,Ellis, N.(1993).Group differences in response to charity images of children with Down syndrome.Down Syndrome Research and Practice,1(3),118-122.
23. Mulaik, S. A.,James, L. R.,Van Alstyne, J.,Bennet, N.,Lind, S.,Stilwell, C. D.(1989).Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models.Psychological Bulletin,105(3),430-45.
24. Noar, S. M.(2003).The role of structural equation modeling in scale development.Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,10(4),622-647.
25. Noddings, N.(1984).Caring: A feminine approach to ethics & moral education.Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.
26. Oliver, M.(1990).The politics of disablement.London, England:The MacMillan Press.
27. Oliver, M.、Sapey, B.、葉琇姍譯、陳汝君譯(2004)。失能、障礙、殘障：身心障礙者社會工作的省思。臺北=Taipei:心理=psy.com。
28. Pink, D.(1998).Metaphor marketing.Fast Company,14(April/May),214-219.
29. Raines-Eudy, R.(2000).Using structural equation modeling to test for differential reliability and validity: An empirical demonstration.Structural Equation Modeling,7(1),124-141.
30. Rizzi, D.(1984).Sarasota, FL,University of Sarasota.
31. Scott-Parker, S.(1989).They aren't in the brief.London, England:Kings Fund Centre.
32. Tajfel, H.(1981).Human groups and social categories.Cambridge, England:Cambridge University.
33. Turner, J. H.、吳曲輝譯(1992)。社會學理論的結構。臺北=Taipei:桂冠=Gui Guan。
34. Vézina, R.,Paul, O.(1997).Provocation in advertising: A conceptualization and an empirical assessment.International Journal of Research in Marketing,14(2),177-192.
35. Webb, E. J.,Campbell, D. T.,Schwartz, R. D.,Sechrest, L.,Grove, J. B.(1981).Unobtrusive measures in social sciences.Boston, MA:Houghton Mifflin.
36. Wertheimer, A.(1988).Appealing images : Are charities getting them right?.Community Living,5,16-17.
37. Zaichkowsky, J. L.(1994).The personal involvement inventory: Reduction revision and application to advertising.Journal of Advertising,23,59-70.
38. Zaltman, G.,Coulter, R.(1995).Seeing the voice of the customer: Metaphor. Based advertising research.Journal of Advertising Research,35(4),35-51.
39. Zaltman, G.、余宜芳譯(2004)。為什麼顧客不掏錢：解讀消費者心智密碼。臺北=Taipei:早安財經文化=Morningnet。
40. Zola, I. K.(1993).Self, identity and the naming question: Reflections on the language of disability.Social Science and Medicine,36(2),167-173.
41. 王育瑜(2004)。障礙者與社區照顧：議題與觀點。社區發展季刊，106，230-236。
42. 王國羽(2005)。缺了一角的台灣社會研究：障礙經驗的社會學討論。2005 台灣社會學會年會暨研討會，台北市=Taipei, Taiwan:
43. 吳明隆(2009)。結構方程模式方法與實務應用。高雄市:麗文文化事業。
44. 吳武典、簡明建、王欣宜、陳俊隆(2001)。對殘障者的態度調查及二十年前後的比較。特殊教育研究學刊，21，77-88。
45. 李英琪編(2012)。更好的改變，還是更多的限制？國際健康功能與身心障礙分類系統：ICF 概念與應用。台北市=Taipei:財團法人愛盲基金會=Taiwan Foundation for the Blind。
46. 卓莉莉(1997)。台中市=Taichung, Taiwan，國立中興大學=National Chung Hsing University。
47. 周月清(2000)。障礙福利與社會工作。台北=Taipei:五南=Wunan。
48. 晁成婷(2002)。台北=Taipei, Taiwan，世新大學=Shih Hsin University。
49. 張恆豪、蘇峰山(2009)。戰後台灣國小教科書中的障礙者意象分析。臺灣社會學刊，42，143-188。
50. 陳惠萍(2003)。台中市=Taichung, Taiwan，東海大學=Tunghai University。
51. 黃宗慧(1994)。台北市=Taipei, Taiwan，國立台灣大學=National Taiwan University。
52. 黃芳銘(2004)。社會科學統計方法學：結構方程模式。台北=Taipei:五南=Wunan。
53. 黃芳銘(2006)。結構方程模式：理論與應用。台北=Taipei:五南=Wunan。
54. 黃源協(2000)。社區照顧的理念基礎：正常化觀點的分析。東吳社會工作學報，6，1-34。
55. 劉徖琦(2008)。社會弱勢者媒體形象研究︰以外籍家事勞動者與雇主關係之報導為例。中華傳播學會2008年年會

1. 曾榮梅(2016)。慈善社福廣告中之人物圖像的效益研究。設計學報，21(2)，65-82。
2. 曾子耘(2015)。球星代言NIKE 廣告消費者意象之挖掘與實證─質性與量化分析之結合。高雄師大學報：人文與藝術類，39，151-171。
3. 葉琇姍(2019)。排除或融入：做個就業好公民的障礙者就業論述分析。台灣社會研究季刊，114，147-194。
4. (2018)。媒介他者的正名政治：身心障礙與同志族群比較研究。傳播與社會學刊，44，49-83。