Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/150212
|
| Title: | 我國國民對認知作戰之危害感知與影響
Hazard Perception and Impact of R.O.C. Citizens on Cognitive Warfare |
| Authors: | 黃鴻澤
Huang, Hong-Ze |
| Contributors: | 蔡中民
Tsai, Chong-Min
黃鴻澤
Huang, Hong-Ze |
| Keywords: | 認知作戰
風險感知
中介式調節
情緒反應
認知失調
框架效應
認知偏誤
社會認定
認知重塑
Cognitive warfare
Risk perception
Mediated moderation
Emotional response
Cognitive dissonance
Framing effects
Cognitive bias
Social identity
Cognitive reframing |
| Date: | 2023 |
| Issue Date: | 2024-03-01 13:54:53 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 近年中國大陸透過對媒體話語的嚴格控制，以及輿論和法律層面的操作，積極地利用金錢、人脈和多層面的網路媒體資訊，塑造偽裝善意或實際惡意的意識形態，直接強化其希望展現的實力形象。不僅鞏固了國內人民的思想，同時實際上也影響了民主國家公民的心理和思維。民眾接受來自各種管道的資訊後，會在意識中形成特定的意識形態或信念，傾向於尋找與自己觀點一致的資訊，且認知和應對態度很容易受到特定觀點的議題影響。認知作戰是國家戰略的一部分，其目的在於確保對敘事的合法性和主導權，無論是政治、經濟、軍事或是科技等各方面的議題，都是透過特定媒介來形塑民眾所期望的模樣。
目前較少研究國民接受到認知作戰資訊後，檢驗認知作戰危害感知程度，並分析受到之影響，然而國民因生活型態有所差異，對於接收到之資訊、評價與價值觀，內心思維必定有所不同。此外，許多爭議資訊的傳播不僅包括完全或部分的虛假信息和假新聞，還包括同時製造對立立場的偏頗敘事和輿論操作，導致對同溫層的心理影響擴大，引導思維層面的轉變。本研究期透過問卷調查法，針對臺灣軍職（含學生與社會人士）、非軍職等二類族群，調查國民接觸媒體資訊量，以及國際情勢與戰爭意識等相關理解程度，探究其對認知作戰危害感知程度與其所受之影響，同時，輔以深度訪談法，探討對接觸資訊、生活型態及自身觀點等差異存在。
統計與訪談結果顯示，中國大陸對我國認知作戰運用「符號」手段，透過各大媒體及資訊管道偽裝善意或實際刻意，傳播正面或負面的認知作戰資訊，使整體受測國民達到社會認定之影響程度，其直接效果強烈，評估國民正處在認知作戰高度危害的環境之中，且多數受測者與受訪者認為，以美國為主的其他國家持續對我國進行認知作戰，顯示國民存在感知不確定性。研究結果期能夠為政府、研究機構和國防單位提供有關認知作戰風險管控和反制的數據資訊。
In recent years, China has wielded strict control over media narratives and operational strategies, shaping ideologies that may appear benevolent but harbor underlying malevolence. Cognitive warfare is a key part of China's strategy, leveraging various media channels to control narratives in politics, economics, military, and technology. Media plays a pivotal role in influencing Taiwanese citizens' perceptions on specific issues, encompassing communication, written content, audiovisual media, and online platforms.
This study uses a questionnaire to survey two groups: Taiwan's military personnel (students and civilians included) and non-military individuals. It aims to understand their media exposure and comprehension of international situations and war awareness. Through in-depth interviews, the study seeks to reveal differences in information exposure, lifestyle, and perspectives between these groups.
The statistical and interview results reveal that mainland China employs symbolic representation in cognitive warfare against Taiwan, using major media outlets and information channels to disseminate both positive and negative cognitive warfare information. The overall impact on surveyed citizens reaches a social identity, with a strong direct effect. Most respondents and interviewees believe that other countries, primarily the United States, continue cognitive warfare against Taiwan, indicating a prevailing sense of uncertainty among the populace. The research findings aim to provide data and information for the government, research institutions, and defense units regarding the risk management and countermeasures of cognitive warfare. |
| Reference: | 壹、英文部分
ArmisteadLeigh, & CampbellTony. (2005). Information operations:The hard reality of soft power ( 3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: International Journal.
BackesOliver, & SwabAndrew. (2019). Cognitive Warfare: The Russian Threat to Election Integrity in the Baltic States. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University.
BaronM.R., & KennyA.D. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Beauchamp-MustafagaNathan. (2019). Cognitive Domain Operations: The PLA's New Holistic Concept for Influence. China Brief, 19(16), 24-37.
