Using Information Processing Strategies to Predict Message Level Contagion in Social Media

  • Sara LevensEmail author
  • Omar ElTayeby
  • Tiffany Gallicano
  • Michael Brunswick
  • Samira Shaikh
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 965)


Social media content can have extensive online influence [1], but assessing offline influence using online behavior is challenging. Cognitive information processing strategies offer a potential way to code online behavior that may be more predictive of offline preferences, beliefs, and behavior than counting retweets or likes. In this study, we employ information processing strategies, particularly depth of processing, to assess message-level influence. Tweets from the Charlottesville protest in August 2017 were extracted with favorite count, retweet count, quote count, and reply count for each tweet. We present methods and formulae that incorporate favorite counts, retweet counts, quote counts, and reply counts in accordance with depth of processing theory to assess message-level contagion. Tests assessing the association between our message-level depth of processing estimates and user-level influence indicate that our formula are significantly associated with user level influence, while traditional methods using likes and retweet counts are less so.


Depth of processing Emotion contagion Influence Social media 



This work was supported in part by funding from the Charlotte Research Institute Targeted Research Internal Seed Program.


  1. 1.
    Tufecki, Z., Wilson, C.: Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: observations from Tahrir Square. J. Commun. 62, 363–379 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Parsons, J.: What is The Ideal Twitter Follower to Following Ratio? Web blog post, 1 April 2017. Follows.comGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kelly, N.: 4 ways to measure social media and its impact on your brand. Web blog post, 15 June 2010. Socialmediaexaminer.comGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bertsch, S., et al.: The generation effect: a meta-analytic review. Mem. Cogn. 35(2), 201–210 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Winstanley, P., Ligon Bjork, E.: Processing instructions and the generation effect: a test of the multifactor transfer-appropriate processing theory. Memory 5(3), 401–422 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Symons, C.S., Johnson, B.T.: The self-reference effect in memory: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 121(3), 371 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stahl, S.A., Fairbanks, M.M.: The effects of vocabulary instruction: a model-based meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 56(1), 72–110 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pennebaker, J.W., Francis, M.E., Booth, R.J.: Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. LIWC 2001, vol. 71. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahway (2001) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ahmed, S., Jaidka, K., Cho, J.: The 2014 Indian elections on Twitter: a comparison of campaign strategies of political parties. Telematics Inform. 33(4), 1071–1087 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fowler, J.H., Christakis, N.A.: Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study. BMJ 337, a2338 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kramer, A.D.I., Guillory, J.E., Hancock, J.T.: Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111(24), 8788–8790 (2014): 201320040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fan, R., Xu, K., Zhao, J.: Easier contagion and weaker ties make anger spread faster than joy in social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.03656 (2016)
  13. 13.
    Brady, W.J., et al.: Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114(28), 7313–7318 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berger, J., Milkman, K.L.: What makes online content viral? J. Mark. Res. 49(2), 192–205 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xu, X., et al.: Effects of level of processing on emotional memory: gist and details. Cogn. Emot. 25(1), 53–72 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shirky, C.: Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. Penguin, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sawyer, A.G.: The effects of repetition of refutational and supportive advertising appeals. J. Mark. Res. 10(1), 23–33 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krugman, H.E.: The impact of television advertising: learning without involvement. Public Opin. Quart. 29(3), 349–356 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karwowski, M.: 5 Reasons Your Brand Needs Nanoinfluencers in 2019. Web blog post, 28 January 2019. Campaign USGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara Levens
    • 1
    Email author
  • Omar ElTayeby
    • 1
  • Tiffany Gallicano
    • 1
  • Michael Brunswick
    • 1
  • Samira Shaikh
    • 1
  1. 1.University of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations