專書
Bush, Richard C. & Michael E. O’Hanlon, 2007. A War Like No Other:
The Truth About China’s Challenge to America. Hoboken: Wiley.
Carpenter, Ted Galen, 2005. America’s Coming War with China: A
Collision Course over Taiwan. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Goldstein, Joshua S. & John R. Freeman, 1990. Three-Way Street: Strategic
Reciprocity in World Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jervis, Robert, 1976. Perception and Misperception in International
Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kant, Immanuel, 2005. Perpetual Peace. New York: Cosimo, Inc..
Keohane, Robert O. & Joseph S. Nye, 1977. Power and Interdependence:
World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.
Pantsov, Alexander & Steven I. Levine, 2012. Mao: The Real Story. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rapkin, David P. & William R. Thompson, 2013. Transition Scenarios:
China and the United States in the Twenty-First Century. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Romberg, Alan D., 2003. Rein in at the Brink of the Precipice: American
Policy toward Taiwan and U.S.-PRC Relations. Washington D.C.:
Henry L. Stimson Center.
Tucker, Nancy Bernkopf, 2009. Strait Talk: United States-Taiwan Relations
and the Crisis with China. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wang, Gabe T., 2006. China and the Taiwan Issue: Impending War at
Taiwan Strait. Lanham: University Press of America.
專書論文
Dittmer, Lowell, 2011. “Washington between Beijing and Taipei: A Triangular Analysis,” in Cal Clark, ed., The Changing Dynamics of
Relations among China, Taiwan, and the United States. Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 10-29.Kugler, Jacek & A. F. K. Organski, 1989. “The Power Transition: A Retrospective and Prospective Evaluation,” in Manus I. Midlarsky, ed., Handbook of War Studies. Boston: Unwin Hyman. pp. 171-194.
Levy, Jack S., 2008. “Power Transition Theory and the Rise of China,”
in Robert S. Ross & Zhu Feng, eds., China’s Ascent: Power, Security,
and the Future of International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press. pp. 11-33.Wu, Yu-Shan, 2011. “Strategic Triangle, Change of Guard, and Ma’s New Course,” in Cal Clark, ed., The Changing Dynamics of Relations
among China, Taiwan, and the United States. Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 30-61.
期刊論文
Brownlee, Jason, 2007/7. “Hereditary Succession in Modern Autocracies,”
World Politics, Vol. 59, No. 4, pp. 595-628.
Cha, Victor D., 2009-2010/Winter. “Powerplay: Origins of the U.S. Alliance System in Asia,” International Security, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 158-196.
Christensen, Thomas J., 2001/Spring. “Posing Problems without Catching Up: China’s Rise and Challenges for U.S. Security Policy,” International
Security, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 5-40.
De Mesquita, Bruce Bueno, James D. Morrow, Randolph M. Siverson,
& Alastair Smith, 1999/12. “An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 93, No. 4, pp. 791-807.
Dittmer, Lowell, 1981/7. “The Strategic Triangle: An Elementary Game-Theoretical Analysis,” World Politics, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 485-515.
Doyle, Michael W., 1983/Summer. “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs,” Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 205-235.
Fearon, James D., 1994/9. “Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 88, No. 3, pp. 577-592.
Gaubatz, Kurt Taylor, 1991/6. “Election Cycles and War,” The Journal
of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 212-244.
Glaser, Charles L., 1994-1995/Winter. “Realists as Optimists: Cooperation as Self-Help,” International Security, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 50-90.
Glaser, Charles L., 2015/Spring. “A U.S.-China Grand Bargain? The Hard Choice between Military Competition and Accommodation,”
Inter-national Security, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 49-90.
Glaser, Charles L. & Chaim Kaufmann, 1998/Spring. “What Is the Offense-Defense Balance and Can We Measure It?” International Security, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 44-82.
Goldstein, Joshua S., 1992/6. “A Conflict-Cooperation Scale for WEIS Events Data,” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 369-385.
Goldstein, Joshua S. & Jon C. Pevehouse, 1997/9. “Reciprocity, Bullying, and International Cooperation: Time-series Analysis of the Bosnia Conflict,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 91, No. 3, pp. 515-529.
