從情感操縱到誤導：政治行銷如何損害公共討論

 煤氣燈效應是一種心理操縱形式，其中某個人或團體使某人質疑自己的現實、記憶或感知。在政治行銷的背景下，某些策略可以被視為煤氣燈效應的一種，當它們被用來操縱選民的感知和現實，從而歪曲真相或削弱個人信任自己判斷的能力。以下是一些可以被視為煤氣燈效應類型的策略：

• 1. 資訊誤導運動

  • 描述：故意散佈虛假或誤導性信息，以在選民中製造懷疑和混亂。這可能包括散佈假新聞、偽造的圖像或編造的統計數據。
  • 煤氣燈效應方面：這些策略旨在讓人們懷疑他們所知道或相信的事情，從而製造對什麼是真實或虛假的困惑和不確定感。

• 2. 否認事實

  • 描述：即使在面對證據的情況下，也反覆否認已被記錄或紀錄在案的事件、行動或聲明。
  • 煤氣燈效應方面：通過持續否認事實，政治人物可以讓選民質疑他們的記憶和對現實的感知，使他們對情況的理解產生懷疑。

• 3. 矛盾訊息

  • 描述：對某一問題發表相互矛盾的聲明或立場，以製造混亂或迎合不同的選民群體。
  • 煤氣燈效應方面：矛盾的訊息可能讓選民對候選人實際立場感到不確定，促使他們重新思考自己的理解和判斷。

• 4. 轉移和推卸責任

  • 描述：將問題或事件的責任轉嫁給他人，通常使用替罪羊，而不是直接解決問題。
  • 煤氣燈效應方面：這種策略使人們懷疑問題的實際原因，轉移注意力，並對責任產生混淆。

• 5. 操縱上下文或引用

  • 描述：將陳述或事實斷章取義或選擇性地編輯引言，以改變其意義或影響。
  • 煤氣燈效應方面：這可能會扭曲選民對實際所說或所做之事的看法，使他們質疑自己的記憶或對事件的理解。

• 6. 最小化擔憂

  • 描述：淡化或輕視有效的擔憂或批評，使其顯得不重要或被誇大。
  • 煤氣燈效應方面：通過最小化擔憂，競選活動可以讓選民覺得他們的擔憂是不理性的或無根據的，使他們質疑自己的感受或問題的嚴重性。

• 7. 創造虛假敘事

  • 描述：構建關於對手或事件的複雜但虛假的故事，以誤導選民並操縱其認知。
  • 煤氣燈效應方面：虛假敘事可以扭曲現實，讓人們質疑他們對真相的理解，往往導致混亂和對自己判斷的不信任。

• 8. 使用情感操縱

  • 描述：利用恐懼、內疚或羞恥來操縱選民，使其懷疑自己的信念或選擇。
  • 煤氣燈效應方面：通過利用情感，競選活動可以使個人感到不理性或反應過度，讓他們懷疑自己的感受和認知。

• 9. 重寫歷史

  • 描述：呈現扭曲或選擇性的歷史事件版本，以影響公眾認知。
  • 煤氣燈效應方面：重寫歷史可以讓選民質疑他們對過去事件的理解，導致對現實的混淆和扭曲感知。

• 10. 孤立異議聲音

  • 描述：使挑戰競選敘事或提出正當擔憂的個人或群體噤聲、抹黑或邊緣化。
  • 煤氣燈效應方面：這創造了一種虛假的共識，並迫使人們順從，使持不同意見的人懷疑其觀點的有效性並感到孤立。

• 11. 虛假等同

  • 描述：將兩個不平等的事物呈現為在道德或事實上相等，通常是為了淡化問題的嚴重性或誤導不同問題的重要性。
  • 煤氣燈效應方面：這種策略可能會引起人們對行動或問題嚴重性的混淆，讓選民質疑他們的道德或事實判斷。
  • 這些策略，如果被有意識和系統地使用，可能會創造出一種懷疑和不信任的氛圍，削弱人們對自己感知、信仰和對現實理解的信心。這與煤氣燈效應中的心理操縱非常相似，其目標是破壞個人對現實和控制的感知。
• Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation where a person or group causes someone to question their own reality, memories, or perceptions. In the context of political marketing, certain tactics can be considered as types of gaslighting when they are used to manipulate voters' perceptions and realities in ways that distort the truth or undermine individuals' ability to trust their own judgment. Here are some tactics that can be seen as types of gaslighting:

• 1. Disinformation Campaigns

  • Description: Disseminating false or misleading information intentionally to create doubt and confusion among voters. This can include spreading fake news, doctored images, or fabricated statistics.
  • Gaslighting Aspect: These tactics are designed to make people doubt what they know or believe, creating a sense of confusion and uncertainty about what is true or false.