BernalAlonso, CarterCameron, SinghIshpreet, CaoKathy, & MadreperlaOlivia. (2021). Fall 2020 Cognitive Warfare: An Attack On Truth And Thought. NATO and Johns Hopkins University: Baltimore Johns Hopkins University., 1-45.
BernardClaverie, & François DuCluzel,. (2021). COGNITIVE WARFARE. Symposium organized by the Innovation Hub of NATO-ACT and ENSC, 1-7.
BrandNevo, ShukerPnina, & Siman-TovDavid. (2018). "The March of Return"–Operative Achievement and Strategic Failure: A Test Case for Cognitive Warfare. INSS Insight(1063), 1-4.
BuzanBarry, & WaeverOle. (2003). The Regions and Powers:The Structure of International Security. England: Cambridge University Press.
CardenalPabloJuan, KucharczykJacek, MesežnikovGrigorij, & PleschováGabriela. (2017). Sharp Power: Rising Authoritarian Influence. Washington, D.C.: International Forum for Democratic Studies.
CarothersC. (2020). Taking Authoritarian Anti-Corruption Reform Seriously. Perspectives on Politics, 20(1), 69-85.
CarpiniX. D.M., & KeeterS. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New York: Yale University Press.
CSIS (2023). China’s Power: Up for Debate 2023. 2023年10月5日. 擷取自 https://chinapower.csis.org/chinas-power-up-for-debate-2023/
ClausewitzvonCarl. (1908). On War (2nd ed.). England: K. Paul, Trench, Trübner & co., ltd.
ClaverieB., PrébotB., BuchlerN., & CluzeDuF. (2021). Cognitive Warfare: The Future of Cognitive Dominance. NATO scientific meeting on Cognitive Warfare, (1-118). France.
CohenB.Saul. (1964). Geography and Politics in a World Divided. New York: Methuen.
CohenJ. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic press.
CohenSheldon, KamarckTom, & MermelsteinRobin. (1983). A Global Measure of Perceived Stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385-396.
Congress of the United States of America. (2022). H.R. 7776 (117th): James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023. 2022年12月20日擷取自 Govtrack.us: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr7776enr/pdf/BILLS-117hr7776enr.pdf
CovelloT.V., Von WinterfeldtD., & SlovicP. (1987). Communicating scientific information about health and environmental risks: Problems and opportunities from a social and behavioral perspective. Uncertainty in risk assessment, risk management, and decision making, 4, 221-239.
DataReportal. (2023). DIGITAL 2023: TAIWAN. 2023年12月18日 擷取自 https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2023-taiwan
DekelUdi. (2017). The Second Lebanon War：The Limits of Strategic Thinking. INSS Insight(167), 27-37.
DekelUdi, & Moran-GiladLia. (2019). Cognition Combining Soft Power and Hard Power. Intelligence in Theory and in Practice, 4(10), 151-163.
DeutschW.Karl. (1957). Political Community and the North Atlantic Area (1st ed.). New York: Princeton University Press.
FestingerLeon. (1962). Cognitive Dissonance. Scientific American, 207(4), 93-106.
FreedmanL.Jonathan, & SearsO.David. (1965). Selective Exposure. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 57-97.
Georgii POCHEPTSOV. (2018). Cognitive attacks in Russian hybrid warfare. Information & Security, 41, 37-43.
GershaneckK.Kerry. (2021). Media Warfare:How Taiwan Can Win the Battle for the Cognitive Domain. PROSPECT & EXPLORATION, 19(1), 66-101.
GlobalFirepower. (2023). 2023 Military Strength Ranking. 2023年12月8日 擷取自 GFP ANNUAL RANKING: https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php
GolovchenkoYevgeniy, BuntainCody, EadyGregory, BrownA.Megan, & TuckerA.Joshua. (2020). Cross-Platform State Propaganda: Russian Trolls on Twitter and YouTube during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(3), 357-389.
HayesA.F. (2017). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Henri TajfelTurnerJohn. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict(1st ed.). (Mary Jo HatchSchultzMajken, Ed.) England: OUP Oxford, 2004.
HeyesCecilia. (2012). New thinking: the evolution of human cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1599), 2091-2096.
HillenA., Gutheil, C. M., Strout, T. D., Smets, E. M. A., & Han, P. K. J.M. (2017). Tolerance of uncertainty: Conceptual analysis, integrative model, and implications for healthcare. Social Science & Medicine, 180, 62-75.
