社交媒体上的情感对决:分析用户对2016年美国总统竞选的反应

IF 2.1 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Global Knowledge Memory and Communication Pub Date : 2023-10-02 DOI:10.1108/gkmc-02-2023-0060
Marina Bagić Babac
{"title":"社交媒体上的情感对决:分析用户对2016年美国总统竞选的反应","authors":"Marina Bagić Babac","doi":"10.1108/gkmc-02-2023-0060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose Social media platforms are highly visible platforms, so politicians try to maximize their benefits from their use, especially during election campaigns. On the other side, people express their views and sentiments toward politicians and political issues on social media, thus enabling them to observe their online political behavior. Therefore, this study aims to investigate user reactions on social media during the 2016 US presidential campaign to decide which candidate invoked stronger emotions on social media. Design/methodology/approach For testing the proposed hypotheses regarding emotional reactions to social media content during the 2016 presidential campaign, regression analysis was used to analyze a data set that consists of Trump’s 996 posts and Clinton’s 1,253 posts on Facebook. The proposed regression models are based on viral (likes, shares, comments) and emotional Facebook reactions (Angry, Haha, Sad, Surprise, Wow) as well as Russell’s valence, arousal, dominance (VAD) circumplex model for valence, arousal and dominance. Findings The results of regression analysis indicate how Facebook users felt about both presidential candidates. For Clinton’s page, both positive and negative content are equally liked, while Trump’s followers prefer funny and positive emotions. For both candidates, positive and negative content influences the number of comments. Trump’s followers mostly share positive content and the content that makes them angry, while Clinton’s followers share any content that does not make them angry. Based on VAD analysis, less dominant content, with high arousal and more positive emotions, is more liked on Trump’s page, where valence is a significant predictor for commenting and sharing. More positive content is more liked on Clinton’s page, where both positive and negative emotions with low arousal are correlated to commenting and sharing of posts. Originality/value Building on an empirical data set from Facebook, this study shows how differently the presidential candidates communicated on social media during the 2016 election campaign. According to the findings, Trump used a hard campaign strategy, while Clinton used a soft strategy.","PeriodicalId":43718,"journal":{"name":"Global Knowledge Memory and Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Emotional showdown on social media: analyzing user reactions to the 2016 US presidential campaign\",\"authors\":\"Marina Bagić Babac\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/gkmc-02-2023-0060\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose Social media platforms are highly visible platforms, so politicians try to maximize their benefits from their use, especially during election campaigns. On the other side, people express their views and sentiments toward politicians and political issues on social media, thus enabling them to observe their online political behavior. Therefore, this study aims to investigate user reactions on social media during the 2016 US presidential campaign to decide which candidate invoked stronger emotions on social media. Design/methodology/approach For testing the proposed hypotheses regarding emotional reactions to social media content during the 2016 presidential campaign, regression analysis was used to analyze a data set that consists of Trump’s 996 posts and Clinton’s 1,253 posts on Facebook. The proposed regression models are based on viral (likes, shares, comments) and emotional Facebook reactions (Angry, Haha, Sad, Surprise, Wow) as well as Russell’s valence, arousal, dominance (VAD) circumplex model for valence, arousal and dominance. Findings The results of regression analysis indicate how Facebook users felt about both presidential candidates. For Clinton’s page, both positive and negative content are equally liked, while Trump’s followers prefer funny and positive emotions. For both candidates, positive and negative content influences the number of comments. Trump’s followers mostly share positive content and the content that makes them angry, while Clinton’s followers share any content that does not make them angry. Based on VAD analysis, less dominant content, with high arousal and more positive emotions, is more liked on Trump’s page, where valence is a significant predictor for commenting and sharing. More