• 2. Denial of Facts

  • Description: Repeatedly denying events, actions, or statements that have been documented or recorded, even in the face of evidence.
  • Gaslighting Aspect: By persistently denying facts, politicians can make voters question their memory and perception of reality, leading them to doubt their understanding of the situation.

• 3. Contradictory Messaging

  • Description: Issuing conflicting statements or positions on an issue to create confusion or to appeal to different voter bases.
  • Gaslighting Aspect: Contradictory messaging can make voters feel uncertain about what a candidate actually stands for, causing them to second-guess their own understanding and judgments.

• 4. Deflection and Blame-Shifting

  • Description: Shifting the blame for a problem or issue onto others, often using scapegoats, rather than addressing the issue directly.
  • Gaslighting Aspect: This tactic makes people doubt the actual causes of issues or problems, diverting attention away from the real source and creating confusion about accountability.

• 5. Manipulating Context or Quotations

  • Description: Taking statements or facts out of context or selectively editing quotes to change their meaning or impact.
  • Gaslighting Aspect: This can distort voters' perceptions of what was actually said or done, leading them to question their memory or understanding of events.

• 6. Minimization of Concerns

  • Description: Downplaying or trivializing valid concerns or criticisms to make them seem unimportant or exaggerated.
  • Gaslighting Aspect: By minimizing concerns, campaigns can make voters feel that their worries are irrational or unfounded, causing them to doubt their feelings or the severity of an issue.

• 7. Creating False Narratives

  • Description: Constructing elaborate but false stories about opponents or events to mislead voters and manipulate perceptions.
  • Gaslighting Aspect: False narratives can distort reality and make people question their understanding of the truth, often leading to confusion and mistrust in their own judgment.

• 8. Using Emotional Manipulation

  • Description: Leveraging fear, guilt, or shame to manipulate voters into doubting their beliefs or choices.
  • Gaslighting Aspect: By playing on emotions, campaigns can make individuals feel irrational or overreactive, causing them to doubt their feelings and perceptions.

• 9. Rewriting History

  • Description: Presenting a distorted or selective version of historical events to influence public perception.
  • Gaslighting Aspect: Rewriting history can make voters question their understanding of past events, leading to confusion and distorted perceptions of reality.

• 10. Isolation of Dissenting Voices

  • Description: Silencing, discrediting, or marginalizing individuals or groups that challenge the campaign’s narrative or raise legitimate concerns.
  • Gaslighting Aspect: This creates a false consensus and pressures people to conform, making those with dissenting opinions doubt their validity and feel isolated.

• 11. False Equivalence

  • Description: Presenting two unequal things as if they are morally or factually equivalent, often to downplay the severity of an issue or to mislead about the relative importance of different issues.
  • Gaslighting Aspect: This tactic can cause confusion about the severity of actions or issues, making voters question their moral or factual judgments.
  • These tactics, when used deliberately and systematically, can create a climate of doubt and mistrust, undermining people's confidence in their perceptions, beliefs, and understanding of reality. This aligns closely with the psychological manipulation found in gaslighting, where the goal is to destabilize individuals’ sense of reality and control.
• 識別類似煤氣燈效應的政治行銷策略需要警惕、批判性思考以及對常見操縱策略的意識。以下是選民可以採取的一些步驟來識別和保護自己免受政治煤氣燈效應的影響：

• 1. 用多個來源驗證事實

  • 行動：始終從多個可靠和獨立的來源（例如知名新聞機構、事實核查網站和學術出版物）交叉檢查信息。
  • 好處：這有助於確認信息的準確性，並揭露任何虛假或誤導性的聲明。