House Armed Services Committee. (2022). The James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023.擷取自 House Armed Services Committee: https://armedservices.house.gov/sites/republicans.armedservices.house.gov/files/Final%20FY23%20NDAA%20Conf%20Highlights.pdf
HoyleR.H., & RobinsonJ.I. (2003). Mediated and Moderated Effects in Social Psychological Research: Measurement, Design, and Analysis Issues. Portland, OR: Sage Publications, Inc.
JaspersonE.Amy, & El-KikhiaO.Mansour. (2003). Framing Terrorism (1st ed.). (NorrisPippa, KernMontague, & JustMarion, Ed.) United States: Routledge.
KatchanovskiIvan. (2015). Crimea: people and territory before and after annexation. E-international Relations, 81-87.
KofmanMichael, & RojanskyMatthew. (2018). What Kind of Victory for Russia in Syria? MILITARY REVIEW ONLINE EXCLUSIVE, 24(2), 1-18.
KuperwasserYossi, & Siman-TovDavid. (2019). The Cognitive Campaign:Strategic and Intelligence Perspectives. INSS journal, 197(4), 25-213.
LasswellD.Harold. (2007). The structure and function of communication in society. Iletişim kuram ve araştırma dergisi(24), 215-228.
LemayA., & LeblancS. P. (2018). Iterative Analysis of Competing Hypotheses to Overcome Cognitive Biases in Cyber Decision-Making. Journal of Information Warfare, 17(2), 42-53.
LinvillL.Darren, BoatwrightC.Brandon, GrantJ.Will, & WarrendL.Patrick. (2019). “THE RUSSIANS ARE HACKING MY BRAIN!” investigating Russia's internet research agency twitter tactics during the 2016 United States presidential campaign. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 292-300.
MankoffJeffrey . (2014). Russia's latest land grab: How Putin won Crimea and lost Ukraine. Council on Foreign Relations, 93(3), 1-10.
Masakowski, Y. R., & Blatny, J. M. (2023). Mitigating and Responding to Cognitive Warfare. NATO STO Technical Report , 1-146.
McCullohTimothy, & JohnsonRichard. (2013). Hybrid Warfare. JSOU Report, 1-154.
MosesJoseph. (2022). Disinformation as part of Modern Warfare’s Cyber-attacks. ITSS Verona Magazine, 1(1), 1-14.
MuellerRobert S. (2019). Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election (1st ed.). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political behavior, 19, 221-246.
NohrstedtA.S., Kaitatzi-WhitlockS., OttosenR., & RiegertK. (2000). From the Persian Gulf to Kosovo—War journalism and propaganda. European Journal of Communication, 15(3), 383-404.
OrinxKimberly, & SwielandeTanguy Struye dePr. (2022). Chapter 8-China and cognitive warfare : Why is the west losing? Symposium organized by the Innovation Hub of NATO-ACT and ENSC, 1-5.
Robert S. MuellerIII. (2019). Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election. Washington, D.C.
SasseGwendolyn. (2007). The Crimea question: Identity, transition, and conflict (1st ed.). Cambridge: Harvard Univ Pr.
ShahV.D., WattsD.M., DomkeD., & FanP.D. (2002). News framing and cueing of issue regimes：Explaining. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66(3), 339-370.
ShifmanLimor. (2013). Memes in a Digital World: Reconciling with a Conceptual Troublemaker. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 362-377.
SlovicPaul, FischhoffBaruch, & LichtensteinSarah. (1982). Why Study Risk Perception? Risk analysis, 2(2), 83-93.
SmithM.Steven, FabrigarR.Leandre, & NorrisE.Meghan. (2008). Reflecting on Six Decades of Selective Exposure Research: Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 464-493.
SteeleE.J. (1995). Experts and the operational bias of television news: The case of the Persian Gulf War. Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(4), 799-812.
SteinGrossJanice. (2013). Threat Perception in International Relations. The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology(2), 364-365.
SuslovD.Mikhail. (2014). “Crimea Is Ours!”Russian popular geopolitics in the new media age. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 55(6), 588-609.
TashevBlagovest, PurcellColonel MichaelLieutenant, & McLaughlinBrianMajor. (2019). Russia’s Information Warfare. MCU Journal, 10(2), 129-147.
TaylorM.Philip. (1992). War and the Media: Propaganda and Persuasion in the Gulf War (2nd ed.). United States: Manchester University Press.
The Economist. (2021). The most dangerous place on Earth. 2021年3月1日擷取自 The Economist: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/05/01/the-most-dangerous-place-on-earth
ThomasL.Timothy. (2004). Russia’s Reflexive Control Theory and the Military. Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 17, 237–256.