Goldstein, Joshua S., Jon C. Pevehouse, Deborah J. Gerner, & Shibley Telhami, 2001/10. “Reciprocity, Triangularity, and Cooperation in the Middle East, 1979-97,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 45, No. 5, pp. 594-620.
Huang, Chi, Woosang Kim, & Samuel Shiouh Guang Wu, 1992/8.
“Conflicts across the Taiwan Strait, 1951-78,” Issues and Studies, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 35-58.
Jervis, Robert, 1978/1. “Cooperation under the Security Dilemma,” World
Politics, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 167-214.
Kaplan, Morton A., 1957/9. “Balance of Power, Bipolarity and Other Models of International Systems,” The American Political Science
Review, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 684-695.
King, Gary & Will Lowe, 2003/Summer. “An Automated Information Extraction Tool for International Conflict Data with Performance as Good as Human Coders: A Rare Events Evaluation Design,”
Inter-national Organization, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp. 617-642.
Legro, Jeffrey W., 2007/9. “What China Will Want: The Future Intentions of a Rising Power,” Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 515-534.
Mearsheimer, John J., 2014/3-4. “Taiwan’s Dire Straits,” The National
Interest, No. 130, pp. 29-39.
Oneal, John R. & Bruce Russett, 1999/10. “The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885-1992,” World Politics, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 1-37.
學位論文
Kuan, Hung-chang. 2007. Taiwan in Cross-Strait Relations: 1987-2004.
Diss., Department of Government, University of Texas at Austin, USA.
網際網路
Boschee, Elizabeth, Jennifer Lautenschlager, Sean O’Brien, Steve Shellman, James Starz, & Michael Ward, 2016/9/10(accessed). “ICEWS Coded Event Data, V16,” Harvard Dataverse, <http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/
DVN/28075>.
National Bureau of Statisitcs of China, 2016/9/11(accessed). “National Data,” National Bureau of Statisitcs of China, <http://data.stats.gov.
cn/english/easyquery.htm?cn=A01>.
Raytheon BBN Technologies, 2015/1/20. “ICEWS Expanded Cameo An-notation Guidelines, Version 4.0,” Harvard Dataverse, <https://dat-averse.harvard.edu/api/access/datafile/2531993>.
Schrodt, Philip A., 2007/3/21. “Cameo Scale: Version 0.5b1,” The
Com-putational Event Data System, <http://eventdata.parusanalytics.com/
cameo.dir/CAMEO.SCALE.txt>.
Schrodt, Philip A. & Omur Yilmaz, 2007/9. “Cameo: Conflict and Mediation Event Observations Codebook,” Harvard Dataverse, <https://dataverse.
harvard.edu/api/access/datafile/2509776>.
United States Census Bureau, 2016/9/11(accessed). “Trade in Goods with China,” United States Census Bureau, <https://www.census.gov/
foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html>.
附錄
附表1 ICEWS 資料庫之 CAMEO 行為目錄與合作分數對照表
CAMEO EVENT
CODE EVENT DESCRIPTION COOPERATION
SCORE
1 MAKE PUBLIC STATEMENT 0
10 Make statement, not specified below 0
11 Decline comment -0.1
12 Make pessimistic comment -0.4
13 Make optimistic comment 0.4
14 Consider policy option 0
15 Acknowledge or claim responsibility 0
16 Make empathetic comment 3.4
17 Engage in symbolic act 0
18 Express accord 3.4
2 APPEAL 3
20 Appeal, not specified below 3
21 Appeal for cooperation, not specified below 3.4 211 Appeal for diplomatic cooperation 3.4 212 Appeal for material cooperation 3.4
