American Journal of Applied Psychology
ISSN (Print): 2333-472X ISSN (Online): 2333-4738 Website: http://www.sciepub.com/journal/ajap Editor-in-chief: Apply for this position
Open Access
Journal Browser
Go
American Journal of Applied Psychology. 2014, 2(5), 109-113
DOI: 10.12691/ajap-2-5-2
Open AccessArticle

Measuring Twitter Sentiment and Implications for Social Psychological Research

Jason D. Carr1,

1University of Texas of the Permian Basin

Pub. Date: October 19, 2014

Cite this paper:
Jason D. Carr. Measuring Twitter Sentiment and Implications for Social Psychological Research. American Journal of Applied Psychology. 2014; 2(5):109-113. doi: 10.12691/ajap-2-5-2

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine whether Twitter comments on moral issues might be classified into sentiment categories and whether underlying emotions or thoughts will influence online interactions differently than they do in the real world. A mixed methods study involving qualitative analysis was conducted to compare Twitter sentiment about a current emotionally charged topic – immigration – amongst users. Results indicated that 73% of the commenters favorably view the idea of immigration reform and/or immigrant acceptance into the U.S. and are open to online dialog. Conversely, the findings for negative comments demonstrated that users likely have underlying feelings or thoughts on the subject of immigration that in turn may cause them to interact differently online than they do in a real world setting. Stereotyping and/or bigotry may influence their communications both online and off. These findings support the need for further research to improve upon existing social psychology theories. Additionally, despite challenges present in studies of this nature, Twitter shows great promise for conducting social psychological studies in the future.

Keywords:
Twitter immigration sentiment stereotypes bigotry

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]  Bradley, M., & Lang, P. (1999). Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings (Technical Report C-1). University of Florida, Center for Research in Phychophysiology. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/42601042/ Affective-Norms-for-English-Words.
 
[2]  Brehm, S. S., & Kassin, S. M. (1996). Social Psychology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
 
[3]  Chelaru, S., Ismail, A. S., Siersdorfer, S., & Nejdl, W. (2013). Analyzing, detecting, and exploiting sentiments in web queries. Retrieved from http://www.l3s.de/~siersdorfer/ sources/2013/tweb13-sentiment-queries.pdf.
 
[4]  Chew, C., & Eysenbach, G. (2010). Pandemics in the age of Twitter: Content analysis of tweets during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak. Plos One, 5(11). Retrieved from http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0014118.
 
[5]  Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Gonçalves, B., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2011, July). Political polarization on Twitter. Report for the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved from http://truthy.indiana.edu/site_media/pdfs/ conover_icwsm2011_polarization.pdf.
 
[6]  Doverspike, D., Taylor, M. A., & Arthur, W. (2006). Psychological perspective on affirmative action. New York, NY: Novinka Books.
 
[7]  eBizMBA (2013). Top 15 most popular social networking sites. eBizMBA Guide. Retrieved from http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/social-networking-websites.
 
[8]  Gorham, B. W. (2010). Considerations of media effects: the social psychology of stereotypes: implications for media audiences. Beyond Blackface: Africana Images In Us Media (93-101). USA: Kendall Hunt Publishing.
 
[9]  Jiang, L., Yu, M., Zhou, M., Liu, X., & Zhao, T. (2011). Target-dependent Twitter sentiment classification. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Vol. 1 (pp. 151-160).
 
[10]  Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist 39, 341-50.
 
[11]  Kohlberg, L. (1973). The claim to moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral judgment. The Journal of Philosophy, 70(18), 630-646.
 
[12]  Latane, B., Nowak, A., & Szamrej, J. (1990). From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. Psychological Review, 97(3), 362-376.
 
[13]  Lee, T. L. & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Not an out-group, not yet an in-group: Immigrants in the stereotype content model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 751-768.
 
[14]  Ovadia, S. (2009). Exploring the potential of Twitter as a research tool. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 28(4), 202-205.
 
[15]  Paltoglou, G., Gobron, S., Skowron, M., Thelwall, M., & Thalmann, D. (2010). Sentiment analysis of informal textual communication in cyberspace. Proceedings of Engage, 2010 (pp. 13-25). Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/3005498/Sentiment_analysis_of_ informal_textual_communication_in_cyberspace.
 
[16]  Reyna, C., Dobria, O. & Wetherell, G. (2013). The complexity and ambivalence of immigration attitudes: ambivalent stereotypes predict conflicting attitudes toward immigration policies. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19(3), 342-356.
 
[17]  Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161.
 
[18]  Russell, J. A., Lewicka, M., & Niit, T. (1989). A cross-cultural study of a circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 848.
 
[19]  Schweitzer, F., & Garcia, D. (2010). An agent-based model of collective emotions in online communities. The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, 77(4), 533-545.
 
[20]  Spielberger, C. (2004). Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
 
[21]  Waters, R. D., & Jamal, J. Y. (2011). Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit organizations’ Twitter updates. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 321-324.
 
[22]  Wilson, T., Wiebe, J., & Hoffmann, P. (2005, October). Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 347-354).
 
[23]  Young, K. (1930). Public opinion. In Chapter 24, The Organs of Public Opinion. Social Psychology: An Analysis of Social Behavior (pp. 570-598). New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
 
[24]  Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.