Taiwan's Sunflower Movement

[Cognitive Heuristics Reflecting International Perceptions of Taiwan's Sunflower Movement]

Here is my take on the cognitive heuristics involved in an opinion piece on a recent event:

http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2014/04/taiwans-flawed-sunflower-movement/

The title of the article, "Taiwan's Flawed Sunflower Movement," instantly exploits the primacy effect, causing the reader's opinion of the Sunflower Movement to "anchor" onto the idea that it was "flawed," from which point it would then adjust but most likely to an insufficient degree (anchoring and adjustment heuristic). Most readers would know little about Taiwanese politics, whether historical or current, so the first information they might obtain about the situation might be this very title, which pairs "Taiwan's Sunflower Movement" with the unambiguously negative label, "Flawed." Although the rest of the article appears to take a relatively neutral tone in analyzing the political situation, the negative connotation of "Flawed" primes the reader to interpret all the facts against the actions of the Taiwanese youth. Thus the effect of this label is especially strong in establishing from the outset that the Sunflower Movement to be discussed is at best futile, and at worst, misguided.

Visual salience is also employed here, with certain key interpretations and phrases bolded: "treaty would increase investment in Taiwan and create more jobs for the youth," "Taiwanese law students began protesting the treaty in front of the President’s offices in Taipei," "violent clashes," "occupation of the Legislative Yuan (Council)," "historical friction," "Taiwan and China held direct government-to-government talks for the first time," " increasing emigration of Taiwanese residents to Shanghai," "the CSSTA proposal would seem like a beneficial initiative for Taiwan’s economy," "reunification of Taiwan to the rest of China," and more. The bolded statements are more consistent with a pro-China political stance rather than representing a balanced view of the two main factions in Taiwan; namely, the idea that the trade agreement is beneficial to the Taiwanese public is promoted by the official statements given by the pro-China (Kuomintang) government currently in power, both to justify their decision and to imply that the Taiwanese student protestors are immaturely rejecting something that is "for their good."

Representativeness and familiarity heuristics also affect the readers' interpretation of the article. Even for me, who was literally two blocks down the street during the protest, and witnessed the quiet, peaceful organization of the students in person, the description of their activities as "protests" which escalated into "violent clashes" immediately fits with my schemas of aggressive, ambitious, and probably misguided political activists. If I didn't know some of the students in person, and that thousands of volunteers among the protestors organized not only trash disposal, recycling of plastics, physical exercise regimes, food distribution, etc., and that professors from several universities participated either directly by lecturing at the site of the protest instead of in school buildings and/or funding the trip from south Taiwan to the capital or indirectly by overlooking student absences, reading this article would likely have led me to think of the protest as "more or less like any other." And my general stereotype (or schema) of protests, even in America, is that they are often relatively irrational, emotionally charged, immature, and/or excessive. The result is that the Sunflower Movement, while achieving great sympathy among Taiwanese throughout the country and even abroad, is less effective than its leaders might hope in raising international awareness of their fundamental goal to promote an equitable, American-styled democracy in Taiwan and preserve the country's autonomy from the Chinese government.

References to the "historical friction" between China and Taiwan further lead the reader to discount the aims of the current protest (to increase transparency, in accordance with democratic ideals) as an excuse for expressing "historical," and thus perhaps out-dated or unreasonable anti-China sentiments. Juxtaposing the current "friction" to the "direct government-to-government talks" subtly hints that the current state is characterized by civil unrest and conflict, whereas reunification (or at least cooperation, even on China's terms) with China would lead to future peace. The concept of harmony is strongly appealing to us, and in this way the progression of the paragraph from "friction" towards possible peace primes the reader to be more in favor of the trade agreement, and less sympathetic toward the Sunflower Movement.

Although the intent of these bolded statement is ostensibly to signal statements that are backed by links to outside references rather than a direct opinion, it is notable that other statements within the article that could be construed as more pro-Taiwan are relatively muted: "many disagree with him [Taiwan's president Ma Ying-jeou]," "about 100,000 people participated in the occupation of the Legislative Yuan [...] that lasted [from March 18] until April 10," "greater economic integration with China would give the mainland too much influence over Taiwan," and "the Sunflower Movement has been calling for [...] increased transparency." The article also omitted the over 500,000 people estimated to have participated in person in the Taipei mass rally on March 30. Overall, the article fails to reflect the degree to which the student protest was backed by popular sentiment throughout Taiwan, and even by Taiwanese overseas. By citing a certain kind of example more than others, the article exploits the availability heuristic to persuade the reader of its particular view. This may be part of the reason why the international perceptions of events such as the Sunflower Movement tend to align most closely with the official views issued by the party in power, rather than accurately reflecting popular sentiment.

The neutral tone of the article makes the opinion of the author seem more credible, because the statements "sound" factual. As a result, the reader is inclined to be sympathetic to the views expressed in the article (especially if this is the first one encounters on the topic, due to primacy effect), which may cause readers not to realize how contentious the issue is, even despite references to the longstanding tension between China and Taiwan, and the violent expulsion of students from government buildings. The professional layout of the online journal and the reputable title (Brown Political Review) further establishes credibility. If one did not read the author bio or the "About" section of the site one might be led to believe that a political science professor, rather than a freshman in college, had written the opinion piece, and perhaps come to take the stance of this article as a definitive interpretation of the events which occurred in Taiwan.

Ultimately, the heuristics dominate the way events are perceived for the author of the article as well as for most readers. Since the author of the article is not directly involved with Taiwanese politics, one might infer that she was not consciously choosing to support one political stance over another. Rather, her intent was likely to represent the events in a balanced way, providing neutral political analysis that might offer more insight on the motives and implications of the Sunflower Movement for both sides. However, the article fails in this regard, though I would expect it to be quite successful in convincing readers that Taiwan's Sunflower Movement was, from the very beginning, "Flawed."