22 Appeal for policy support 3.4
23 Appeal for aid, not specified below 3.4
231 Appeal for economic aid 3.4
232 Appeal for military aid 3.4
233 Appeal for humanitarian aid 3.4
234 Appeal for military protection or peacekeeping 3.4 24 Appeal for political reform, not specified below -0.3 241 Appeal for change in leadership -0.3
242 Appeal for policy change -0.3
243 Appeal for rights -0.3
244 Appeal for change in institutions, regime -0.3
附表1 ICEWS 資料庫之 CAMEO 行為目錄與合作分數對照表（續）
CAMEO EVENT
CODE EVENT DESCRIPTION COOPERATION
SCORE
25 Appeal to yield -0.3
26 Appeal to others to meet or negotiate 4 27 Appeal to others to settle dispute 4 28 Appeal to others to engage in mediation 4
3 EXPRESS INTENT TO COOPERATE 4
30 Express intent to cooperate, not specified below 4 31 Express intent to engage in material cooperation,
not specified below 5.2
311 Express intent to cooperate economically 5.2 312 Express intent to cooperate militarily 5.2 32 Express intent to provide policy support 4.5 33 Express intent to provide aid, not specified below 5.2 331 Express intent to provide economic aid 5.2 332 Express intent to provide military aid 5.2 333 Express intent to provide humanitarian aid 5.2 334 Express intent to provide military protection or
peacekeeping 6
34 Express intent to bring political reform, not specified
below 7
341 Express intent to change leadership 7
342 Express intent to change policy 7
343 Express intent to provide rights 7
344 Express intent to change institutions, regime 7 35 Express intent to yield, not specified below 7 351 Express intent to ease administrative sanctions 7
352 Express intent to stop protests 7
353 Express intent to accede to political demands 7 354 Express intent to release persons or property 7 355 Express intent to ease economic sanctions, boycott,
or embargo 7
附表1 ICEWS 資料庫之 CAMEO 行為目錄與合作分數對照表（續）
CAMEO EVENT
CODE EVENT DESCRIPTION COOPERATION
SCORE 356 Express intent allow international involvement
(not mediation) 7
357 Express intent to de-escalate military engagement 7 36 Express intent to meet or negotiate 4
37 Express intent to settle dispute 5
38 Express intent to accept mediation 7
39 Express intent to mediate 5
4 CONSULT 1
40 Consult, not specified below 1
41 Discuss by telephone 1
42 Make a visit 1.9
43 Host a visit 2.8
44 Meet at a “third” location 2.5
45 Mediate 5
46 Engage in negotiation 7
5 ENGAGE IN DIPLOMATIC COOPERATION 3.5
50 Engage in diplomatic cooperation, not specified
below 3.5
51 Praise or endorse 3.4
52 Defend verbally 3.5
53 Rally support on behalf of 3.8
54 Grant diplomatic recognition 6
55 Apologize 7
56 Forgive 7
57 Sign formal agreement 8
6 ENGAGE IN MATERIAL COOPERATION 6
60 Engage in material cooperation, not spec below 6
61 Cooperate economically 6.4
62 Cooperate militarily 7.4
63 Engage in judicial cooperation 7.4
附表1 ICEWS 資料庫之 CAMEO 行為目錄與合作分數對照表（續）
CAMEO EVENT
CODE EVENT DESCRIPTION COOPERATION
SCORE
64 Share intelligence or information 7
7 PROVIDE AID 7
70 Provide aid, not specified below 7
71 Provide economic aid 7.4
72 Provide military aid 8.3
73 Provide humanitarian aid 7.4
74 Provide military protection or peacekeeping 8.5
75 Grant asylum 7
8 YIELD 5
80 Yield, not specified below 5
81 Ease administrative sanctions, not specified below 5 811 Ease restrictions on freedoms of speech and
expression 5
