'Appeals to nature' in marriage equality debates: A content analysis of newspaper and social media discourse

Analyzing Reddit Forums Specific to Abortion That Yield Diverse Dialogues Pertaining to Medical Information Seeking and Personal Worldviews: Data Mining and Natural Language Processing Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Attitudes toward abortion have historically been characterized via dichotomized labels, yet research suggests that these labels do not appropriately encapsulate beliefs on abortion. Rather, contexts, circumstances, and lived experiences often shape views on abortion into more nuanced and complex perspectives. Qualitative data have also been shown to underpin belief systems regarding abortion. Social media, as a form of qualitative data, could reveal how attitudes toward abortion are communicated publicly in web-based spaces. Furthermore, in some cases, social media can also be leveraged to seek health information.

OBJECTIVE

This study applies natural language processing and social media mining to analyze Reddit (Reddit, Inc) forums specific to abortion, including r/Abortion (the largest subreddit about abortion) and r/AbortionDebate (a subreddit designed to discuss and debate worldviews on abortion). Our analytical pipeline intends to identify potential themes within the data and the affect from each post.

METHODS

We applied a neural network-based topic modeling pipeline (BERTopic) to uncover themes in the r/Abortion (n=2151) and r/AbortionDebate (n=2815) subreddits. After deriving the optimal number of topics per subreddit using an iterative coherence score calculation, we performed a sentiment analysis using the Valence Aware Dictionary and Sentiment Reasoner to assess positive, neutral, and negative affect and an emotion analysis using the Text2Emotion lexicon to identify potential emotionality per post. Differences in affect and emotion by subreddit were compared.

RESULTS

The iterative coherence score calculation revealed 10 topics for both r/Abortion (coherence=0.42) and r/AbortionDebate (coherence=0.35). Topics in the r/Abortion subreddit primarily centered on information sharing or offering a source of social support; in contrast, topics in the r/AbortionDebate subreddit centered on contextualizing shifting or evolving views on abortion across various ethical, moral, and legal domains. The average compound Valence Aware Dictionary and Sentiment Reasoner scores for the r/Abortion and r/AbortionDebate subreddits were 0.01 (SD 0.44) and -0.06 (SD 0.41), respectively. Emotionality scores were consistent across the r/Abortion and r/AbortionDebate subreddits; however, r/Abortion had a marginally higher average fear score of 0.36 (SD 0.39).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that people posting on abortion forums on Reddit are willing to share their beliefs, which manifested in diverse ways, such as sharing abortion stories including how their worldview changed, which critiques the value of dichotomized abortion identity labels, and information seeking. Notably, the style of discourse varied significantly by subreddit. r/Abortion was principally leveraged as an information and outreach source; r/AbortionDebate largely centered on debating across various legal, ethical, and moral abortion domains. Collectively, our findings suggest that abortion remains an opaque yet politically charged issue for people and that social media can be leveraged to understand views and circumstances surrounding abortion.

How "is" shapes "ought" for folk-biological concepts

Knowing which features are frequent among a biological kind (e.g., that most zebras have stripes) shapes people's representations of what category members are like (e.g., that typical zebras have stripes) and normative judgments about what they ought to be like (e.g., that zebras should have stripes). In the current work, we ask if people's inclination to explain why features are frequent is a key mechanism through which what "is" shapes beliefs about what "ought" to be. Across four studies (N = 591), we find that frequent features are often explained by appeal to feature function (e.g., that stripes are for camouflage), that functional explanations in turn shape judgments of typicality, and that functional explanations and typicality both predict normative judgments that category members ought to have functional features. We also identify the causal assumptions that license inferences from feature frequency and function, as well as the nature of the normative inferences that are drawn: by specifying an instrumental goal (e.g., camouflage), functional explanations establish a basis for normative evaluation. These findings shed light on how and why our representations of how the natural world is shape our judgments of how it ought to be.

A Framework for Online Public Health Debates: Some Design Elements for Visual Analytics Systems

Nowadays, many people are deeply concerned about their physical well-being; as a result, they invest much time and effort investigating health-related topics. In response to this, many online websites and social media profiles have been created, resulting in a plethora of information on such topics. In a given topic, oftentimes, much of the information is conflicting, resulting in online camps that have different positions and arguments. We refer to the collection of all such positionings and entrenched camps on a topic such as an online public health debate. The information people encounter regarding such debates can ultimately influence how they make decisions, what they believe, and how they act. Therefore, there is a need for public health stakeholders (i.e., people with a vested interest in public health issues) to be able to make sense of online debates quickly and accurately. In this paper, we present a framework-based approach for investigating online public health debates—a preliminary work that can be expanded upon. We first introduce the concept of online debate entities (ODEs), which is a generalization for those who participate in online debates (e.g., websites and Twitter profiles). We then present the framework ODIN (Online Debate entIty aNalyzer), in which we identify, define, and justify ODE attributes that we consider important for making sense of online debates. Next, we provide an overview of four online public health debates (vaccines, statins, cannabis, and dieting plans) using ODIN. Finally, we showcase four prototype visual analytics systems whose design elements are informed by the ODIN framework.

