IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v8y2021i1d10.1057_s41599-021-00968-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How analysis of mobile app reviews problematises linguistic approaches to internet troll detection

Author

Listed:
  • Sergei Monakhov

    (Friedrich Schiller University)

Abstract

State-sponsored internet trolls repeat themselves in a unique way. They have a small number of messages to convey but they have to do it multiple times. Understandably, they are afraid of being repetitive because that will inevitably lead to their identification as trolls. Hence, their only possible strategy is to keep diluting their target message with ever-changing filler words. That is exactly what makes them so susceptible to automatic detection. One serious challenge to this promising approach is posed by the fact that the same troll-like effect may arise as a result of collaborative repatterning that is not indicative of any malevolent practices in online communication. The current study addresses this issue by analysing more than 180,000 app reviews written in English and Russian and verifying the obtained results in the experimental setting where participants were asked to describe the same picture in two experimental conditions. The main finding of the study is that both observational and experimental samples became less troll-like as the time distance between their elements increased. Their ‘troll coefficient’ calculated as the ratio of the proportion of repeated content words among all content words to the proportion of repeated content word pairs among all content word pairs was found to be a function of time distance between separate individual contributions. These findings definitely render the task of developing efficient linguistic algorithms for internet troll detection more complicated. However, the problem can be alleviated by our ability to predict what the value of the troll coefficient of a certain group of texts would be if it depended solely on these texts’ creation time.

Suggested Citation

  • Sergei Monakhov, 2021. "How analysis of mobile app reviews problematises linguistic approaches to internet troll detection," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:8:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-021-00968-7
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-021-00968-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-021-00968-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-021-00968-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Choon-Ling Sia & Bernard C. Y. Tan & Kwok-Kee Wei, 2002. "Group Polarization and Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of Communication Cues, Social Presence, and Anonymity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(1), pages 70-90, March.
    2. Siegel, Jane & Dubrovsky, Vitaly & Kiesler, Sara & McGuire, Timothy W., 1986. "Group processes in computer-mediated communication," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 157-187, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Lionel P. Robert Jr & Alan R. Dennis & Manju K. Ahuja, 2018. "Differences are Different: Examining the Effects of Communication Media on the Impacts of Racial and Gender Diversity in Decision-Making Teams," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 525-545, September.
    2. Burton, F. Greg & Coller, Maribeth & Tuttle, Brad, 2006. "Market responses to qualitative information from a group polarization perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 107-127, February.
    3. Sergei Monakhov, 2020. "Early detection of internet trolls: Introducing an algorithm based on word pairs / single words multiple repetition ratio," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-16, August.
    4. Pamela J. Hinds & Diane E. Bailey, 2003. "Out of Sight, Out of Sync: Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(6), pages 615-632, December.
    5. Alison J. Bianchi & Soong Moon Kang & Daniel Stewart, 2012. "The Organizational Selection of Status Characteristics: Status Evaluations in an Open Source Community," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 341-354, April.
    6. Catherine Durnell Cramton, 2001. "The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 346-371, June.
    7. Rob Gleasure & Kieran Conboy & Lorraine Morgan, 2019. "Talking Up a Storm: How Backers Use Public Discourse to Exert Control in Crowdfunded Systems Development Projects," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 447-465, June.
    8. Antoci, Angelo & Bonelli, Laura & Paglieri, Fabio & Reggiani, Tommaso & Sabatini, Fabio, 2019. "Civility and trust in social media," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 83-99.
    9. Sora Kang & Kai H. Lim & Min Soo Kim & Hee-Dong Yang, 2012. "Research Note ---A Multilevel Analysis of the Effect of Group Appropriation on Collaborative Technologies Use and Performance," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 214-230, March.
    10. Ayoko, Oluremi B. & Konrad, Alison M. & Boyle, Maree V., 2012. "Online work: Managing conflict and emotions for performance in virtual teams," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 156-174.
    11. Angelo Antoci & Fabio Sabatini, 2018. "Online networks, social interaction and segregation: an evolutionary approach," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 859-883, September.
    12. Fabio Sabatini & Francesco Sarracino, 2017. "Online Networks and Subjective Well-Being," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(3), pages 456-480, August.
    13. Stephen C. Hayne & Lucy J. Troup & Sara A. McComb, 2011. "“Where’s Farah?”: Knowledge silos and information fusion by distributed collaborating teams," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 89-100, March.
    14. Elina H. Hwang & Param Vir Singh & Linda Argote, 2015. "Knowledge Sharing in Online Communities: Learning to Cross Geographic and Hierarchical Boundaries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1593-1611, December.
    15. Michele Griessmair & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2009. "Exploring the Cognitive-Emotional Fugue in Electronic Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 213-234, May.
    16. J. H. Jung & Christoph Schneider & Joseph Valacich, 2010. "Enhancing the Motivational Affordance of Information Systems: The Effects of Real-Time Performance Feedback and Goal Setting in Group Collaboration Environments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 724-742, April.
    17. Orlikowski, Wanda J. (Wanda Janina). & Robey, Daniel., 2003. "Information technology and the structuring of organizations," Working papers no. 220, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    18. Chih-Hung Peng & Nicholas H. Lurie & Sandra A. Slaughter, 2019. "Using Technology to Persuade: Visual Representation Technologies and Consensus Seeking in Virtual Teams," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 948-962, September.
    19. Wilson, Jeanne M. & Straus, Susan G. & McEvily, Bill, 2006. "All in due time: The development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 16-33, January.
    20. Hutzinger, Clemens & Weitzl, Wolfgang J., 2021. "Co-creation of online service recoveries and its effects on complaint bystanders," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 525-538.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pal:palcom:v:8:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-021-00968-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.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.