V-Dem. (2023). Digital Society Project. 2023年12月5日 擷取自 https://v-dem.net/data/the-v-dem-dataset/
VedlitzArnold, & ZahranSammy. (2007). Theories of Ethnic Social Distance:Comparative Empirical Tests for Three Distinct Ethnic Groups. Sociological Spectrum, 27, 585-603.
ZallerJohn. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.
貳、中文部分
BeckUlrich. (1999). 全球化危機 : 全球化的形成、風險與機會 (第 1 版). (孫治本, 譯者) 台北: 臺灣商務出版社.
BeckUlrich. (2003). 風險社會－通往另一個現代的路上 (第 1 版). (汪浩, 譯者) 台北: 巨流圖書公司.
CourterJ.Ian, & 劉宗翰. (2023). 「俄烏戰爭」前的俄羅斯「影響力行動」. 海軍學術雙月刊, 57(1), 126-140.
GilovichThomas . (2021). 康乃爾最經典的思考邏輯課（暢銷典藏版）：避開六大謬誤，資訊時代必備的理性判斷工具 (第 1 版). (林力敏, 譯者) 臺灣: 先覺出版社.
McLuhanMarshall. (2019). 理解媒介－論人的延伸 (第 4 版). (何道寬, 譯者) 中國: 譯林出版社.
Schwartz Jeffrey M., & BegleySharon. (2003). The Mind and the Brain : Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force (第 1 版). (張美惠, 譯者) 臺灣: 時報出版社.
StoneDeborah. (2007). Policy Paradox：The Art of Political Decision Making (第 1 版). (朱道凱, 譯者) 臺灣: 群學出版社.
TWNIC. (2022). 2022台灣網路報告. 1-37. 2023年12月18日 擷取自 https://report.twnic.tw/2022/
ZerubavelEviatar. (2022). 房間裡的大象：日常生活中的緘默與縱容 (第 1 版). (黃佳瑜, 譯者) 臺灣: 早安財經出版社.
中國人民解放軍. (2003). 中國人民解放軍政治工作條例. 北京: 中國人民解放軍.
台灣事實查核中心. (2022). 2022年假訊息大調查. 1-47. 台灣事實查核中心. 擷取自 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CfHTsp0BF9RDgF0lmotU2ejOKAdogNPk/view
朱元鴻. (1995). 風險知識與風險媒介的政治社會學分析. 台灣社會研究季刊(19), 204-215.
江易錚. (2023). 對於中國大陸內部政經局勢及兩岸關係之理解如何影響我國軍軍官的戰爭風險感知 (未出版). 政治大學: 政治大學社會科學學院行政管理碩士學程碩士論文.
吳明隆, & 涂金堂. (2014). SPSS 與統計應用分析 (第 2 版). 台北: 五南出版社.
李宛庭. (2018). 國軍官兵兩岸戰爭風險感知與行為傾向關聯性研究－以中共軍機繞台事件為例 (未出版). 國防大學: 國防大學政治作戰學院新聞學系碩士論文.
李冠成. (2021). 民眾的威脅感知. 中共政軍與作戰概念研究所. 臺灣: 財團法人國防安全研究院. 擷取自 https://indsr.org.tw/uploads/indsr/files/202204/ce0ff9f7-a551-4f2f-93ba-3938ca4a4a05.pdf
李喜明. (2022). 臺灣的勝算：以小制大的不對稱戰略，全臺灣人都應了解的整體防衛構想 (第 1 版). 台北: 聯經出版公司.
沈伯洋. (2021). 中國認知領域作戰模型初探：以2020 臺灣選舉為例. 遠景基金會季刊, 22(1), 2-52.
沈伯洋 (2022). 向假訊息、帶風向說「NO」：完全剖析認知作戰. 2022年12月27日擷取自 https://jinfm.net/channel/651
沈伯洋. (2022). 認知作戰不是要你親中？先讓你政治冷感、資訊疲乏才是關鍵！. (范琪斐, 採訪者) 2022年12月27日擷取自 https://youtu.be/OFmUeE9T6c8
林疋愔. (2021). 中共認知戰操作策略與我國因應作為. 國防雜誌, 36(1), 1-22.
林穎佑. (2016). 中國近期網路作為探討：從控制到攻擊. 台灣國際研究季刊, 12(3), 52-64.
邱皓政. (2019). 量化研究與統計分析：SPSS與R資料分析範例解析 (第 6 版). 台北: 五南出版社.
翁伯瑋. (2022年9月). 戰狼來了！中共渲染軍事威脅之認知作戰. 清流雙月刊, 41, 36.
