Sentiment is Not Stance: Target-Aware Opinion Classification for Political Text Analysis

IF 4.7 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Analysis Pub Date : 2022-04-22 DOI:10.1017/pan.2022.10
Samuel E. Bestvater, B. Monroe
{"title":"Sentiment is Not Stance: Target-Aware Opinion Classification for Political Text Analysis","authors":"Samuel E. Bestvater, B. Monroe","doi":"10.1017/pan.2022.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Sentiment analysis techniques have a long history in natural language processing and have become a standard tool in the analysis of political texts, promising a conceptually straightforward automated method of extracting meaning from textual data by scoring documents on a scale from positive to negative. However, while these kinds of sentiment scores can capture the overall tone of a document, the underlying concept of interest for political analysis is often actually the document’s stance with respect to a given target—how positively or negatively it frames a specific idea, individual, or group—as this reflects the author’s underlying political attitudes. In this paper, we question the validity of approximating author stance through sentiment scoring in the analysis of political texts, and advocate for greater attention to be paid to the conceptual distinction between a document’s sentiment and its stance. Using examples from open-ended survey responses and from political discussions on social media, we demonstrate that in many political text analysis applications, sentiment and stance do not necessarily align, and therefore sentiment analysis methods fail to reliably capture ground-truth document stance, amplifying noise in the data and leading to faulty conclusions.","PeriodicalId":48270,"journal":{"name":"Political Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2022.10","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Abstract Sentiment analysis techniques have a long history in natural language processing and have become a standard tool in the analysis of political texts, promising a conceptually straightforward automated method of extracting meaning from textual data by scoring documents on a scale from positive to negative. However, while these kinds of sentiment scores can capture the overall tone of a document, the underlying concept of interest for political analysis is often actually the document’s stance with respect to a given target—how positively or negatively it frames a specific idea, individual, or group—as this reflects the author’s underlying political attitudes. In this paper, we question the validity of approximating author stance through sentiment scoring in the analysis of political texts, and advocate for greater attention to be paid to the conceptual distinction between a document’s sentiment and its stance. Using examples from open-ended survey responses and from political discussions on social media, we demonstrate that in many political text analysis applications, sentiment and stance do not necessarily align, and therefore sentiment analysis methods fail to reliably capture ground-truth document stance, amplifying noise in the data and leading to faulty conclusions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
情绪不是立场:政治文本分析的目标意识观点分类
情感分析技术在自然语言处理中有着悠久的历史,并已成为政治文本分析的标准工具,它有望通过从积极到消极的尺度对文档进行评分,从文本数据中提取意义,从而提供一种概念上简单易懂的自动化方法。然而,虽然这些类型的情绪得分可以捕捉到文件的整体基调,但政治分析的潜在兴趣概念通常是文件对给定目标的立场-它如何积极或消极地构建特定的想法,个人或群体-因为这反映了作者潜在的政治态度。在本文中,我们质疑通过情感评分在政治文本分析中近似作者立场的有效性,并主张更多地关注文件情感与其立场之间的概念区别。使用开放式调查回应和社交媒体上政治讨论的例子,我们证明在许多政治文本分析应用程序中,情绪和立场不一定一致,因此情绪分析方法无法可靠地捕获基本事实文件立场,放大数据中的噪音并导致错误的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Political Analysis
Political Analysis POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Political Analysis chronicles these exciting developments by publishing the most sophisticated scholarship in the field. It is the place to learn new methods, to find some of the best empirical scholarship, and to publish your best research.
期刊最新文献
Synthetic Replacements for Human Survey Data? The Perils of Large Language Models NonRandom Tweet Mortality and Data Access Restrictions: Compromising the Replication of Sensitive Twitter Studies Generalizing toward Nonrespondents: Effect Estimates in Survey Experiments Are Broadly Similar for Eager and Reluctant Participants Estimators for Topic-Sampling Designs Flexible Estimation of Policy Preferences for Witnesses in Committee Hearings
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1