以字詞分析取向探討台灣新冠肺炎防疫工作主事者之心理特性

Applying a linguistic approach to examination of the psychological process of Taiwan's primary leaders in the fight against Covid-19

10.6288/TJPH.202208_41(4).111033

林瑋芳(Wei-Fang Lin)

字詞分析 ； 新冠肺炎 ； 防疫記者會 ； Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) ； Covid-19 ； press conference

台灣公共衛生雜誌

41卷4期（2022 / 08 / 30）

438 - 448

繁體中文

目標：介紹語言分析工具（LIWC）在公衛領域的應用實例，以中央疫情指揮中心與北市府在三級警戒期間的防疫記者會為分析文本，描繪台灣領導防疫工作之指標人物的心理特性。方法：採字詞分析研究取向，從思維特性、動機驅力、認知歷程及時態關聯詞彙，比較陳時中和柯文哲的語言使用特性差異。結果：依據職務有別，陳時中在記者會上的表現更明確篤定，且更關注未來趨勢和因應策略；柯文哲在言談間則有較高的不確定性，且較多是在回應先前發生的事項。在個人風格上，陳時中明顯有較高的分析性思考，較關切如何強化人際社會連結；柯文哲則較傾向以個人經驗來詮釋問題，更多互動性的直覺反應，且更重視既有制度結構的鞏固。結論：本研究為台灣首篇以字詞分析取向探討新冠疫情防疫工作的應用研究，顯示字詞分析可用於反映防疫工作主事者的心理特性，未來可進一步加入民眾端的資料，更深入探討「如何說」對實質溝通成效的預測效果，以期在公衛議題之溝通宣導上，達到更良好的運作成效。

Objectives: We used the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) program to capture the psychological process of Taiwan's primary leaders in the fight against COVID-19. Methods: We analyzed the word usage of the head of the Central Epidemic Command Center in Taiwan, Chen Shih-Chung, and the mayor of Taipei City, Ko Wen-Je, in daily press conferences during the level 3 epidemic alert in 2021. Results: We found that Chen had greater certainty and confidence and focused more on epidemic projections and response. By contrast, Ko was less certain and focused more on the past. In addition, each leader demonstrated significant differences in thinking style and motivation. Chen exhibited higher-level analytical thinking and was driven by the need for affiliation, whereas Ko exhibited dynamic thinking and was driven by the need for power. Conclusion: Our study indicated that these two major leaders faced the pandemic with different focuses, thinking styles, and motivations. Future studies are encouraged to explore how word usage affects the feeling and behavior of listeners.