• 2. 對絕對性和誇大其詞保持懷疑

  • 行動：對使用絕對詞彙（如“總是”、“從不”或“每個人”）以及那些誇大或使用誇張手法來引發強烈情感的陳述保持警惕。
  • 好處：識別誇大的語言有助於發現操縱情感或扭曲現實的企圖。

• 3. 識別情感操縱

  • 行動：注意當政治訊息旨在引發強烈情感反應（如恐懼、憤怒或內疚）時，思考這些情感是否被用來操縱你對現實的感知。
  • 好處：理解合法的情感訴求與操縱之間的差異有助於保持客觀性。

• 4. 識別矛盾和不一致

  • 行動：注意政治人物對問題立場隨時間變化的矛盾聲明或改變。將當前的說法與過去的聲明或行動進行比較。
  • 好處：識別矛盾有助於揭露試圖混淆或操縱公眾的企圖。

• 5. 分析議題的框架

  • 行動：考慮政治訊息如何框架一個問題或事件。問自己，強調的是什麼觀點，什麼被省略或淡化了。
  • 好處：識別框架技術可以揭示偏見和試圖操縱你對問題的看法的企圖。

• 6. 注意重寫歷史的企圖

  • 行動：對那些似乎重新解釋或歪曲歷史事件以符合當前政治敘事的企圖保持警惕。檢查歷史記錄和可靠來源。
  • 好處：確保歷史記錄準確可防止對過去認知的操縱。

• 7. 質疑信息來源

  • 行動：評估誰在提供信息，以及他們的潛在動機可能是什麼。考慮來源的可信度、可靠性和透明度。
  • 好處：了解來源有助於評估所提供信息的可靠性和偏見。

• 8. 提防轉移和推卸責任

  • 行動：注意當政治人物或競選活動避免直接回答問題，將責任推給他人或使用替罪羊戰術來轉移注意力時。
  • 好處：識別這些策略有助於揭示掩蓋真相或操縱責任感知的企圖。

• 9. 注意社會證明和從眾戰術

  • 行動：對那些主要依賴於某種觀點或候選人受歡迎程度作為支持主要論據的訊息保持警惕（例如，“每個人都在投票給他們”）。
  • 好處：這種意識可以防止僅僅因為同儕壓力或廣泛共識的錯覺而受到影響。

• 10. 了解邏輯謬誤

  • 行動：學習關於政治言論中使用的常見邏輯謬誤（例如，虛假等同、人身攻擊、稻草人論點）。
  • 好處：識別這些謬誤可以幫助你發現誤導性的論點並保持清晰、批判性的視角。

• 11. 進行批判性自我反思

  • 行動：反思政治訊息如何影響你的感受以及為什麼。考慮你的感受是否受到操縱而非事實的影響。
  • 好處：自我意識可以防止情感操縱影響你的判斷和決策。

• 12. 鼓勵開放的對話和辯論

  • 行動：與可能持有不同觀點的人進行討論。提出問題並考慮替代觀點。
  • 好處：開放的對話可以讓你接觸到新的信息，並通過提供更廣泛的背景來幫助你識別潛在的操縱。

• 13. 保持對時事和議題的了解

  • 行動：定期關注可信的新聞媒體，並閱讀時事，以了解更廣泛的政治背景。
  • 好處：信息豐富使得誤導性說法更難以扭曲你對當前事務的理解。

• 14. 使用事實核查工具

  • 行動：使用事實核查網站和工具來驗證政治人物和競選活動的聲明。可信的網站包括Snopes、FactCheck.org和PolitiFact。
  • 好處：事實核查工具提供對政治聲明的客觀評估，有助於揭穿謊言並澄清模糊之處。
  • 通過應用這些策略，選民可以更好地保護自己免受類似煤氣燈效應的政治行銷策略的影響，並根據事實和證據而非操縱做出更明智、理性的決策。
• Identifying political marketing tactics that resemble gaslighting requires vigilance, critical thinking, and awareness of common manipulation strategies. Here are some steps voters can take to recognize and protect themselves from political gaslighting:

• 1. Verify Facts with Multiple Sources

  • Action: Always cross-check information from multiple reputable and independent sources, such as established news organizations, fact-checking websites, and academic publications.
  • Benefit: This helps to confirm the accuracy of the information and exposes any falsehoods or misleading statements.

