PAM架構中個體與群體之事實、價值與人際－－南台灣民眾對「《服貿協議》」政策之認知與態度

Fact, Value, and Interpersonal Judgements for Individuals and Group in the PAM Framework-Southern Taiwan People's Cognition and Attitude toward the 'CSSTA' policy

本研究以公共事務管理架構（PAM）為分析基礎，經由相關文獻得出PAM現象面之「經濟」、「社會」、「政治」與「政府」等四個構面及事實判斷之潛在18 個因素，並以此建構結構方程模式（SEM）之影響《服貿協議》政策的事實判斷。再運用社會判斷理論（SJT）就南台灣民眾個體和不同群體，進行《服貿協議》認知與態度之價值判斷及人際判斷。研究發現，以事實判斷言，影響兩岸簽署《服貿協議》因素之經濟、社會、政治及政府等四個構面具有正向相關，其影響大小依序為社會、政治、經濟、政府。以價值判斷言，南台灣民眾認為影響因素的順序為「社會」（26.67）、「政府」（25.14）、「經濟」（25.13）、「政治」（19.31）。以人際判斷言，群體判斷結果分別為一般民眾：經濟（26.87）、政府（23.31）、社會（22.85）、政治（18.52）；企業廠商：社會（32.87）、經濟（26.76）、政府（25.41）、政治（12.20）；政府官員：政治（27.22）、政府（26.71）、社會（24.31）、經濟（21.72）。

The analyses of this study were based on the framework of PAM (Public Affairs Management). Through related document analysis, 18 potential factors were concluded in the four structures-'economy', 'society', 'politics', and 'government' of PAM phenomenal dimension, to construct a model of influential factors of signing the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement (CSSTA), and to validate the model by SEM (Structural Equation Modeling). Social Judgment Theory (SJT) to analyze Southern Taiwan peoples' individual and different groups' Value Judgment and Interpersonal Judgment upon Taiwan and China's signing the 'CSSTA'.This study found that all four structures of PAM-social, politics, economy and government were positively correlated with the singing of 'CSSTA' in the order of impact. Value Judgment-The results found that the principles of judgment varied among different groups. In general, groups thought that 'social factors' (26.67) most greatly affected the singing of ECFA most, followed by 'governmental factors' (25.14), 'economic factors' (25.13) and 'political factors' (19.31). Interpersonal Judgment-The different groups' rankings of influential factors were listed in the order of increased impact as follows. Citizens: economic (26.87), governmental (23.31), social (22.85) and political factors (18.52); Corporations: social (32.87), economic (26.76), governmental (25.41), and political factors (12.20); Government officials: political (27.22), governmental (26.71), social (24.31) and economic factors (21.72).