公民團體倡議策略與論述分析：以臺灣動物社會研究會反海豹油個案為例

An Analysis of the Advocacy Strategies and Discourse of a Citizen Group: The Anti-Seal Product Appeal by Environment and Animal Society of Taiwan

10.6123/JCRP.2016.021

黃惠萍(Hui-Ping Huang)

反海豹油訴求 ； 相互性原則 ； 倡議策略 ； 臺灣動物社會研究會 ； 論點品質 ； anti-seal product appeal ； reciprocity principle ； advocacy strategy ； Environment and Animal Society of Taiwan ； argument quality

傳播研究與實踐

6卷2期（2016 / 07 / 01）

243 - 283

繁體中文

公民社會自主力的提升與公民團體的倡議策略及論述能力有關，但相關探討有限。本研究以環保團體臺灣動物社會研究會的反海豹油個案為例，從公民團體倡議策略、公共審議相互性原則與訊息論點品質等觀點，分析該會推動訴求之策略、論述內涵與效應。分析發現，該會運用聯盟、困窘與資訊策略推動訴求，論述重視道德論證、理據與邏輯合理性，呼應相互性原則及強論點之要求，有助於媒體報導及公眾對訴求的瞭解與支持。公民團體倡議前如能投入議題研究，建構符合相互性原則之強論述，並運用聯盟及資訊等策略，應可擴大影響力、促進公民參與。

Civil society becomes autonomous when citizen groups are strong in advocacy strategies and public discourse. However, limited research attention has been paid to this topic. This study uses the perspectives of advocacy strategies, the reciprocity principle from public deliberation and message argument quality to analyze the ＂Anti- Seal Product＂ campaign promoted by Environment and Animal Society of Taiwan (EAST). Results show that EAST used cooperation, embarrassment, and information strategies to promote this appeal. Promotional texts from EAST emphasized moral reasoning, evidence and logical consistency, particularly reciprocity and strong arguments, which helped reporters cover the appeal and also helped the public understand and support it. This suggests that to successfully advocate causes citizen groups must invest in research work to gather information and evidence. Moreover, promotional texts based on reciprocity and strong arguments, as well as strategies such as cooperation and information, may also help citizen groups expand their influence and promote citizen engagement.

1. 劉政宏、張文哲、陳學志、黃博聖(2008)。你贊成或反對立場對立者的論點？立場對立情境之論點贊否模式（CSAAM）。中華心理學刊，50(3)，327-346。
   連結：
2. 劉政宏、陳學志、張文哲、張仁和(2011)。論點立場與品質高中生論點贊否反應影響的意識處理機制。教育心理學報，42，491-516。
   連結：
3. Lin, D. (n.d.). Comparing and contrasting the animal rights and environmental movements. Retrieved from http://animalrights.about.com/od/animalrights101/a/Comparing-And-Contrasting-The-Animal-Rights-And-Environmental-Movements.htm
4. 臺灣動物社會研究會（2010）。《臺灣動物社會研究會—關於我們》。取自 http://www.east.org.tw/about.php?about_id=17
5. 內政部（2014）。《內政統計年報》。取自http://statis.moi.gov.tw/micst/stmain.jsp?sys=100
6. Berry, J. M.(1977).Lobbying for the people: The political behavior of public interest groups.Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
7. Berry, J. M.,Arons, D. F.(2003).A voice for nonprofits.Washington, DC:Brookings Institution Press.
8. Bohman, J.(1996).Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
9. Bohman, J.(Ed.),Rehg, W.(Ed.)(1996).Deliberative democracy.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
10. Carson, J. V.,Lafree, G.,Dugan, L.(2012).Terrorist and non-terrorist criminal attacks by radical environmental and animal rights groups in the United States, 1970-2007.Terrorism and Political Violence,24,295-319.
11. Crano, W. D.(Ed.),Prislin, R.(Ed.)(2008).Attitudes and attitude change.New York, NY:Psychology Press.
12. Dillard, J. P.(Ed.),Pfau, M.(Ed.)(2002).The handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
13. Dillard, J. P.(Ed.),Shen, L.(Ed.)(2013).The Sage handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
14. Francione, G. L.(1996).Animal rights and animal welfare.Rutgers Law Review,48,397-469.
15. Gutmann, A.,Thompson, D.(1996).Democracy and disagreement.Cambridge, MA:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
16. Gutmann, A.,Thompson, D.(1998).Deliberative democracy.Liberal Education,84,10-17.
17. Habermas, J.(1989).The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
18. Munro, L.(2005).Strategies, action repertoires and DIY activism in the animal rights movement.Social Movement Studies,4,75-94.
19. O'Keefe, D. J.(1998).Justification explicitness and persuasive effects: A meta-analytic review of the effects of varying support articulation in persuasive messages.Argumentation and Advocacy,35,61-75.
20. Patterson, S. J.,Radtke, J. M.(2009).Strategic communications for nonprofit organizations: Seven steps to creating a successful plan.Hoboken, NJ:Wiley.
21. Petty, R. E.,Cacioppo, J. T.(1996).Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches.Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
22. Petty, R. E.,Cacioppo, J. T.,Goldman, R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
23. Reinard, J. C.(1988).The empirical study of persuasive effects of evidence: The status after fifty years of research.Human Communication Research,15,3-59.
24. Sussman, S. W.,Siegal, W. S.(2003).Informational influence in organizations: An integrated approach to knowledge adoption.Information Systems Research,14,47-65.
25. Yin, R. K.(2009).Case study research: Design and methods.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
26. Zhang, W.,Watts, S. A.(2008).Capitalizing on content: Information adoption in two online communities.Journal of the Association for Information Systems,9(2),73-94.
27. 王俊秀(1993)。歐'美'日主要環保團體行動策略之探討與分析。中國社會學刊，17，281-302。
28. 王惠蘭(2002)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。義守大學管理科學研究所。
29. 江明修編(1999)。第三部門：經營策略與社會參與。臺北，臺灣:智勝。
30. 何明修(2006)。綠色民主：臺灣環境運動的研究。臺北，臺灣:群學。
31. 李永展(1998)。從環保運動之演變思考臺灣環保團體之出路。規劃學報，25，97-114。
32. 汪盈利(2013)。動保足履關懷二十年。臺北，臺灣:關懷生命協會。
33. 林茂耀(2004)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立東華大學觀光暨遊憩管理研究所。
34. 黃癸鳳(2007)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立東華大學環境政策研究所。
35. 黃惠萍、楊佩綸、黃盈嘉(2010)。相互性原則作為行銷傳播策略初探。第十八屆中華民國廣告暨公共關係學術與實務研討會，臺灣，臺北:
36. 謝國雄編(2008)。群學爭鳴：臺灣社會學發展史1945-2005。臺北，臺灣:群學。
37. 蘇桑盈(2008)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立成功大學政治經濟學研究所。

1. 葉文琪、高郁婷、王志弘(2017)。從牲畜到毛孩子：臺灣報紙動物再現的劃界敘事與情感化。新聞學研究，133，43-85。