• 2. Be Skeptical of Absolutes and Hyperbole

  • Action: Be cautious of statements that use absolute terms like "always," "never," or "everyone" and those that exaggerate or use hyperbole to provoke strong emotions.
  • Benefit: Recognizing exaggerated language can help you identify attempts to manipulate emotions or distort reality.

• 3. Recognize Emotional Manipulation

  • Action: Notice when political messages aim to provoke strong emotional responses, such as fear, anger, or guilt. Reflect on whether the emotions are being used to manipulate your perception of reality.
  • Benefit: Understanding the difference between legitimate emotional appeals and manipulation can help maintain objectivity.

• 4. Identify Contradictions and Inconsistencies

  • Action: Pay attention to contradictory statements or changes in a politician's stance on issues over time. Compare current claims with past statements or actions.
  • Benefit: Identifying contradictions can help uncover attempts to confuse or manipulate the public.

• 5. Analyze the Framing of Issues

  • Action: Consider how political messages frame an issue or event. Ask yourself what perspective is being emphasized and what is being omitted or downplayed.
  • Benefit: Recognizing framing techniques can reveal bias and attempts to manipulate how you perceive an issue.

• 6. Look for Efforts to Rewrite History

  • Action: Be alert to efforts that seem to reinterpret or distort historical events to fit a current political narrative. Check historical records and reliable sources.
  • Benefit: Ensuring that historical accounts are accurate prevents manipulation of perceptions about the past.

• 7. Question the Source of Information

  • Action: Evaluate who is providing the information and what their potential motives might be. Consider the credibility, reliability, and transparency of the source.
  • Benefit: Understanding the source can help assess the reliability and bias of the information provided.

• 8. Beware of Deflection and Blame-Shifting

  • Action: Notice when politicians or campaigns avoid addressing direct questions, shift blame onto others, or use scapegoating tactics to deflect from the issues.
  • Benefit: Recognizing these tactics can help identify attempts to obscure the truth or manipulate perceptions of responsibility.

• 9. Be Aware of Social Proof and Bandwagon Tactics

  • Action: Be cautious of messages that rely heavily on the popularity of an opinion or candidate as the primary argument for support (e.g., "everyone is voting for them").
  • Benefit: This awareness prevents being swayed solely by peer pressure or the illusion of widespread agreement.

• 10. Stay Informed About Logical Fallacies

  • Action: Educate yourself about common logical fallacies (e.g., false equivalence, ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments) used in political rhetoric.
  • Benefit: Recognizing these fallacies can help you spot misleading arguments and maintain a clear, critical perspective.

• 11. Engage in Critical Self-Reflection

  • Action: Reflect on how political messages make you feel and why. Consider whether your feelings are being influenced by manipulation rather than facts.
  • Benefit: Self-awareness can prevent emotional manipulation from swaying your judgments and decisions.

• 12. Encourage Open Dialogue and Debate

  • Action: Engage in discussions with others who may have different perspectives. Ask questions and consider alternative viewpoints.
  • Benefit: Open dialogue can expose you to new information and help you recognize potential manipulation by providing a broader context.

• 13. Stay Updated on Current Events and Issues

  • Action: Regularly follow credible news outlets and read up on current events to stay informed about the broader political context.
  • Benefit: Being well-informed makes it harder for misleading claims to distort your understanding of current affairs.

