3.기능이론.pdf

(1)

Sungwook Hwang

William Benoit

University of Missouri – Columbia

A Functional Analysis of the 2006

South Korean Seoul Mayoral

(2)

Purpose of the Study

ü

Content-analyzing the televised South Korean

mayoral debates, this study will answer whether

previous findings in functional analysis of many

presidential debates can be applied to a lower

political election level in non-U.S. setting.

(3)

Why debates?

ü

Watching debates increases viewers’ issue knowledge

ü

Viewers use more issues to evaluate the candidates

ü

Watching debates can change viewers’ policy

preferences

ü

Viewers perceive that the issues discussed in debates are important (agenda setting effect)

ü

Watching debates influences perceptions of the candidates’ personality….(Benoit et al., 2003)

à Televised debates have the potential to influence the viewers who watch them.

(4)

n H1: South Korean mayoral candidates will depend on

acclaims, attacks, and defenses, respectively, in terms of the frequency of functional messages.

n H2: South Korean mayoral candidates will discuss more

policy than character.

n H3: Incumbent party candidate will use more acclaims

and less attacks than challengers.

n H4: Incumbent party candidate will acclaim more and

attack less in discussing past deeds than challengers.

(5)

n H5: South Korean mayoral candidates will discuss general

goals more to acclaim than to attack.

n H6: South Korean mayoral candidates will discuss ideals more

to acclaim than to attack.

n RQ1: What are the proportions of the three forms of policy in

South Korean mayoral debates?

n RQ2: What are the proportions of the three forms of character

in South Korean mayoral debates?

n H7: South Korean mayoral candidates will use more simple

denial strategy than any other defense strategies: evading responsibility, reducing offensiveness, corrective action, and mortification.

(6)

Method

ü

Sampling: six South Korean mayoral televised debates: CBS (5/15/06), KBS (5/03/06), MBC (5/11/06), SBS

(5/05/06), SBS (5/26/06), and YTN (5/16/06).

ü

1,733 themes were analyzed in the six debates

ü

Coding category: function (acclaims, attacks, or

defenses), topic (policy and character), policy (past deeds, future plans, or general goals), character

(personal quality, leadership ability, or ideals)

ü

Cohen’s (1960)

kappa:

.78 for functions, .73 for

topics, .85 for form of policy, and .72 for form of character

(7)

Results & Discussion:

Theoretical extension

n H1:acclaims (50.3%) > attacks (28.4%) > defenses

(21.2%)

à Supported (χ2 [df = 2] = 238.48, p < .0001)

n H2: policy (79.8%) > character (20.2%)

à Supported (χ2 [df = 1] = 615.75, p < .0001)

n H4: Incumbent party candidate Oh mentioned past deeds for

acclaims rather than for attacks (23 to 6), whereas all challengers discussed past deeds more negatively than positively (23 to 9, 27 to 1, 42 to 2, 11 to 0).

(8)

Results & Discussion:

Theoretical extension

n H5: All candidates discussed general goals positively: 233 acclaims

to 11 attacks.

à Supported (χ2 [df = 1] = 201.98, p < .0001)

n H6: there were more acclaims than attacks on ideals, 44 to 16

(9)

Results & Discussion:

Multiple party system &

The absence of a real incumbent

n H3: Incumbency effect was not supported.

- Why did the incumbent party candidate Oh acclaim less than the other candidates?

à Oh did not seem to ignore attacks commonly raised from multiple candidates.

à The absence of a real incumbent

n RQ1 & 2: emphasized future oriented policies & personal qualities

à Since no candidate had official records as the real mayoral incumbent, they seemed to have a limitation in spotlighting past deeds (only 13.7%) and leadership ability (only 17.5%).

n H7: Reducing offensiveness (57.6%) > simple denial (21.7%)

(10)