positive content is more liked on Clinton’s page, where both positive and negative emotions with low arousal are correlated to commenting and sharing of posts. Originality/value Building on an empirical data set from Facebook, this study shows how differently the presidential candidates communicated on social media during the 2016 election campaign. According to the findings, Trump used a hard campaign strategy, while Clinton used a soft strategy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43718,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Knowledge Memory and Communication\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Knowledge Memory and Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/gkmc-02-2023-0060\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Knowledge Memory and Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/gkmc-02-2023-0060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

社交媒体平台是高度可见的平台,因此政治家们试图从使用这些平台中获得最大的利益,尤其是在竞选期间。另一方面,人们在社交媒体上表达他们对政治家和政治问题的看法和情绪,从而使他们能够观察他们的在线政治行为。因此,本研究旨在调查2016年美国总统竞选期间用户在社交媒体上的反应,以确定哪位候选人在社交媒体上引发了更强烈的情绪。设计/方法/方法为了测试提出的关于2016年总统竞选期间对社交媒体内容的情绪反应的假设,我们使用回归分析来分析由特朗普的996个帖子和克林顿的1253个帖子组成的数据集。所提出的回归模型是基于病毒式的(喜欢、分享、评论)和Facebook上的情绪反应(愤怒、哈哈、悲伤、惊讶、哇),以及罗素的效价、唤醒、支配(VAD)循环模型的效价、唤醒和支配。回归分析的结果表明了Facebook用户对两位总统候选人的看法。对于希拉里的页面,积极和消极的内容都是一样的,而特朗普的粉丝更喜欢有趣和积极的情绪。对于两位候选人来说,正面和负面的内容都会影响评论的数量。特朗普的追随者大多分享积极的内容和让他们生气的内容,而希拉里的追随者分享任何不会让他们生气的内容。根据VAD分析,在特朗普的页面上,主导地位较低、兴奋程度高、情绪积极的内容更受欢迎,而效价是评论和分享的重要预测因素。在克林顿的页面上,更积极的内容更受欢迎,积极情绪和低唤醒的消极情绪都与评论和分享帖子有关。基于Facebook的经验数据集,这项研究显示了2016年大选期间总统候选人在社交媒体上的沟通方式有多么不同。根据调查结果,特朗普使用了强硬的竞选策略,而克林顿使用了软策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Emotional showdown on social media: analyzing user reactions to the 2016 US presidential campaign
Purpose Social media platforms are highly visible platforms, so politicians try to maximize their benefits from their use, especially during election campaigns. On the other side, people express their views and sentiments toward politicians and political issues on social media, thus enabling them to observe their online political behavior. Therefore, this study aims to investigate user reactions on social media during the 2016 US presidential campaign to decide which candidate invoked stronger emotions on social media. Design/methodology/approach For testing the proposed hypotheses regarding emotional reactions to social media content during the 2016 presidential campaign, regression analysis was used to analyze a data set that consists of Trump’s 996 posts and Clinton’s 1,253 posts on Facebook. The proposed regression models are based on viral (likes, shares, comments) and emotional Facebook reactions (Angry, Haha, Sad, Surprise, Wow) as well as Russell’s valence, arousal, dominance (VAD) circumplex model for valence, arousal and dominance. Findings The results of regression analysis indicate how Facebook users felt about both presidential candidates. For Clinton’s page, both positive and negative content are equally liked, while Trump’s followers prefer funny and positive emotions. For both candidates, positive and negative content influences the number of comments. Trump’s followers mostly share positive content and the content that makes them angry, while Clinton’s followers share any content that does not make them angry. Based on VAD analysis, less dominant content, with high arousal and more positive emotions, is more liked on Trump’s page, where valence is a significant predictor for commenting and sharing. More positive content is more liked on Clinton’s page, where both positive and negative emotions with low arousal are correlated to commenting and sharing of posts. Originality/value Building on an empirical data set from Facebook, this study shows how differently the presidential candidates communicated on social media during the 2016 election campaign. According to the findings, Trump used a hard campaign strategy, while Clinton used a soft strategy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Global Knowledge Memory and Communication
Global Knowledge Memory and Communication INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
77
期刊最新文献
Mapping covid-19 and transportation: a taxonomical study using bibliometric visualisation The persistence of print books: exploring language preference and format preference among Arabic-speaking library patrons in Jordan A checklist to publish collections as data in GLAM institutions A systematic literature review on the use of mobile phones to access library services and resources: challenges and benefits Citation analysis and mapping of genetics research in Iran
×
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