Us versus Them: The Debates on the Legislation of Same-Sex Marriage (1994 - 2015) in Taiwan

Taiwan, the first country in Asia to provide same-sex couples a legal right to marriage, has witnessed furious debate on both sides. To understand this debate, we combined content analysis and the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) method to capture themes and states of mind reflected in the news articles. Arguments based in human rights and reflecting heterosexual preferences which were observed elsewhere also dominated the discourses in Taiwan. First-person pronouns, positive and negative emotions, and differentiation were found to be associated with rights discourses and, in turn, support for same-sex marriage. The themes, the state of mind of the involved parties, and same-sex marriage legalization are further discussed.

How Has Cultural Heterosexism Affected Thinking about Divorce? Asymmetric Framing of Same-Gender and Mixed-Gender Divorces in News Media and in Minds

Herek's notion of cultural heterosexism describes an ideology that works implicitly through language, and leads non-heterosexuals to be framed as "others." National statistics in many countries indicate group differences between same-gender and mixed-gender couples in divorce rates, and we used media accounts and individual interpretation of group differences in divorce to operationalize it here. We found qualified support for three hypotheses in two studies. In Study 1, analysis of 412 English-language news articles on divorce indicated that comparative statements overwhelmingly positioned same-gender couples as figure and mixed-gender couples as ground. In Study 2, 88 participants read about how same-gender couples differed from mixed-gender couples, or about how mixed-gender couples differed from same-gender couples in their reasons for dissolving relationships. Results indicated that participants showed higher perceived legitimacy of inequality, higher sexual prejudice, and higher estimates of global divorce rates in the former conditions. Analysis of participants' explanations of group differences in divorce rates indicated that they spontaneously contrasted mixed-gender couples against same-gender couples more of the time. As the media discourse focused on male couples (Study 1) and the effects of linguistic framing was evident only when male couples were described (Study 2), we discuss how these studies, which operationalized and evidenced cultural heterosexism, may point to the emergence of homonormative ideologies that recognized gay men more than lesbians in twenty-first century politics.

Dilemmas of sexual citizenship: A critical social psychological analysis of Civil Union law representations in Greek Cypriot newspapers

In this article we bring a critical social-psychological approach to the study of sexual citizenship. This approach seeks to understand how citizenship is constructed through ideological resources and negotiated in local contexts. We do so by studying newspaper representations of the Civil Union (CU) law in the Cypriot context. This law represented a major legal development for a largely heteronormative, patriarchic social context and sparked debate around sexual rights in general. We analysed 82 opinion articles that appeared in four newspapers of different political orientations between 2011 and 2015, through thematic and critical discourse analysis. The analysis revealed that CU was debated in terms of two oppositional themes. The first theme debated whether CU protects universal rights or introduces special rights, which are either not deserved or create inequality. The second theme approached the CU law as a sign of a much-needed societal progress or as a sign of decline and national degeneration. We show how these themes draw upon two broader ideological dilemmas, that of universalism versus particularism and that of Occidentalism versus Orientalism, and discuss the implications of these ideological streams in constructing the boundaries of citizenship for LGBT+ in this context.

Exploring the relationship between lay theories of gender and attitudes to abortion in the context of a national referendum on abortion policy

The relationship between lay theories of gender and attitudes to abortion policy has received minimal empirical attention. An ongoing theoretical debate in the psychological essentialism literature queries whether biological attributions causally influence social attitudes or primarily function to justify existing attitudinal commitments. The current research used the context of a national referendum on abortion in Ireland to investigate whether endorsement of certain gender theories is contingent on their rhetorical construction as supporting particular attitudes to abortion. Two experimental studies were conducted online in the three weeks preceding the Irish abortion referendum. The studies tested whether participants would adapt their causal gender beliefs after reading that biological (Study 1; N = 348) or social (Study 2; N = 241) accounts of gender supported or conflicted with their intended vote in the referendum. Both studies showed the opposite effect: causal gender theories presented as conflicting with participants' voting intentions subsequently showed elevated support, relative to theories that purportedly aligned with participants' voting intentions. While results confirm that lay theories of gender are mutable, the direction of effects does not support the proposition that gender theories are selectively endorsed to support existing socio-political attitudes to abortion. Potential mechanisms for the results observed are discussed.