IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i22p8701-d449714.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Bots’ Sentiment Engagement in Health Emergencies: A Topic-Based Analysis of the COVID-19 Pandemic Discussions on Twitter

Author

Listed:
  • Wen Shi

    (Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China)

  • Diyi Liu

    (School of Journalism and Communication, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100084, China)

  • Jing Yang

    (School of Journalism and Communication, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China)

  • Jing Zhang

    (School of Journalism and Communication, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China)

  • Sanmei Wen

    (Center for International Communication Studies, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China)

  • Jing Su

    (School of Humanities, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China)

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, when individuals were confronted with social distancing, social media served as a significant platform for expressing feelings and seeking emotional support. However, a group of automated actors known as social bots have been found to coexist with human users in discussions regarding the coronavirus crisis, which may pose threats to public health. To figure out how these actors distorted public opinion and sentiment expressions in the outbreak, this study selected three critical timepoints in the development of the pandemic and conducted a topic-based sentiment analysis for bot-generated and human-generated tweets. The findings show that suspected social bots contributed to as much as 9.27% of COVID-19 discussions on Twitter. Social bots and humans shared a similar trend on sentiment polarity—positive or negative—for almost all topics. For the most negative topics, social bots were even more negative than humans. Their sentiment expressions were weaker than those of humans for most topics, except for COVID-19 in the US and the healthcare system. In most cases, social bots were more likely to actively amplify humans’ emotions, rather than to trigger humans’ amplification. In discussions of COVID-19 in the US, social bots managed to trigger bot-to-human anger transmission. Although these automated accounts expressed more sadness towards health risks, they failed to pass sadness to humans.