高婉瑜. (2014). 網路語言的語音模因及其傳播－以宅女小紅的作品為例. 淡江中文學報(30), 281-309.
國防部. (2022). 中共認知戰8/1先開打 爭議訊息迄今逾270則. 2023年12月5日 擷取自 中央通訊社: https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/202208080193.aspx
郭生玉. (1996). 心理與教育測驗 (第 1 版). 台北: 精華書局.
郭盛哲. (2018). 硬實力中的軟實力與銳實力：戰爭中的非軍事武力行動. 復興崗學報(112), 29-48.
郭銘傑. (2023). 戰略模糊或清晰？戰爭議價理論與美國臺海兩岸政策的理性基礎. 遠景基金會季刊, 24(1), 91-126.
陳子平. (2007). 從中共「三戰」威脅探討我國「全民國防教育」之具體實踐. 96年全民國防教育學術研討會論文集 (98-102). 臺北: 國防部總政治作戰局.
陳宗巖. (2018). 爭辯中的東南亞與中國關係：國際關係理論的模擬與應用. 思與言, 56(4), 159-237.
陳津萍, & 徐名敬. (2021年6月). 中共「心理戰」與「認知域作戰」發展之比較研究. 復興崗學報(118), 119-148.
陳偉華. (2023). 國立政治大學戰略與國際事務碩士在職專班之國家戰略研究授課講義資料.
陳膺昇. (2021). 我國軍民對中共武力犯臺威脅認知與政策立場研究—以清泉崗與臺中地區為例 (未出版). 國防大學: 國防大學政治作戰學院政治學系碩士論文.
傅文成, 黃琝戩, & 顏瑞宏. (2021). 以資料科學方法輔助民意趨勢分析：戰略及戰爭風險感知的網路民意研. 新聞學研究(149), 1-49.
喬良, & 王湘穗. (1999). 超限戰：兩個空軍大校對全球化時代戰爭與戰法的想定 (第 1 版). 北京: 解放軍文藝出版.
曾華鋒. (2014). 制腦權：全球媒體時代的戰爭法則與國家安全戰略 (第 1 版). 中國大陸: 解放軍文藝出版社.
程國政. (2009). 孫子兵法知識地圖 (第 1 版). 臺北: 遠流出版事業股份有限公司.
黃琝戩. (2021). 「惡鄰」？「戰警」？ 從美、中軍機在臺海周圍軍事行動 探析我國民眾戰略感知對戰爭風險感知、情感、 風險態度、國防政策及預算支持程度之影響 (未出版). 國防大學: 國防大學政治作戰學院新聞學系碩士論文.
葉肅科. (2003). SARS 全球化與風險管理. 社區發展季刊(104), 189-200.
解放軍報. (2016). 從俄羅斯兩場戰事看現代戰爭新發展. 2023年12月18日 擷取自 人民網(people.cn): http://military.people.com.cn/n1/2016/0816/c1011-28638673.html
劉姝廷. (2021). 軍事宣傳及其影響：民眾認知評估與防衛意願. 國防戰略與資源研究所. 財團法人國防安全研究院. 2023年12月18日擷取自 https://indsr.org.tw/uploads/indsr/files/202204/5b9b2320-6ca4-4f06-9f6a-f1a008a14405.pdf
樓耀亮. (2002). 地緣政治與中國國防戰略 (第 1 版). 天津: 天津人民出版社.
歐陽瑜, & 周桂田. (2016). 正視未知的風險知識資產：以知識創造為中心的風險治理架構. 政治與社會哲學評論(58), 1-51.
鄭伯壎, 姜定宇, 吳宗祐, 高鳳霞, 王安智, 王豫萱, . . . 周婉茹. (2015). 組織行為研究在臺灣四十年：深化與展望 (第 1 版). 臺灣: 華泰文化出版社.
親子天下(2019). 完全破解假訊息！數位思辨力這樣學. 2023年12月5日 擷取自 讓孩子遠離危險的思辨實踐課:
https://www.parenting.com.tw/article/5080609
陸軍司令部. (1957). 美軍軍語辭典. 臺灣: 國防部官兵福利社圖書部.
簡忠仁, & 鄭伯壎. (2017). 組織認定—回顧、現況及前瞻. 應用心理研究(66), 143-202.
顏志龍, & 鄭中平. (2023). 給論文寫作者的統計指南：傻瓜也會跑統計 (第 5 版). 臺灣: 五南出版社. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
行政管理碩士學程
111921318 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111921318 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [行政管理碩士學程(MEPA)] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 131801.pdf | | 8475Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