• 14. Use Fact-Checking Tools

  • Action: Utilize fact-checking websites and tools to verify claims made by politicians and campaigns. Trusted sites include Snopes, FactCheck.org, and PolitiFact.
  • Benefit: Fact-checking tools provide objective assessments of political claims, helping to debunk falsehoods and clarify ambiguities.
  • By applying these strategies, voters can better protect themselves from political marketing tactics that resemble gaslighting and make more informed, rational decisions based on facts and evidence rather than manipulation.
• 政治行銷活動在像 Facebook 這樣的社交平台和電視上進行，可能會顯著影響選民學習公共問題的能力，並降低社會討論的質量。以下是這些活動可能產生負面影響的原因：
• 1. 推廣簡化的敘事
  • 影響：政治行銷常常將複雜的問題簡化為吸引人的口號或簡短的片段，讓公眾更容易接受和理解。然而，這種過度簡化會忽略深入理解公共問題所必需的關鍵細節和細微差別。
  • 結果：選民獲得的對重要議題的認識會失真或不完整，這可能妨礙他們做出明智的決策或全面理解問題的全貌。
• 2. 鼓勵情感反應而非理性討論
  • 影響：Facebook 帖子和電視廣告經常使用情感訴求，例如恐懼、憤怒或愛國主義，以迅速影響選民。這些訊息旨在引發即時的情感反應，而不是鼓勵深思熟慮的問題考慮。
  • 結果：這種情感操縱的側重點可能導致意見兩極分化，並阻礙理性辯論，減少對社會問題進行有意義討論和批判性思考的機會。
• 3. 傳播錯誤信息和虛假信息
  • 影響：社交媒體平台如 Facebook 和傳統媒體如電視都可以用來傳播錯誤信息（無惡意地分享的虛假信息）和虛假信息（有意欺騙的虛假信息）。這些虛假信息通過引入錯誤的事實或敘事來塑造公眾的認知和話語。
  • 結果：當選民被虛假信息誤導時，他們進行知情討論的能力會受到損害。錯誤信息還可能排擠事實信息，使公眾更難區分真相與謊言。
• 4. 強化回音室和過濾氣泡
  • 影響：在 Facebook 等社交媒體平台上，算法優先推薦與用戶現有信仰和興趣一致的內容。這創造了回音室和過濾氣泡，使用戶主要接觸到加強其觀點的信息，而不是挑戰他們的觀點。
  • 結果：這種對既有信念的加強會減少人們接觸不同觀點和批判性辯論的機會，限制公共話語的範圍，阻礙集體對複雜問題的理解。
• 5. 將焦點轉向醜聞和聳動話題
  • 影響：電視和社交媒體經常優先報導聳動的故事和醜聞，而不是對政策和治理進行實質性的討論。這種轉變是為了吸引觀眾和互動，因為聳動的內容通常能獲得更高的關注度。
  • 結果：重要的公共問題和細緻的政策討論被聳動的報導所掩蓋，導致公共辯論的質量和深度下降。
• 6. 使公眾注意力分散
  • 影響：社交媒體上大量的內容和電視新聞循環的快節奏特性可能會分散公眾的注意力。重要的問題可能只得到短暫的報導，隨後便被下一個熱門話題或病毒式故事所取代。
  • 結果：選民對問題的理解變得碎片化和表面化，缺乏深入參與複雜政策討論所需的持續關注。
• 7. 降低對媒體和信息的信任
  • 影響：社交媒體和電視上充斥著偏頗、誤導性或虛假的內容，這可能導致對媒體來源的普遍信任下降。當選民對他們接收到的信息的可靠性變得更加懷疑時，他們可能完全脫離政治話語。
  • 結果：降低對媒體和信息的信任可能會減少公民參與，並阻礙知情參與民主過程。
• 8. 助長分裂和極化
  • 影響：Facebook 和電視上的政治行銷策略經常利用分歧，強調“我們對他們”的敘事。這可能加深社會分裂，使找到共同點或進行建設性對話變得更加困難。
  • 結果：極化加劇會減少個人考慮反對觀點或妥協的意願，而這對於健康的民主話語至關重要。
• 9. 轉移對核心問題的注意力
  • 影響：通過關注個人政治、惡意攻擊或邊緣問題，政治行銷可以將公眾的注意力從需要深思熟慮的實質性政策辯論和關鍵問題上轉移開。
  • 結果：這種轉移導致選民的資訊不足，並降低民主決策的質量，因為選民沒有充分了解真正重要的問題。
• 10. 將重點放在短期目標而非長期解決方案
  • 影響：社交媒體和電視的特性鼓勵關注即時引人注目的問題，而不是長期的政策討論或解決方案。政治家可能優先考慮短期的勝利，而不是應對社會挑戰的長期策略。
  • 結果：這種短期重點可能會減少選民參與和支持複雜長期問題綜合解決方案的能力。
• 通過了解這些動態，選民可以對自己在社交媒體和電視上消費的信息更加批判，尋求可靠的來源，並就影響他們生活的公共問題進行更深入的討論。
• Political marketing activities on platforms like Facebook and television can significantly impact voters' ability to learn about public issues and reduce the quality of societal discussion. Here’s how these activities can have such negative effects:

• 1. Promoting Simplified Narratives

  • Impact: Political marketing often simplifies complex issues into catchy slogans or sound bites to make them more appealing and easier to digest for the general public. This oversimplification can omit crucial nuances and details that are necessary for a deeper understanding of public issues.
  • Result: Voters receive a distorted or incomplete picture of important topics, which can hinder their ability to make informed decisions or understand the full scope of an issue.