812 Ease ban on political parties or politicians 5
813 Ease curfew 5
814 Ease state of emergency or martial law 5
82 Ease popular protest 5
83 Accede to demands for political reform 5 831 Accede to demands for change in leadership 5 832 Accede to demands for change in policy 5
833 Accede to demands for rights 5
834 Accede to demands for change in institutions,
regime 5
84 Return, release, not specified below 7
841 Return, release person(s) 7
842 Return, release property 7
85 Ease economic sanctions, boycott, embargo 7
86 Allow international involvement 9
861 Receive deployment of peacekeepers 9
862 Receive inspectors 9
附表1 ICEWS 資料庫之 CAMEO 行為目錄與合作分數對照表（續）
CAMEO EVENT
CODE EVENT DESCRIPTION COOPERATION
SCORE 863 Allow delivery of humanitarian aid 9
87 De-escalate military engagement 9
871 Declare truce, ceasefire 9
872 Ease military blockade 9
873 Demobilize armed forces 9
874 Retreat or surrender militarily 10
9 INVESTIGATE -2
90 Investigate, not specified below -2
91 Investigate crime, corruption -2
92 Investigate human rights abuses -2
93 Investigate military action -2
94 Investigate war crimes -2
10 DEMAND -5
100 Demand, not specified below -5
101 Demand information, investigation -5
102 Demand policy support -5
103 Demand aid, protection, or peacekeeping -5 104 Demand political reform, not specified below -5
1041 Demand change in leadership -5
1042 Demand policy change -5
1043 Demand rights -5
1044 Demand change in institutions, regime -5
105 Demand mediation -5
106 Demand withdrawal -5
107 Demand ceasefire -5
108 Demand meeting, negotiation -5
11 DISAPPROVE -2
110 Disapprove, not specified below -2
111 Criticize or denounce -2
112 Accuse, not specified below -2
附表1 ICEWS 資料庫之 CAMEO 行為目錄與合作分數對照表（續）
CAMEO EVENT
CODE EVENT DESCRIPTION COOPERATION
SCORE
1121 Accuse of crime, corruption -2
1122 Accuse of human rights abuses -2
1123 Accuse of aggression -2
1124 Accuse of war crimes -2
1125 Accuse of espionage, treason -2
113 Rally opposition against -2
114 Complain officially -2
115 Bring lawsuit against -2
12 REJECT -4
120 Reject, not specified below -4
1211 Reject ceasefire, withdrawal -4
1212 Reject peacekeeping -4
1213 Reject settlement -4
122 Reject request for material aid -4
123 Reject demands for political reform -4 1231 Reject demands for change in leadership -4 1232 Reject demands for policy change -4
1233 Reject demand for rights -4
1234 Reject demand change in institutions, regime -4 124 Reject proposal to meet, discuss, or negotiate -5
125 Reject mediation -5
126 Defy norms, law -5
127 Reject accusation, deny responsibility -5
128 Veto -5
13 THREATEN -6
130 Threaten, not specified below -4.4
131 Threaten non-force, not specified below -5.8 1311 Threaten to reduce or stop aid -5.8 121 Reject proposal, not specified below -4
附表1 ICEWS 資料庫之 CAMEO 行為目錄與合作分數對照表（續）
CAMEO EVENT
CODE EVENT DESCRIPTION COOPERATION
SCORE 1312 Threaten to boycott, embargo, or sanction -5.8 1313 Threaten to reduce or break relations -5.8 132 Threaten with administrative sanctions, not specified
below -5.8
1321 Threaten to impose restrictions on freedoms of
speech and expression -5.8
1322 Threaten to ban political parties or politicians -5.8
1323 Threaten to impose curfew -5.8
1324 Threaten to impose state of emergency or martial
law -5.8
133 Threaten collective dissent -5.8