Suggested Citation

  • Wen Shi & Diyi Liu & Jing Yang & Jing Zhang & Sanmei Wen & Jing Su, 2020. "Social Bots’ Sentiment Engagement in Health Emergencies: A Topic-Based Analysis of the COVID-19 Pandemic Discussions on Twitter," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-18, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:22:p:8701-:d:449714
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8701/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8701/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fan, Rui & Xu, Ke & Zhao, Jichang, 2018. "An agent-based model for emotion contagion and competition in online social media," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 495(C), pages 245-259.
    2. Riccardo Gallotti & Francesco Valle & Nicola Castaldo & Pierluigi Sacco & Manlio De Domenico, 2020. "Assessing the risks of ‘infodemics’ in response to COVID-19 epidemics," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(12), pages 1285-1293, December.
    3. Margaret E. Roberts & Brandon M. Stewart & Edoardo M. Airoldi, 2016. "A Model of Text for Experimentation in the Social Sciences," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 111(515), pages 988-1003, July.
    4. Cheng, Chun & Luo, Yun & Yu, Changbin, 2020. "Dynamic mechanism of social bots interfering with public opinion in network," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 551(C).
    5. repec:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:12435-12440 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Patricia P. Iglesias-Sánchez & Gustavo Fabián Vaccaro Witt & Francisco E. Cabrera & Carmen Jambrino-Maldonado, 2020. "The Contagion of Sentiments during the COVID-19 Pandemic Crisis: The Case of Isolation in Spain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-10, August.
    7. Grimmer, Justin & Stewart, Brandon M., 2013. "Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 267-297, July.
    8. Margaret Roberts & Brandon Stewart & Tingley, Dustin & Edoardo Airoldi, 2013. "The structural topic model and applied social science," Working Paper 132666, Harvard University OpenScholar.
    9. Emilio Ferrara & Zeyao Yang, 2015. "Measuring Emotional Contagion in Social Media," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    10. Cynthia Chew & Gunther Eysenbach, 2010. "Pandemics in the Age of Twitter: Content Analysis of Tweets during the 2009 H1N1 Outbreak," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(11), pages 1-13, November.
    11. Sijia Li & Yilin Wang & Jia Xue & Nan Zhao & Tingshao Zhu, 2020. "The Impact of COVID-19 Epidemic Declaration on Psychological Consequences: A Study on Active Weibo Users," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-9, March.
    12. Chengcheng Shao & Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia & Onur Varol & Kai-Cheng Yang & Alessandro Flammini & Filippo Menczer, 2018. "The spread of low-credibility content by social bots," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Menghan Zhang & Xue Qi & Ze Chen & Jun Liu, 2022. "Social Bots’ Involvement in the COVID-19 Vaccine Discussions on Twitter," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-14, January.
    2. Zhang, Yaozeng & Ma, Jing & Fang, Fanshu, 2024. "How social bots can influence public opinion more effectively: Right connection strategy," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 633(C).
    3. Zixuan Weng & Aijun Lin, 2022. "Public Opinion Manipulation on Social Media: Social Network Analysis of Twitter Bots during the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-17, December.
    4. Sumayh S. Aljameel & Dina A. Alabbad & Norah A. Alzahrani & Shouq M. Alqarni & Fatimah A. Alamoudi & Lana M. Babili & Somiah K. Aljaafary & Fatima M. Alshamrani, 2020. "A Sentiment Analysis Approach to Predict an Individual’s Awareness of the Precautionary Procedures to Prevent COVID-19 Outbreaks in Saudi Arabia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-12, December.
    5. Lin, Trisha T. C., 2022. "Investigating the relationship of disguised socialbots and disinformation threat in Taiwan," 31st European Regional ITS Conference, Gothenburg 2022: Reining in Digital Platforms? Challenging monopolies, promoting competition and developing regulatory regimes 265654, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mohamed M. Mostafa, 2023. "A one-hundred-year structural topic modeling analysis of the knowledge structure of international management research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 3905-3935, August.
    2. van Loon, Austin, 2022. "Three Families of Automated Text Analysis," SocArXiv htnej, Center for Open Science.
    3. Dehler-Holland, Joris & Schumacher, Kira & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "Topic Modeling Uncovers Shifts in Media Framing of the German Renewable Energy Act," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 2(1).
    4. Arthur Dyevre & Nicolas Lampach, 2021. "Issue attention on international courts: Evidence from the European Court of Justice," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 793-815, October.
    5. Han, Chunjia & Yang, Mu & Piterou, Athena, 2021. "Do news media and citizens have the same agenda on COVID-19? an empirical comparison of twitter posts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    6. Hainan Huang & Weifan Chen & Tian Xie & Yaoyao Wei & Ziqing Feng & Weijiong Wu, 2021. "The Impact of Individual Behaviors and Governmental Guidance Measures on Pandemic-Triggered Public Sentiment Based on System Dynamics and Cross-Validation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-25, April.
    7. Camilla Salvatore & Silvia Biffignandi & Annamaria Bianchi, 2022. "Corporate Social Responsibility Activities Through Twitter: From Topic Model Analysis to Indexes Measuring Communication Characteristics," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 1217-1248, December.
    8. Dybowski, T.P. & Adämmer, P., 2018. "The economic effects of U.S. presidential tax communication: Evidence from a correlated topic model," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 511-525.
    9. Dehler-Holland, Joris & Okoh, Marvin & Keles, Dogan, 2022. "Assessing technology legitimacy with topic models and sentiment analysis – The case of wind power in Germany," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    10. Carlos Mendez & Fernando Mendez & Vasiliki Triga & Juan Miguel Carrascosa, 2020. "EU Cohesion Policy under the Media Spotlight: Exploring Territorial and Temporal Patterns in News Coverage and Tone," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(4), pages 1034-1055, July.
    11. Bai, Xiwen & Zhang, Xiunian & Li, Kevin X. & Zhou, Yaoming & Yuen, Kum Fai, 2021. "Research topics and trends in the maritime transport: A structural topic model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 11-24.
    12. Oliver Wieczorek & Saïd Unger & Jan Riebling & Lukas Erhard & Christian Koß & Raphael Heiberger, 2021. "Mapping the field of psychology: Trends in research topics 1995–2015," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9699-9731, December.
    13. Bongsug (Kevin) Chae & Eunhye (Olivia) Park, 2018. "Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): A Survey of Topics and Trends Using Twitter Data and Topic Modeling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, June.
    14. Nuccio Ludovico & Federica Dessi & Marino Bonaiuto, 2020. "Stakeholders Mapping for Sustainable Biofuels: An Innovative Procedure Based on Computational Text Analysis and Social Network Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-22, December.
    15. Ben Cormier & Mark S. Manger, 2022. "Power, ideas, and World Bank conditionality," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 397-425, July.
    16. T. Philipp Dybowski & Bernd Kempa, 2019. "The ECB’s monetary pillar after the financial crisis," CQE Working Papers 8519, Center for Quantitative Economics (CQE), University of Muenster.
    17. Peter Grajzl & Peter Murrell, 2021. "Characterizing a legal–intellectual culture: Bacon, Coke, and seventeenth-century England," Cliometrica, Journal of Historical Economics and Econometric History, Association Française de Cliométrie (AFC), vol. 15(1), pages 43-88, January.
    18. Peter Grajzl & Cindy Irby, 2019. "Reflections on study abroad: a computational linguistics approach," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 151-181, July.
    19. David Ardia & Keven Bluteau & Mohammad‐Abbas Meghani, 2024. "Thirty years of academic finance," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 1008-1042, July.
    20. Zixuan Weng & Aijun Lin, 2022. "Public Opinion Manipulation on Social Media: Social Network Analysis of Twitter Bots during the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-17, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:22:p:8701-:d:449714. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.