第一步

# 歡迎，參與【民意與政治行為研究】的課程 (https://popb.postach.io/page/110-1zhou-ci-jin-du/)
#(說明：這個助教專案的形式傳承並改寫自2021厚數據與資料敘事工作坊)
# 歡迎你打開一個工作平台。可以書寫，也可以像資料科學家與人溝通想法及數據分析。不妨先將RStudio的欄與柱關閉/移開，讓這裡更像是書寫區。暫時忽略這個灰色底框，框外像是白紙可自由的書寫區。想像自己是個作家。

# 書寫，網頁便產生了，兩個小訣竅：（1）框外白紙打一個井號表示標題，兩個井表示二號標題。（2）分段時，句末加\ 。

# 有興趣不妨進一步參考這兩個連結探索：
# https://medium.com/@kstseng/r-markdown-template-a4b0449a56d5
# https://bookdown.org/yihui/rmarkdown/html-document.html#table_of_contents 

# 完成後可能類似這樣(劉老師的頁面)：
# https://rpubs.com/frankcsliu/801712

自我介紹

練習，完全不用寫程式也可以用R書寫，我們專注在民意與行為研究，資料分析是中介的工具。一定要開始試著動動指尖，首先寫自我以及自我的期待。

(我是……)

思考與書寫

挑戰一

民意研究與政治心理學的融合 

挑戰二

如何用書寫平台文獻回顧[重點摘述]？加上表格？ 

  • 重點提示1. 黨派動機推理途徑

練習將表 1. 黨派影響意見的四種途徑(以動機和努力為觀點)

　 Accuracy Motivation: Political Parties as Informational Shortcut Directional Motivation: Political Parties as Objects of Identification
Low Effort
  1. Take position of “likeminded” party
  1. Follow party as group, adopt policy position conforming to group norms
More Effort
  1. Use party label to make inferences of policy content, implications for values, etc. before taking a position
  1. Partisan motivated reasoning where partisans actively seek to justify taking party-consistent position (e.g., through confirmation and disconfirmation biases)

翻譯上表後貼在下方：

挑戰三

原文:
“Partisan influence through processes of identity or emotional attachment can be automatic and effortless but can also, if the individual sees a need for actively defending one’s party identification, involve more effort (see cell 4 in Table 1). As we describe in much detail in the following sections, a citizen faced with a party endorsement that contradicts their predispositions must reason their way from that position of dissonance to support for the party’s stance (or, alternatively, some other end). To explain why and how parties therefore influence citizens, recent work has drawn on the theory of motivated reasoning (Kunda, 1990; Taber & Lodge, 2006).”(p.137) 

  • 重點提示2. 政治連結心理

摘寫：
從心理學觀點視「動機」為將慾望與偏好進行推理或合理化的認知過程(Kunda 1990, 480)，為了解釋政黨為什麼？如何影響公民？因而連結動機推理理論（Kunda，1990；Taber & Lodge，2006）。 (p.137)

我想到了？

我想到了什麼問題可以研究嗎？有了什麼啟發嗎？書寫或文獻回顧的過程有什麼一閃而過的聯想？不妨馬上寫下來，什麼靈感都可以。

# 資料分析平台上直接寫作可以讓人像是部落客，分享自我，若要讓紙上的文字被看見，請點選上方的Knit鍵（如果出現安裝套件的問題，不妨全部都接受）預覽，再按右上方的Publish鈕，按步就班到Rpubs官網(先註冊帳號)，完成發表。

# 作品連結就是網頁，恭喜，開始加入R的寫手群。

# 小細節：灰框中的井號，與框外白紙的井號作用不同。灰框是寫資料分析語法的地方，但是加了井號時就像是作者內心自言自語，RStudio會忽略不執行。

第二步

思考與書寫

挑戰四

R的寫作工具Rmarkdown
彩蛋：
編輯Rmd時同步預覽html效果 https://youtu.be/B5hIGAQUlF0

  • 重點提示3. 政治與公民意識
    原文: “accuracy goals” which motivate individuals to “seek out and carefully consider relevant evidence so as to reach a correct or otherwise best conclusion” and “directional goals” which motivate them to “apply their reasoning powers in defense of a prior, specific conclusion” (p. 756). “
    ”…partisan motivated reasoning serving directional goals pervade citizens’ reasoning about politics and yields normatively troubling biases (see, however, the discussion by Druckman, 2012; Kruglanski & Boyatzi, 2012)."(p.137)

