摘要
宗教一直是人類經驗不可分割的一部分，歷史上沒有一段時間宗教不是事件結果的主要因素。宗教對我們目前的狀況產生了正面和負面的影響。現今，許多宗教信仰深深植根於世界各國的法律和道德之中。另一方面，宗教差異是許多戰爭和無數死亡的原因。有鑒於這些極端之結果，我們可以觀察到不同地區對宗教變化的容忍程度。在這項研究中，我們將深入探討不同地區於三個極具影響力和爭議的宗教之間的情感差異。雖然眾所周知大多數宗教都倡導社會協同作用並幫助調節情緒，但考慮到地區的位置和時間，各種宗教的信徒在日常生活的這些方面的差異甚至更為明顯。因此，我們對居住在加拿大，美利堅合眾國（美國）和英國的天主教徒，佛教徒和伊斯蘭教徒（穆斯林）的社交媒體文本進行了大規模的情感分析。在使用最近開發的情感模式分類器和LIWC2015，且過濾掉所有快樂推文（joyful tweets）之後，我們基於情感興趣比較不同位置的三種宗教。重點關注於LIWC2015的類別包含：健康、家庭、攝取、休閒、金錢、權力、性、家庭、朋友、宗教和工作。在這項研究中，我們將比較和分析三種宗教之間的情感興趣，以及上述之11個類別的情緒關係百分比，本研究之主要目標，希望通過比較他們的快樂推文（joyful tweets），找到最適合信徒實踐信仰的地點。本研究之結果顯示，儘管有宗教信仰或地理位置，但所有子小組都對於個人事務感到相當多的快樂情緒。同時也證實先前的研究結果，部分國家為宗教之表達和實踐提供了更佳的環境。

Abstract
Religion has always been an integral part of the human experience, and there hasn’t been a span of time in history in which religion was not a major factor in the outcome of events. Religions have given both positive and negative influences on our current state of affairs. Currently, many religious beliefs are deeply embedded in the laws and ethics of every nation around the world. On the other hand, religious differences have been the cause of many wars and countless deaths. As a result of these polarizing consequences, we have seen different regions’ tolerance level towards religion change. In this research, we will be taking a deep dive into how different regions influence emotional differences of three of the more influential and controversial religions. Although most religions are known to advocate social synergy and help regulate emotions, it is even less evident to what length believers of various religions differ in these aspects of daily life when you take into account regional location and time. We therefore carried out a large-scale emotional analysis of social media text of Catholics, Buddhists and Islamists (Muslims) living in Canada, the United States of America (US) and the United Kingdom (UK). After filtering out all the joyful tweets using a recently developed emotional pattern classifier and LIWC2015, we then compare and contrast the three religions across different locations based upon emotional interest. The focused interest considerations would be based on categories from LIWC2015. The categories chosen were health, home, ingest, leisure, money, power, sexual, family, friends, religion and work. In this research we will be comparing and analyzing the emotional interest of three religions as well as what percentage of the tweets are geared towards our predefined 11 categories. Main goal is to find the most suitable location for adherents to practice their faith by comparing their joyful tweets. Our results show that despite religious affiliation or location, all sub-groups were substantially more joyful about personal matters. Also, as confirmed by previous research, certain countries provide a better environment for religious expression and practice.

References

[1] F. Yang, “A Definition of Religion for the Personal-Scientific Study of Religion,” Religion in ChinaSurvival and Revival under Communist Rule, pp.24-43, 2011

[2] J. Merritt, “It’s Getting Harder to Talk about God,” October 13, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/13/opinion/sunday/talk-god-sprituality-christian.html

[3] A. L. Gonzales, J. T. Hancock, “Mirror, Mirror on my Facebook Wall: Effects of Exposure to Facebook on Self-Esteem,” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, And Personal Networking, vol. 14, no. 1-2, 2011,

[4] Pew Research Center, “The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050,” 2015, https://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

[5] C-Y. Chen, T-R. Huang, “Christians and Buddhists Are Comparably Happy on Twitter: A Large-Scale Linguistic Analysis of Religious Differences in Personal, Cognitive, and Emotional Tendencies”. Front. Psychol. 10:113. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00113

[6] Y-F. Yang. “Exploring the impact of religion on the emotional distribution of its audience through data from Personal media”

[7] J. W. Pennebaker, R. L. Boyd, K. Jordan, and K. Blackburn, “The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin,”

[8] E. Saravia, H-C. T. Liu, Y-S. Chen, “DeepEmo: Learning and Enriching Pattern-Based Emotion Representations,”

[9] C. Argueta, F. H. Calderon, and Y-S. Chen, “Multilingual emotion classifier using unsupervised pattern extraction from microblog data. Intelligent Data
Analysis,” 20(6):1477–1502, 2016.

[10] Pew Research Center, “Global Uptick in Government Restrictions,” June 21, 2018.

[11] Y-S. Chen, P-C Kuo, “Automatic sarcasm detection through emotion reactions on Personal media platforms,” 2017.

[12] R. Plutchik, “The nature of emotions human emotions have deep evolutionary roots, a fact that may explain their complexity and provide tools for clinical practice. American scientist, 89(4):344– 350, 2001

[13] Central Intelligence Agency World Fact Book, “People and Society: Canada,” https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html. [Accessed July 2019].

[14] Central Intelligence Agency World Fact Book, “People and Society: United Kingdom,” https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html. [Accessed July 2019].

[15] Central Intelligence Agency World Fact Book, “People and Society: United States,” https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html. [Accessed July 2019].

[16] U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “Religious Discrimination,” https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm. [Accessed July 2019].

[17] Pew Research Center, “U.S. Muslims Concerned About Their Place in Society, but Continue to Believe in the American Dream,” July 26, 2017

[18] University of Waterloo, “Muslims face high rates of discrimination in Canada,” March 19, 2018, https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/muslims-face-high-rates-discrimination-canada. [Accessed July 2019].

[19] R. Ysseldyk, M. Talebi, K. Matheson, I. Bloemraad, H. Anisman, “Religious and Ethnic Discrimination: Differential Implications for Personal Support Engagement, Civic Involvement, and Political Consciousness,” Journal of Personal and Political Psychology, 2014, Vol. 2(1), 347–376, doi:10.5964/jspp.v2i1.232.

[20] M.L. McHugh, The chi-square test of independence, Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2013;23(2):143-9. doi: 10.11613/BM.2013.018. PubMed PMID: 23894860; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3900058.