1. 林瑋芳, WF,黃金蘭, CL,林以正, YC,李嘉玲, CL,Pennebaker, JW(2020)。語言探索與字詞計算詞典2015中文版之修訂。調查研究─方法與應用，45，73-118。
   連結：
2. Boyd, RL(2017).Psychological text analysis in the digital humanities.Data Analytics in Digital Humanities,Cham:
3. Conway, LG,Zubrod, A(2022).Are U.S. presidents becoming less rhetorically complex? Evaluating the integrative complexity of Joe Biden and Donald Trump in historical context.J Lang Soc Psychol,41,613-625.
4. Doerr, AJ(2021).Locked (down) and loaded (language): effect of policy and speech on COVID-19 outcomes.J Leader Organ Stud,28,340-348.
5. Fetterman, AK,Boyd, RL,Robinson, MD(2015).Power versus affiliation in political ideology: robust linguistic evidence for distinct motivation-related signatures.Pers Soc Psychol Bull,41,1195-1206.
6. Fetterman, AK,Robinson, MD(2013).Do you use your head or follow your heart? Self-location predicts personality, emotion, decision making, and performance.J Pers Soc Psychol,105,316-334.
7. Fiedler, K(ed.)(2007).Social Communication.New York, NY:Psychology Press.
8. Fridman, I,Fagerlin, A,Scherr, KA,Scherer, LD,Huffstetler, H,Ubel, PA(2021).Gain-loss framing and patients’ decisions: a linguistic examination of information framing in physician-patient conversations.J Behav Med,44,38-52.
9. Iosub, D,Laniado, D,Castillo, C,Fuster Morell, M,Kaltenbrunner, A(2014).Emotions under discussion: gender, status and communication in online collaboration.PLoS One,9,e104880.
10. Jordan, KN,Sterling, J,Pennebaker, JW,Boyd, RL(2019).Examining long-term trends in politics and culture through language of political leaders and cultural institutions.PNAS,116,3476-3481.
11. Kahneman, D(2003).A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality.Am Psychol,58,697-720.
12. Körner, R,Overbeck, JR,Körner, E,Schütz, A(2022).How the linguistic styles of Donald Trump and Joe Biden reflect different forms of power.J Lang Soc Psychol
13. Lee, IC,Lin, WF(2022).Us versus Them: the debates on the legislation of same-sex marriage (1994-2015) in Taiwan.J Homosex,69,655-676.
14. Lin, WF,Chen, LH,Li, TS(2016).Are “we”good? A longitudinal study of we-talk and stress coping in dual-earner couples.J Happiness Stud,17,757-772.
15. Lin, WF,Lin, YC,Huang, CL,Chen, LH(2016).We can make it better:“We” moderates the relationship between a compromising style in interpersonal conflict and well-being.J Happiness Stud,17,41-57.
16. Ma, WY,Chen, KJ(2003).Introduction to CKIP Chinese word segmentation system for the first international Chinese Word Segmentation Bakeoff.Proceedings of the second SIGHAN workshop on Chinese language processing,Sapporo, Japan:
17. Markowitz, DM(2021).How experts react: the World Health Organization’s appraisal of COVID-19 via communication patterns.J Lang Soc Psychol,41,209-218.
18. McClelland, DC(1961).Achieving societies in the past.The Achieving Society,Princeton:
19. McClelland, DC,Burnham, DH(1976).Power is the great motivator.Harv Bus Rev,54,100-110.
20. Mitra, T,Counts, S,Pennebaker, JW(2016).Understanding anti-vaccination attitudes in social media.Proceedings of the 10th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM),Cologne, Germany:
21. Moore, RC,Lee, AY,Hancock, JT,Halley, MC,Linos, E(2021).Age-related differences in experiences with social distancing at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic: a computational and content analytic investigation of natural language from a social media survey.JMIR Hum Factors,8,e26043.
22. Pennebaker JW, Booth RJ, Boyd RL, Francis ME. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC2015. Austin, TX: Pennebaker Conglomerates (www.LIWC.net), 2015.
23. Pennebaker, JW,Boyd, RL,Jordan, K,Blackburn, K(2015).,Austin, TX:University of Texas at Austin.
24. Pennebaker, JW,Chung, CK,Frazee, J,Lavergne, GM,Beaver, DI(2014).When small words foretell academic success: the case of college admissions essays.PLoS One,9,e115844.
25. Pennebaker, JW,Mehl, MR,Niederhoffer, KG(2003).Psychological aspects of natural language use: our words, our selves.Annu Rev Psychol,54,547-577.
26. Sterling, J,Jost, JT,Bonneau, R(2020).Political psycholinguistics: a comprehensive analysis of the language habits of liberal and conservative social media users.J Pers Soc Psychol,118,805-834.
27. Tausczik, YR,Pennebaker, JW(2010).The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods.J Lang Soc Psychol,29,24-54.
28. Tay, D(2022).Covid-19 press conferences across time: World Health Organization vs. Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Pandemic and Crisis Discourse: Communicating COVID-19 and Public Health Strategy,London:
29. Veenstra, K(2020).CEO implicit motives: their impact on firm performance.Behav Res Account,32,57-89.
30. Wang, CJ,Ng, CY,Brook, RH(2020).Response to COVID-19 in Taiwan: big data analytics, new technology, and proactive testing.JAMA,323,1341-1342.
31. Wichowsky, A,Condon, M(2022).The effects of partisan framing on COVID-19 attitudes: experimental evidence from early and late pandemic.Res Polit,9

1. 林瑋芳(2023)。字詞分析工具（LIWC）的理論基礎及其在體育領域的應用。體育學報，56(1)，1-16。