Abstract
Social media is the primary platform for discussions and reactions during various social events. Studies in this space focus on the aggregate opinion and sentiment analysis but fail to analyze the micro-dynamics. In this work, we present a case study of the 2016 US Presidential Debates, analyzing the user opinion micro-dynamics across the timeline. We present an opinion variation analysis coupled with micro and macro level user analysis in order to explain opinion change. We also identify and characterize varied user-groups derived through this analyses. We discover that aggregate change in opinion is better explained by the differential influx of polarized population rather than the change in individual’s stance or opinion.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Refer to Appendix A for the refined Hashtag list.
- 2.
- 3.
Refer to Appendix B for results of CNN model on SemEval 2016 Task 6 test-set.
- 4.
We use a 2-sample t-test to compare the population distributions.
- 5.
https://www.debates.org/index.php?page=debate-transcripts. Refer to Appendix C and Appendix A for the Topic and Hashtag list respectively.
- 6.
We refer the reader to the LIWC2015 development manual [17] for more information.
References
Agarwal, T., Burghardt, K., Lerman, K.: On quitting: performance and practice in online game play. In: Eleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (2017)
Alipourfard, N., Fennell, P.G., Lerman, K.: Can you trust the trend? discovering Simpson’s paradoxes in social data. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pp. 19–27. ACM (2018)
Allcott, H., Gentzkow, M.: Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. J. Econ. Perspect. 31(2), 211–36 (2017)
Anstead, N., O’Loughlin, B.: Social media analysis and public opinion: the 2010 UK general election. J. Comput.-Mediated Commun. 20(2), 204–220 (2014)
Bickel, P.J., Hammel, E.A., O’Connell, J.W.: Sex bias in graduate admissions: data from Berkeley. Science 187(4175), 398–404 (1975)
Borge-Holthoefer, J., Magdy, W., Darwish, K., Weber, I.: Content and network dynamics behind Egyptian political polarization on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, pp. 700–711. ACM (2015)
Bovet, A., Morone, F., Makse, H.A.: Validation of Twitter opinion trends with national polling aggregates: Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 8673 (2018)
Chen, Y.C., Liu, Z.Y., Kao, H.Y.: IKM at semeval-2017 task 8: convolutional neural networks for stance detection and rumor verification. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2017), pp. 465–469 (2017)
Himelboim, I., Sweetser, K.D., Tinkham, S.F., Cameron, K., Danelo, M., West, K.: Valence-based homophily on twitter: network analysis of emotions and political talk in the 2012 presidential election. New Med. Soc. 18(7), 1382–1400 (2016)
Kim, Y.: Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 1746–1751 (2014)
Lai, M., Hernández FarÃas, D.I., Patti, V., Rosso, P.: Friends and enemies of Clinton and Trump: using context for detecting stance in political Tweets. In: Sidorov, G., Herrera-Alcántara, O. (eds.) MICAI 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10061, pp. 155–168. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62434-1_13
Littman, J., Wrubel, L., Kerchner, D.: 2016 United States presidential election Tweet ids (2016). https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/PDI7IN
Liu, C., et al.: IUCL at semeval-2016 task 6: an ensemble model for stance detection in Twitter. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2016), pp. 394–400 (2016)
Martinez-Romo, J., Araujo, L., Borge-Holthoefer, J., Arenas, A., Capitán, J.A., Cuesta, J.A.: Disentangling categorical relationships through a graph of co-occurrences. Phys. Rev. E 84(4), 046108 (2011)
Mohammad, S., Kiritchenko, S., Sobhani, P., Zhu, X., Cherry, C.: Semeval-2016 task 6: detecting stance in tweets. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2016), pp. 31–41 (2016)
Patra, B.G., Das, D., Bandyopadhyay, S.: JU\_NLP at semeval-2016 task 6: detecting stance in Tweets using support vector machines. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2016), pp. 440–444 (2016)
Pennebaker, J.W., Boyd, R.L., Jordan, K., Blackburn, K.: The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Technical report (2015)
Primario, S., Borrelli, D., Iandoli, L., Zollo, G., Lipizzi, C.: Measuring polarization in Twitter enabled in online political conversation: the case of 2016 US presidential election. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration (IRI), pp. 607–613. IEEE (2017)
Romero, D.M., Meeder, B., Kleinberg, J.: Differences in the mechanics of information diffusion across topics: idioms, political hashtags, and complex contagion on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 695–704. ACM (2011)
Wei, W., Zhang, X., Liu, X., Chen, W., Wang, T.: pkudblab at SemEVAL-2016 task 6: a specific convolutional neural network system for effective stance detection. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2016), pp. 384–388 (2016)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
A Hashtag list
Following hashtags were used as distant supervision to annotate 3.8 million tweets from the Harvard Dataverse 2016 United States Presidential Election Tweet Ids Dataset [12]. Hashtags in Appendix A.1 and A.2 were combined to label tweets with stance in favor of Hillary (or equivalently against Trump). Whereas, hashtags in Appendixs A.3 and  A.4 were combined to label tweets with positive stance towards Trump (or equivalently negative stance towards Hillary).
