http://dx.doi.org/10.6129/CJP.2007.4904.08
Chinese Journal of Psychology, 49(4), 2007， 451-470

黃囇莉（國立清華大學通識教育中心）

摘要

先前的研究（Huang, Liu, & Chang, 2004）顯示，台灣人民的國族認同正處於「台灣人認同」與「中國人認同」的雙重認同困境中，而此困境有其歷史根源及在文化與政治上與日俱增的矛盾。為了進一步理解雙重認同的意識型態及其心理，本研究以社會建構論觀點，將國族認同視為意識覺醒與努力後之產物，而新編擬國族意識之測量題目。同時，將國族意識（認知信念）、國族認同的情感及對未來國族的
想像（行為傾向），合併而為國族認同之意識型態（ideology）。接著探討此意識型態是否得以有效區辨台灣境內主要的三種類別化之國族認同，同時也具有可區辨之前置心理因子。本研究取樣台灣各地區民眾1368 人， 2003年間以自陳式問卷進行資料蒐集。問卷中以新編40 題項測量國族意識之認知信念，因素分析結果顯示，國族意識有四因子：大中華意識、國民黨正統論、分離獨特意識、台灣小而美；以經本土化修訂後集體自尊（collective selfesteem）量表測量國族認同之情感；以兩岸統一或台灣獨立之支持強度作為對國族未來想像之行為傾向。另外，以強迫選擇方式，將研究參與者區分為「中國人優先」、「台灣人優先」、「祇是台灣人」三種國族認同類型，以作為國族認同意識型態之區辨效標。還有，更進一步以「社會支配性」、「右翼權威性人格」心理態度量表，作為國族認同意識型態之前置因子。資料分析結果顯示，三種不同國族認同者不但在國族意識上有顯著差異，在認同情感、未來想像及社會支配性與右翼權威性格上也有顯著差異。以區辨分析法（discriminant analysis）就三種國族認同類型做區辨分析，結果亦顯示，三種國族認同類型在意識型態上有清楚且可區辨的多元組型，其中「台灣小而美」與「台灣人尊嚴」居於意識型態之中間，且人數最多，而「分離獨特意識」結合「支持獨立」與另一組合「大中華意識」、「國民黨正統論」及「支持統一」各居於兩端，亦即國族認同的意識型態呈現鐘型分布，而藍綠的政黨支持呈現M型雙峰分布。最後，以結構方程模型（Structure
Equation Model ， SEM）就心理變項與國族意識型態之二階因子（潛在變項）從事正準相關分析，結構模型也顯現三種國族意識型態有不同的心理基礎。

關鍵詞：國族認同、集體自我、集體意識、右
翼權威性人格、社會支配性

M Shape vs. Bell Shape：The Ideology of National Identity and Its Psychological Basis in Taiwan

Li-Li Huang（Center for General Education, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan）

Abstract

According to Huang, Liu and Chang (2004), national identity in Taiwan is facing a dilemma of double identity,
as both Taiwanese identity and Chinese identity are viable. This predicament has deep historical roots, but
controversies between political and cultural aspects of identity have been increasing. In order to know more
about the substance of double identity and its psychological basis, the present follow up research treated national
identity as an awakening national consciousness. Collective self-esteem (affective component) and identity 
consciousness (cognitive component) combined with imagination of future nationhood (behavioral tendency) to
form an ideology of national identity, which was measured using Likert-style items and entered into a  discriminant analysis against categorical measures of national identity. 1368 adult participants from all regions in Taiwan completed a self-report questionnaire in 2003. An indigenous revised scale of collective self-esteem measured affective aspects of identity, and forty new items about identity consciousness were developed. The results of factor analysis indicated that national identity consciousness consisted of four sets of beliefs: ‘‘Greater Chinese consciousness’’, ‘‘Kuomingtang (KMT) legitimacy’’, ‘‘separation consciousness’’, and ‘‘Taiwanese refinement’’. Whether participants supported reunification or independence served as the measure of imagined future nationhood. A categorical measure divided participants into three national identities based on forced choice survey responses: ‘‘Chinese First’’, ‘‘Taiwanese First’’, and ‘‘Taiwanese Only’’. These three kinds of national identity were regarded as dependent variables for the ideology of national identity. In addition, personality scales such as ‘‘social dominance orientation’’, ‘‘right-wing authoritarian personality’’ were regarded as antecedent factors of the ideology of national identity. Results demonstrated that people with three types of
national identity showed significant differences on four sets of national identity consciousness, collective  selfesteem, future imagination and other relevant variables. Discriminant analysis was used to provide a multivariate of analysis of the three types of national identity, and results indicated that ‘‘Taiwanese refinement’’ and ‘‘Taiwanese self-esteem’’ were in the middle of ideology and most people agreed with them, ‘‘separation consciousness’’ combined with ‘‘support for independence’’ on the one pole; and ‘‘Greater Chinese  consciousness’’ ‘‘KMT legitimacy’’ and ‘‘support for unification’’ were on the other opposite pole of ideology. In other words, the distribution of the ideology of national identity was bell shaped but political party support was double peaks M shaped. Finally, a Structural Equation Model (SEM) was used to model the influences of psychological factors on the ideology of national identity, and the indicated that the three types of categorical national identity had different psychological bases. 

Key words: national identity, collective self-identity, collective consciousness, right -wing authoritarian,
social dominant orientation