• 2. Encouraging Emotional Responses Over Rational Deliberation

  • Impact: Facebook posts and television ads often use emotional appeals—such as fear, anger, or patriotism—to sway voters quickly. These messages are designed to provoke immediate emotional reactions rather than encourage thoughtful consideration of the issues.
  • Result: This focus on emotional manipulation can lead to polarized opinions and discourage reasoned debate, reducing opportunities for meaningful discussion and critical thinking about societal issues.

• 3. Spreading Misinformation and Disinformation

  • Impact: Both social media platforms like Facebook and traditional media like television can be used to spread misinformation (false information shared without malicious intent) and disinformation (false information shared with the intent to deceive). These falsehoods can shape public perception and discourse by introducing incorrect facts or narratives.
  • Result: When voters are misled by false information, their ability to engage in informed discussions is compromised. Misinformation can also crowd out factual information, making it harder for the public to distinguish truth from falsehood.

• 4. Reinforcing Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles

  • Impact: On social media platforms like Facebook, algorithms prioritize content that aligns with a user’s existing beliefs and interests. This creates echo chambers and filter bubbles where users are primarily exposed to information that reinforces their views, rather than challenges them.
  • Result: This reinforcement of pre-existing beliefs can reduce exposure to diverse perspectives and critical debates, limiting the scope of public discourse and hindering collective understanding of complex issues.

• 5. Shifting Focus to Scandal and Sensationalism

  • Impact: Television and social media often prioritize sensational stories and scandals over substantive discussions about policy and governance. This shift is driven by the need to attract viewership and engagement, which are often higher for sensational content.
  • Result: Important public issues and nuanced policy discussions are overshadowed by sensationalism, leading to a reduction in the quality and depth of public debate.

• 6. Fragmenting Public Attention

  • Impact: The sheer volume of content on social media and the fast-paced nature of television news cycles can fragment public attention. Important issues might only receive brief coverage before being replaced by the next trending topic or viral story.
  • Result: Voters are left with fragmented and superficial understandings of issues, lacking the sustained focus necessary to engage deeply with complex policy discussions.

• 7. Reducing Trust in Media and Information

  • Impact: The prevalence of biased, misleading, or false content on social media and television can lead to a general erosion of trust in media sources. As voters become more skeptical about the reliability of the information they receive, they may disengage from political discourse altogether.
  • Result: Reduced trust in media and information can decrease civic engagement and discourage informed participation in democratic processes.

• 8. Fostering Division and Polarization

  • Impact: Political marketing tactics on Facebook and television often exploit divisions and emphasize "us versus them" narratives. This can deepen societal polarization, making it harder to find common ground or engage in constructive dialogue.
  • Result: Increased polarization reduces the willingness of individuals to consider opposing viewpoints or compromise, which is essential for a healthy democratic discourse.

• 9. Diverting Attention from Core Issues

  • Impact: By focusing on personality politics, mudslinging, or peripheral issues, political marketing can divert public attention away from substantive policy debates and critical issues that require thoughtful discussion.
  • Result: This diversion leads to a less informed electorate and a reduction in the quality of democratic decision-making, as voters are not adequately informed about the issues that truly matter.

• 10. Creating Short-Term Focus Rather Than Long-Term Solutions

• Impact: The nature of social media and television encourages a focus on immediate, attention-grabbing issues rather than long-term policy discussions or solutions. Politicians may prioritize short-term wins over long-term strategies to address societal challenges.
• Result: This short-term focus can reduce the electorate’s ability to engage with and support comprehensive solutions to complex, long-term problems.
• By understanding these dynamics, voters can be more critical of the information they consume on social media and television, seeking out reliable sources and engaging in deeper discussions about the public issues that impact their lives.