1.1 A.1 Hashtags in favor of Hillary (+, Hillary)
hillaryforpr, imwithher2016, imwithhillary, hillaryforpresident, hillaryforamerica, hereiamwithher, estoyconella, hillarysopresidential, uniteblue, hillstorm2016, bluewave2016, welovehillary, itrusther, bluewave, hrcisournominee, itrusthillary, standwithmadampotus, momsdemandhillary, madamepresident, madampresident, imwither, herstory, republicans4hillary, hillarysoqualified, werewithher, vote4hillary, strongertogether, readyforhillary, hillafornia, unitedagainsthate, votehillary, wearewithher, republicansforhillary, hrc2016, connecttheleft, yeswekaine, voteblue2016, hillary2016, sheswithus, hillyes, iamwithher, heswithher, voteblue, hillaryaprovenleader, imwiththem, bernwithher, ohhillyes, imwithher, clintonkaine2016, whyimwithher, turnncblue, hillarystrong
1.2 A.2 Hashtags against Trump (-, Trump)
nevertrumppence, lgbthatestrumpparty, boycotttrump, orangehitler, wheresyourtaxes, poordonald, losertrump, notrumpanytime, dirtydonald, drumpf, trumpsopoor, nodonaldtrump, makedonalddrumpfagain, nastywomen, defeattrump, sleazydonald, weakdonald, unfittrump, trump20never, loserdonald, trumplies, dumbdonald, trumpliesmatter, releaseyourtaxes, crybabytrump, freethedelegates, lyingtrump, nastywomenvote, trumpleaks, stupidtrump, stoptrump, trumpthefraud, racisttrump, dumpthetrump, dumptrump, anyonebuttrump, wherertrumpstaxes, crookeddonald, treasonoustrump, antitrump, nevertrump, notrump, womentrumpdonald, nevergop, donthecon, crookeddrumpf, traitortrump, showusyourtaxes, trumptrainwreck, lyingdonald, crookedtrump, lyindonald, ripgop, trumptreason, lyintrump, chickentrump
1.3 A.3 Hashtags against Hillary (-, Hillary)
hillarysolympics, hillaryforprison, hillaryforprison2016, moretrustedthanhillary, heartlesshillary, neverclinton, handcuffhillary, queenofcorrupton, crookedhiliary, nomoreclintons, hillary4jail, fbimwithher, clintoncrimefamily, hillno, queenofcorruption, hillarylostme, ohhillno, billclintonisrapist, democratliesmatter, lyingcrookedhillary, hypocritehillary, crookedclintons, hillarylies, neverhilary, shelies, releasethetranscripts, stophillary2016, riskyhillary, hillaryliedpeopledied, corrupthillary, hillary4prison2016, nohillary2016, wehatehillary, whatmakeshillaryshortcircuit, crookedhillaryclinton, deletehillary, dropouthillary, lyinhillary, hillaryliesmatter, nevereverhillary, stophillary, neverhilllary, clintoncorruption, clintoncrime, notwithher, hillary2jail, imnotwithher, lockherup, corruptclintons, indicthillary, sickhillary, crookedhilary, crookedhillary, hillaryrottenclinton, theclintoncontamination, lyinghillary, clintoncollapse, clintoncrimefoundation, neverhillary, criminalhillary, crookedclinton, hillary4prison, killary, iwillneverstandwithher
1.4 A.4 Hashtags in favor of Trump (+, Trump)
trumppence2016, trumpstrong, donaldtrumpforpresident, rednationrising, deplorablesfortrump, makeamericaworkagain, latinos4trump, trumpiswithyou, blacks4trump, feelthetrump, votetrumppence2016, bikers4trump, votetrump2016, votetrumppence, americafirst, trumpcares, draintheswamp, votetrumpusa, trumppence16, gaysfortrump, buildthewall, trump2016, trumpwon, alwaystrump, onlytrump, maga3x, veteransfortrump, latinosfortrump, cafortrump, gays4trump, makeamericasafeagain, latinoswithtrump, trump16, woman4trump, womenfortrump, makeamericagreat, votegop, makeamericagreatagain, maga, trumptrain, gotrump, bikersfortrump, votetrumppence16, feminineamerica4trump, trumpwins, imwithhim, buildthatwall, babesfortrump, america1st, securetheborder, vets4trump, democrats4trump, women4trump, trumpforpresident, magax3, blacksfortrump, heswithus, presidenttrump, votetrump
B Evaluation on SemEval2016 Task 6 test-set
We evaluate our best performing CNN model on SemEval2016 Task 6 test-set with target ’Hillary Clinton’. This dataset contains 295 tweets with gold labels of ’AGAINST’, ’FAVOR’ or ’NEUTRAL’ as stance towards Hillary. Since our CNN is trained on ’FAVOR’ and ’AGAINST’ stance, following the same experimental setup, we extract tweets that are in favor ( or against the target (hillary clinton). We find that our model model performs well on the test-set with weighted F1-score of 0.75 (See Table 3 for the confusion matrix).
C Topic list
money, japan, justice, climate change, economy, rapist, healthcare, podesta, obamacare, abortion, foreign, women, nato, cyber, russia, weapon, podesta email, voter fraud, benghazi, iran, assault, email, blm, gun, tape, job, podestaemail, middle east, police, p2, climatechange, 2ndamendment, amendment, audit, lgbt, 2nd amendment, appoint, climate, nafta, war, second amendment, black, middle class, mosul, tax, nuke, 2a, scotus, korea, isis, iraq, haiti, putin, trade, paytoplay, voterfraud, woman, china, law, nuclear, syria, secondamendment, rig, debt
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Khosla, S., Chhaya, N., Jindal, S., Saha, O., Srivastava, M. (2019). Do Events Change Opinions on Social Media? Studying the 2016 US Presidential Debates. In: Weber, I., et al. Social Informatics. SocInfo 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11864. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34971-4_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34971-4_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-34970-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-34971-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)