  • 劉老師的摘述

  • Main argument:

depending on an individual’s type of motivation and amount of effort spent on political reasoning, political parties can be more or less influential, and when parties are influential, they can exert their influence in psychologically different ways with distinct consequences for reasoning processes and opinion outcomes.

rather than citizens accepting party cues for their informational value in forming opinions, the motivated reasoning literature—following from work in The American Voter tradition—sees citizens following parties through longstanding loyalties.

  • Conclusion & Discussion:

When polarization is high, reliance on partisan cues (presumably due to the defense of party affiliations) overwhelms reasoned arguments. When polarization is low, however, the content of arguments wins out, with citizens relying heavily on provisioned information to reason about the issues at stake.

( 我的解讀是…)

摘寫(Grace)：

"“準確性目標”激勵個人“尋找並仔細考量相關證據，以得出正確或最佳的結論”；“定向目標”激勵人“運用自我推理能力來捍衛先前既有的具體結論” （第 756 頁）。"
換言之，動機分為定向(directional)與準確性(accuracy)兩種， 動機如何影響政治意見、行為與認知？「推理」(reasoning)即是藉由資訊與認知連結以進行定向或準確性目標的合理化過程(圖 1)(Kruglanski 1980; Leeper and Slothuus 2014) 然而黨派動機推理普遍用於公民政治合理化規範，出現令人擔憂的偏見(譬如：Druckman, 2012; Kruglanski & Boyatzi, 2012).

圖文並用

挑戰五

請下次上課前一天晚上12:00前上傳自我介紹到Rpubs，把連結貼到群組 

圖：黨派動機推理途徑

試車

# 現在我們學會如何圖文並用，就能夠使我們的書寫更多機會讓人親近、解讀。
# 民意可以很接近科學。
# 這是試車，請跑跑看以下幾行。 
load("BBQ.rda")
library(dplyr)
library(FactoMineR)
library(factoextra)

bbqMCA <- select(bbq, V44r, V18r, V20r, V21r, V23r, V27r, V45r, V48r) 
bbqMCA.nona <- na.omit(bbqMCA)
nrow(bbqMCA.nona) 
## [1] 645
names(bbqMCA.nona) 
## [1] "V44r" "V18r" "V20r" "V21r" "V23r" "V27r" "V45r" "V48r"
res<-MCA(bbqMCA.nona, ncp=10, graph= F) 
fviz_screeplot(res, ncp=10) 

# 變數類別關係圖
plot(res, axes=c(1, 2), new.plot=TRUE, 
     col.var="red", col.ind="black", col.ind.sup="black",
     col.quali.sup="darkgreen", col.quanti.sup="blue",
     label=c("var"), cex=0.8, 
     selectMod = "cos2",
     invisible=c("ind", "quali.sup"), 
     autoLab = "yes",
     title="")

把車子開上路

# 接下來，這是卡方檢定，是確認變數可能的關聯。
library(sjPlot)
## Registered S3 methods overwritten by 'parameters':
##   method                           from      
##   as.double.parameters_kurtosis    datawizard
##   as.double.parameters_skewness    datawizard
##   as.double.parameters_smoothness  datawizard
##   as.numeric.parameters_kurtosis   datawizard
##   as.numeric.parameters_skewness   datawizard
##   as.numeric.parameters_smoothness datawizard
##   print.parameters_distribution    datawizard
##   print.parameters_kurtosis        datawizard
##   print.parameters_skewness        datawizard
##   summary.parameters_kurtosis      datawizard
##   summary.parameters_skewness      datawizard
sjt.xtab(bbq$V37r, bbq$V45r, 
         show.row.prc = TRUE, # 顯示列百分比
         show.col.prc = TRUE  # 顯示欄百分比
         )
## Warning in sprintf(" <td class=\"summary tdata\" colspan=\"%i\">%s=%.3f &middot;
## df=%i &middot; %s=%.3f &middot; %s=%.3f</td>", : one argument not used by format
## ' <td class="summary tdata" colspan="%i">%s=%.3f &middot; df=%i &middot; %s=%.3f
## &middot; %s=%.3f</td>'
最後，我們來談談節慶與團聚。
請問您覺得一天之內自己可以自由支配的時間（用來做自己想做的事）大約有多少？ 		平時用社群媒體（Line,
Facebook等）與家人聯繫感情。您覺得夠不夠？ 		Total
不常見面不要緊 見面是必要的
足夠 173
39.1 %
73.9 % 		269
60.9 %
65.5 % 		442
100 %
68.5 %
不夠 61
30 %
26.1 % 		142
70 %
34.5 % 		203
100 %
31.5 %
Total 234
36.3 %
100 % 		411
63.7 %
100 % 		645
100 %
100 %
χ2=4.588 · df=1 · φ=0.088 · p=0.032 
# 從劉老師的教材找答案，不妨試著說出你心中的意義。

完成這週文獻回顧

民意研究與政治傳播學的融合、民意研究與政治心理學的融合

## 民調資料的讀入、整理與描述（一）。
# 試車後，會發現很驚喜的畫出圖，原理日後會從上課中學到，或是先從教材中預習看看，
# 要繼續練習完成摘寫，請相信自己一定能完成，並也會享受到學習的愉悅。
  • 重點提示4. …(待完成）
    原文: nullifies unwanted implications of the new facts" (Gaines et al., 2007, p. 959). Indeed, Taber and Lodge (2012) maintain, “defense of one’s prior attitude is the general default when reasoning about attitudinally contrary arguments, and it takes dramatic, focused intervention to deflect people off a well-grounded attitude” (p. 249; italics in original). Thus, rather than citizens accepting party cues for their informational value in forming opinions, the motivated reasoning literature—following from work in The American Voter tradition—sees citizens following parties through longstanding loyalties.(p.137)

摘寫：

( 我的解讀是…)

  • 重點提示5. …(待完成）

    原文: …Directional motivated reasoning is not a general motivation to defend all of one’s prior beliefs, attitudes, identities, and behaviors but instead to the prioritized defense of a small number of those features, potentially at the expense of other psychological objects or expressed behaviors.(p.142)

摘寫：

( 我的解讀是…)

  • 重點提示6. …(待完成）
    原文: ……A second important point is that many citizens are not partisans nor is partisanship the only political identity. How do citizens reason in a partisan world when they themselves are unattached to those parties (see, e.g., Klar, 2013a)? If defensive motivations come in two types—attitudinal and identity-based—then it is clear that independents should hold attitude-defensive motivations like any other citizen. But how do identity-defensive motivations work for identities that are not represented by political elites? And what about competing political identities? The emphasis in recent work on partisan motivated reasoning ignores the reality that it is a rare individual who only identifies with a political party but no other societal or political group (Klar, 2013c). How do these competing motives shape reasoning?(p.148)

摘寫：

( 我的解讀是…)

  • …第二篇
## 第二篇文獻回顧

# source: Druckman, J. N., & Lupia, A. (2016). Preference change in competitive political environments. Annual Review of Political Science, 19, 13-31.(see https://cdn-files.postach.io/52b860bf-b2d3-41dd-a28f-ce615ca80e7a/554cfd2e-4ba4-f867-e7de-bbb623138800/3b65686e-2f2d-eb9a-6cca-7ab2f19da410_orig.pdf )