婚姻平權議題之支持方與反對方的心理特性差異：以字詞分析為取向

Psychological Differences Between Opponents and Proponents of Same-Sex Marriage: The Linguistic Analysis Approach

婚姻平權法案是近年臺灣社會受到高度重視的社會議題，透過全民的積極參與發聲，支持方與反對方雖多有機會交流彼此的想法，目前仍無法形成共識。針對支持方與反對方的衝突磨合，本研究嘗試透過字詞分析的角度切入，以字詞使用頻率表徵個體的心理特性與思考歷程，探討支持方與反對方在人我界線、動機歷程及認知特性上之差異。研究一蒐集60篇與婚姻平權有關之媒體投書和報導，支持與反對立場文本各半，以檢驗支持方與反對方在字詞使用頻率之差異；研究二則以研究一之特定字詞使用頻率，透過羅吉斯迴歸檢驗立法院公聽會發言人對婚姻平權法案之立場為支持或反對之預測力。研究結果大致與研究假設相符，意即相較於反對方，支持方較不以伴侶性別為同性或異性，畫分明確的內、外團體，更傾向將所有個體一視同仁；也較容易受到強化社會關係聯結之趨動，而較不重視權力關係的鞏固；在論述表達上，亦呈現較高的認知複雜度。據研究者所知，本研究為國內少數以字詞分析研究取向，探討婚姻平權法案之支持方與反對方，在心理特性與思維特性上之差異的實徵研究論文。期能透過本研究拋磚引玉，從人我關係、動機歷程及思維特性的角度，嘗試理解支持方與反對方的歧異，因瞭解而更能有效對話溝通，早日實踐真正平等的社會正義。

Despite being the first Asian country to legalize same-sex marriage, same-sex marriage continues to be controversial in Taiwanese society. Extensive research has attempted to explain attitudes toward same-sex marriage on the basis of religion, gender, and stereotypes. Few studies, however, have focused on the psychological differences between opponents and proponents of same-sex marriage. We adopted the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) method to examine the psychological differences between these two camps. The LIWC method was developed by Pennebaker and his research team and has since become a widely used computer-aided text-analysis method. The essential assumption of the LIWC method is that word usage in certain categories serves as a language marker that reflects an individual’s focuses, thoughts, feelings, and psychological state. Given that same-sex marriage is still a controversial topic in Taiwan’s society, individuals may feel pressured to truly express their attitudes and thoughts. An advantage of the LIWC method is that it ignores context; only word count is used for indices, which could help reveal individuals’ inner psychological processes. The present research used language markers to understand individuals’ self-other boundaries, motivations, and cognitive processes. We argue that opponents of same-sex marriage have a clear self-other boundary; they view heterosexual individuals as an ingroup, and non-heterosexual individuals, an outgroup. Accordingly, we hypothesized that relative to proponents, opponents tend to use fewer first-person singular and plural pronouns (indicating less self-involvement and shared identity, respectively) and more third-person plural pronouns (indicating a clear distinction between heterosexuality and nonheterosexuality) when discussing topics involving same-sex marriage. Second, we analyzed the motivations of opponents and proponents. Previous studies of political ideology have revealed that those holding liberal views emphasize affiliation whereas those with conservative views emphasize power. Those with conservative views tend to perceive the government as an authoritarian and disciplinary parent; they want to preserve the current power structure of the society that favors individuals who identify as heterosexual. Because it is primarily those holding liberal social views that promote the legislation of same-sex marriage, we hypothesized and found that proponents would tend to use more affiliation-oriented words and that opponents would tend to use more power-oriented words when discussing same-sex marriage. Lastly, we attempted to differentiate the cognitive processing of proponents and opponents. Previous research has indicated that the majority and minority practice disparate methods of persuasion. The majority influence others through normative social influence, which induces people to conform because they want to be accepted and are fearful of violating group norms. By contrast, the minority influence others through informational social influence, which changes people’s beliefs and behaviors by convincing them that the minority have accurate information. The information provided is expected to be carefully analyzed, to serve this purpose, well-reasoned and logically consistent arguments are crucial. Therefore, we hypothesized that proponents, as the minority, tend to demonstrate more cognitive complexity in their arguments regarding same-sex marriage. We conducted two studies to test our hypotheses. In Study 1, we analyzed opinions expressed in newspapers and online media. We collected 60 articles with an equal number of opinions written by opponents and proponents to compare the difference between these two camps. All text files were processed using the Chinese word segmentation system developed by the Chinese Knowledge and Information Processing (CKIP) group and subsequently analyzed using the LIWC2015 application and C-LIWC2015 dictionary. The average word count of the text files used in Study 1 was 1124.32 (SD = 666.32), and the LIWC detection rate was 77.32% (SD = 4.40). We performed independent-samples t-tests to examine our hypotheses and discovered that, relative to opponents, proponents tended to use more first-person plural pronouns and affiliation-oriented words but fewer power-oriented words; their written opinions also exhibited higher cognitive complexity. In Study 2, we examined whether word usage characteristics identified for the opponents and proponents in Study 1 could predict an individual’s attitude (pro or against) toward same-sex marriage. The data were drawn from the transcripts of two public hearings held by Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan in 2016. All transcripts were processed in the same way as in Study 1. The average word count of the transcripts used in Study 2 was 1368.07 (SD = 388.90), and the LIWC detection rate of the transcripts was 81.09% (SD = 4.17). Independent-samples t-tests in Study 2 yielded similar results to that in Study 1. Relative to opponents, proponents tended to use more first-person plural pronouns and affiliation-oriented words but fewer power-oriented words. However, no significant difference in cognitive complexity was observed between proponents and opponents. We suspect that the speakers at the public hearing were experts and therefore capable of giving well-prepared speeches. Furthermore, the results of a logistic regression indicated that individuals who used more affiliation-oriented words were more likely to support same-sex marriage. By contrast, individuals who used more power-oriented words were more likely to oppose same-sex marriage. The findings from Studies 1 and 2 highlight the psychological differences between proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage. Specifically, the proponents tended to express a shared identity and were more interested in establishing social connections than the opponents; they also demonstrated higher cognitive complexity in their written opinions. The opponents, tended to use power and status words than the proponents. According to our results, we offer suggestions for improving the communication between the two camps, so social equality in the near future may be achieved. First, understanding the psychological difference between the two camps is the first step for better communication. The underlying concern of the opponents is that the legislation of same-sex marriage may be detrimental to the existing social structure and traditional family functions. Thus, for the proponents to have their messages heard by the opponents, it may be better to address the opponents’ negative feelings rather than well-formulated reasons. Second, our findings suggest that even though the Gender Equality Education Act was implemented in 2004 in Taiwan, gender and sexual minorities - still face substantial prejudice in our society, which may be detrimental to their mental and physical health. Gender equality education programs dispelling preconceptions regarding homosexuality and improving students’ understanding of various sexual identities may be most valuable to tackle such prejudice. Third, our findings demonstrate that a linguistic method such as LIWC can be applied to study controversial social topics. Unlike self-report measurements, which would be prone to social desirability, the frequency of word usage serving as a language marker is hard to manipulate and may reflect individuals’ inner processes. Future studies can apply LIWC to examine the psychological differences between proponents and opponents of other controversial social issues such as abortion or the death penalty. In summary, we applied a linguistic method to clarify the psychological differences between proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage in terms of their self-other boundaries, motivations, and cognitive complexity. Future studies can expand the practical applications of our findings to further gender and marriage equality objectives.