134 Threaten to halt negotiations -5.8
135 Threaten to halt mediation -5.8
136 Threaten to expel or withdraw peacekeepers -7
137 Threaten with violent repression -7
138 Threaten to use military force, not specified below -7
1381 Threaten blockade -7
1382 Threaten occupation -7
1383 Threaten unconventional violence -7
1384 Threaten conventional attack -7
1385 Threaten attack with WMD -7
139 Give ultimatum -7
14 PROTEST -6.5
140 Engage in popular protest, not specified below -6.5
141 Demonstrate or rally -6.5
1411 Demonstrate for change in leadership -6.5
1412 Demonstrate for policy change -6.5
1413 Demonstrate for rights -6.5
1414 Demonstrate for change in institutions, regime -6.5 142 Conduct hunger strike, not specified below -6.5
附表1 ICEWS 資料庫之 CAMEO 行為目錄與合作分數對照表（續）
CAMEO EVENT
CODE EVENT DESCRIPTION COOPERATION
SCORE 1421 Conduct hunger strike for change in leadership -6.5 1422 Conduct hunger strike for policy change -6.5 1423 Conduct hunger strike for rights -6.5 1424 Conduct hunger strike for change in institutions,
regime -6.5
143 Conduct strike or boycott, not specified below -6.5 1431 Conduct strike or boycott for change in leadership -6.5 1432 Conduct strike or boycott for policy change -6.5 1433 Conduct strike or boycott for rights -6.5 1434 Conduct strike or boycott for change in institutions,
regime -6.5
144 Obstruct passage, block -7.5
1441 Obstruct passage to demand change in leadership -7.5 1442 Obstruct passage to demand policy change -7.5 1443 Obstruct passage to demand rights -7.5 1444 Obstruct passage to demand change in institutions,
regime -7.5
145 Protest violently, riot -7.5
1451 Obstruct passage to demand change in leadership -7.5 1452 Obstruct passage to demand policy change -7.5 1453 Obstruct passage to demand rights -7.5 1454 Obstruct passage to demand change in institutions,
regime -7.5
15 EXHIBIT FORCE POSTURE -7.2
150 Demonstrate military or police power, not specified
below -7.2
151 Increase police alert status -7.2
152 Increase military alert status -7.2
153 Mobilize or increase police power -7.2 154 Mobilize or increase armed forces -7.2
附表1 ICEWS 資料庫之 CAMEO 行為目錄與合作分數對照表（續）
CAMEO EVENT
CODE EVENT DESCRIPTION COOPERATION
SCORE
160 Reduce relations, not specified below -4 161 Reduce or break diplomatic relations -4 162 Reduce or stop aid, not specified below -5.6
1621 Reduce or stop economic assistance -5.6 1622 Reduce or stop military assistance -5.6 1623 Reduce or stop humanitarian assistance -5.6
163 Halt negotiations -6.5
164 Expel or withdraw, not specified below -7
1641 Expel or withdraw peacekeepers -7
1642 Expel or withdraw inspectors, observers -7
1643 Expel or withdraw aid agencies -7
165 Halt mediation -7
166 Impose embargo, boycott, or sanctions -8
17 COERCE -7
170 Coerce, not specified below -7
171 Seize or damage property, not specified below -9.2
1711 Confiscate property -9.2
1712 Destroy property -9.2
172 Impose administrative sanctions, not specified
below -5
1721 Impose restrictions on freedoms of speech and
expression -5
1722 Ban political parties or politicians -5
1723 Impose curfew -5
1724 Impose state of emergency or martial law -5 173 Arrest, detain, or charge with legal action -5
174 Expel or deport individuals -5
175 Use violent repression -9
16 REDUCE RELATIONS -4
附表1 ICEWS 資料庫之 CAMEO 行為目錄與合作分數對照表（續）
CAMEO EVENT
CODE EVENT DESCRIPTION COOPERATION