在學術界中，研究政治行銷和煤氣燈效應的學者和研究團隊主要來自政治學、心理學、傳播學和社會學等領域。他們關注這些策略如何影響公眾輿論、選民行為和民主進程。以下是一些專注於這個議題的著名學者、研究團隊和重要研究發現：

1. Kathleen Hall Jamieson

• 背景：Kathleen Hall Jamieson 是賓夕法尼亞大學安納伯格公共政策中心的主任，專注於政治傳播和媒體研究。
• 重要發表：她在《感知之戰：政治廣告如何誤導選民》（"The War of Words: Political Advertising in the Television Age"）中探討了政治廣告如何使用誤導性信息和情感訴求影響選民的認知。
• 研究發現：她的研究強調了媒體和政治廣告在塑造公眾看法和影響選舉結果方面的關鍵作用，並揭示了誤導性信息如何降低選民的信任度和知識水準。

2. George Lakoff

• 背景：喬治·萊考夫（George Lakoff）是加州大學柏克萊分校的語言學教授，專注於認知科學和語言如何影響政治。
• 重要發表：在《不要想著大象！》（"Don't Think of an Elephant!"）中，萊考夫討論了「框架理論」如何被用來影響選民對問題的看法。
• 研究發現：他的研究表明，政治話語的框架設計如何形塑選民的思想，影響他們如何理解政策和候選人。

3. Shanto Iyengar

• 背景：Shanto Iyengar 是史丹佛大學的政治學和傳播學教授，研究媒體如何影響政治態度和行為。
• 重要發表：在《媒體政治：選舉戰爭中的政治參與》（"Media Politics: A Citizen's Guide"）中，Iyengar 探討了媒體框架和議題設置如何影響選民的意識形態和參與度。
• 研究發現：他的研究顯示，媒體不僅報導事件，還設定了公眾議程，並在此過程中影響選民對候選人和政策的看法。

4. Drew Westen

• 背景：德魯·韋斯滕（Drew Westen）是埃默里大學的心理學和精神病學教授，專注於情感在政治決策中的角色。
• 重要發表：在《政治腦：情感在決策中的作用》（"The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation"）中，韋斯滕分析了情感操縱如何影響選民行為。
• 研究發現：他的研究表明，情感對選民決策過程有強大的影響力，遠超過理性分析和政策細節。

5. Jonathan Haidt

• 背景：強納森·海特（Jonathan Haidt）是紐約大學斯特恩商學院的社會心理學教授，專注於道德心理學和政治分歧。
• 重要發表：在《正義之心：為什麼好人被政治和宗教分裂》（"The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion"）中，海特解釋了道德情感如何影響政治信仰。
• 研究發現：他的研究揭示了政治分歧如何根植於深層次的道德框架，這些框架可以被政治行銷策略操縱，以加深分裂和鞏固選民的既有信念。

6. Research Teams and Collaborations

• Oxford Internet Institute (OII): 牛津網路研究所專注於數位媒體和政治之間的關係。他們的研究包括社交媒體上虛假信息的傳播及其對選民行為的影響。
• Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab): 隸屬於大西洋理事會，專注於研究全球的資訊操作、虛假信息和選舉操縱，並提供證據支持的分析。

7. 重要研究發現

• 資訊操作的效果：研究發現，社交媒體上的信息操作（例如虛假新聞和誤導性廣告）不僅影響選民的態度，還能改變投票行為，尤其是在選民知識有限或對議題理解不足的情況下。
• 框架和議題設置的影響：許多研究表明，新聞媒體的框架化報導和議題設置可以顯著影響公眾對政策和候選人的看法。這種影響往往比事實本身更強大。
• 情感和道德價值的操縱：研究顯示，情感訴求和道德框架化策略在政治行銷中非常有效，能夠引導選民的情感反應並塑造其政治立場。

這些學者和研究團隊提供了關於政治行銷和煤氣燈效應的重要見解，幫助我們理解這些策略如何影響選民行為和民主過程。學術界的持續研究有助於揭示這些現象的深層次機制，並為公共政策和媒體素養教育提供依據。