SCORE
18 ASSAULT -9
182 Physically assault, not specified below -9.5
1821 Sexually assault -9
1822 Torture -9
1823 Kill by physical assault -10
183 Conduct suicide, car, or other non-military bombing,
not spec below -10
1831 Carry out suicide bombing -10
1832 Carry out car bombing -10
1833 Carry out roadside bombing -10
184 Use as human shield -8
185 Attempt to assassinate -8
186 Assassinate -10
19 FIGHT -10
190 Use conventional military force, not specified
below -10
191 Impose blockade, restrict movement -9.5
192 Occupy territory -9.5
193 Fight with small arms and light weapons -10
194 Fight with artillery and tanks -10
195 Employ aerial weapons -10
196 Violate ceasefire -9.5
20 ENGAGE IN UNCONVENTIONAL MASS VIOLENCE -10
200 Engage in unconventional mass violence, not
specified below -10
201 Engage in mass expulsion -9.5
202 Engage in mass killings -10
203 Engage in ethnic cleansing -10
180 Use unconventional violence, not specified below -9
181 Abduct, hijack, or take hostage -9
附表1 ICEWS 資料庫之 CAMEO 行為目錄與合作分數對照表（續）
CAMEO EVENT
CODE EVENT DESCRIPTION COOPERATION
SCORE
2041 Use chemical, biological, or radiological weapons -10
2042 Detonate nuclear weapons -10
204 Use weapons of mass destruction, not specified
below -10
資料來源：Philip A. Schrodt, “Cameo Scale: Version 0.5b1”；Philip A. Schrodt &
Omur Yilmaz, “Cameo: Conflict and Mediation Event Observations Codebook”。
附表2 時間序列變項單根檢定結果(1995/1-2015/8)
本文採用增廣性迪基-福勒檢定（Augmented Dickey-Fuller test, 簡稱 ADF test）檢驗時間序列是否存在單根。ADF 檢定的虛無假設為有單根，拒絕虛 無假設代表該序列無單根現象，為定態序列。表格內數值為 t-statistic。
括弧內之數字為最佳落後期數，由統計軟體(Eviews ver. 8.1)依 AIC 標準 (Akaike information criteria)，選定最大期數 15。
上表顯示臺灣對美合作分數(TU)、美國依賴美中貿易程度變化(UStrade)與中
附表3 時間序列變項自相關檢定結果(1995/1-2015/8)
落後期數 變項
落後期數為 3 落後期數為 6 落後期數為 12 落後期數為 24
臺灣對中合作
分數(TC) 74.22** 114.22** 132.08** 135.14**
中國對臺合作
分數(CT) 77.94** 132.28** 140.91** 143.47**
中國對美合作
分數(CU) 11.00** 18.43** 44.59** 59.94**
美國對中合作
分數(UC) 11.89** 22.13** 55.82** 90.36**
臺灣對美合作
分數變化(DTU) 27.95** 32.69** 45.43** 90.58**
美國對臺合作
分數(UT) 42.17** 54.71** 85.69** 161.00**
美國依賴美中 貿易程度變化 (DUtrade)
2.93 34.34** 149.51** 288.15**
中國依賴美中 貿易程度變化 (DCtrade)
73.50** 80.72** 248.29** 458.32**
資料來源：作者自行建構之資料庫，各細項資料之來源請見變項與研究方法一節。
說 明： +：p < 0.10, *：p < 0.05, **：p < 0.01.。
本文採用混和白噪音檢定(Portmanteau white-noise test)以檢驗時間序列是 否存在自相關現象。該檢定之虛無假設為特定期數無自我相關現象，拒絕虛 無假設代表該序列為存在自我相關現象。表中各項數值為 Q statistic。
上表顯示所有序列幾乎皆存在自我相關現象，必須加以控制。因此，本文將 採納入前一期依變項作為控制以進行統計分析。
附表4 時間序列變項 ARCH 檢定結果(1995/1-2015/8)
落後期數 變項
落後期數為 3 落後期數為 6 落後期數為 12 落後期數為 24
臺灣對中合作
分數(TC) 36.01** 45.01** 44.94** 42.82*
中國對臺合作
分數(CT) 46.58** 56.18** 61.54** 60.74**
中國對美合作
分數(CU) 0.11 1.32 2.45 7.82
美國對中合作
分數(UC) 0.90 1.91 5.78 9.92
臺灣對美合作
分數變化(DTU) 12.32** 11.74+ 16.68 27.16
美國對臺合作
分數(UT) 17.44** 19.48** 21.50+ 33.38+
美國依賴美中 貿易程度變化 (DUtrade)
6.52+ 9.29 29.54** 53.46**
中國依賴美中 貿易程度變化 (DCtrade)
33.69** 38.28** 114.82** 117.95**
資料來源：作者自行建構之資料庫，各細項資料之來源請見變項與研究方法一節。
說 明： +：p < 0.10, *：p < 0.05, **：p < 0.01。
本文採用恩格爾檢定（Engle’s Lagrange multiplier test，簡稱 ARCH-LM test）檢定檢驗時間序列是否存在自我相關異質變異現象。該檢定之虛無假設 為特定期數無自我相關異質變異(ARCH)現象，拒絕虛無假設代表該序列存在 ARCH 現象。表格內數值為 X2 statistic。
上表顯示除了中國對美合作分數(CU)和美國對中合作分數(UC)之外，其他序 列皆可能存在 ARCH 現象。由於 CU 和 UC 為本文依變項，因此不需採用 ARCH 模型控制自身 ARCH 效應，但所有統計結果將特別檢測 ARCH 效應是
上表顯示除了中國對美合作分數(CU)和美國對中合作分數(UC)之外，其他序 列皆可能存在 ARCH 現象。由於 CU 和 UC 為本文依變項，因此不需採用 ARCH 模型控制自身 ARCH 效應，但所有統計結果將特別檢測 ARCH 效應是