Stanford Info Seminar: Unfollowing and Emotion on Twitter
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Stanford Info Seminar: Unfollowing and Emotion on Twitter

  • 1,068 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,068
On Slideshare
1,035
From Embeds
33
Number of Embeds
3

Actions

Shares
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 33

http://bit.ly 28
http://www.linkedin.com 4
https://bit.ly 1

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Emotion, Tie Persistence,and Network Structure onTwitterMor NaamanRutgers SC&I | School Media Information Lab
  • 2. social media information lab?
  • 3. social media research:1. what are people doing (and why)?
  • 4. social media research:2. understanding social systems at scale
  • 5. social media research:3. creating new experiences
  • 6. social media awareness streams networks
  • 7. today’s big storygenerate a better understanding of thesocial dynamicsvalidate theories from social sciences inthese new and important settings
  • 8. today’s more specific storyTwitter and networks:Part 1. social sharing of emotion andnetworks on TwitterPart 2. unfollowing on Twitter
  • 9. study 1emotion & social networksKivran-Swaine & Naaman. NetworkProperties and Social Sharing ofEmotions in Social AwarenessStreams. (CSCW 2011).
  • 10. main questionHow does users’ social sharing of emotion in SAS relate to the properties of their social networks? picture by palo
  • 11. research questionsRQ1What is the association between people’stendency to express emotion (joy, sadness, other)in their posts (updates or interactions) and theirnumber of followers?
  • 12. research questionsRQ2What is the association between people’stendency to express emotion (joy, sadness, other)in their posts (updates or interactions) and theirnetwork characteristics like density and reciprocityrate?
  • 13. 1.5 step ego-centric network
  • 14. theory backgroundexpression of emotion  number of followers ( - ) people who mostly post about themselves have significantly lower number of followers* ( + ) emotional broadcaster theory* Naaman, Boase, Lai (CSCW 2010)
  • 15. theory backgroundexpression of emotion  network densityexpression of emotion  reciprocity rate ( + ) intimacy ( - ) curbing
  • 16. datacontent dataset from Naaman, Boase, Lai (2010)social network dataset from Kwak et al. (2010)105,599 messages from 628 users who: had no more than 5,000 followers or followees posted at least one Twitter update in July 2009 in English still had public profile in April 2010
  • 17. pilot studymanually coded 940 tweets from 97 (randomlyselected) users into:joy, sadness, fear, trust, anger, disgust, anticipation,and surprise.
  • 18. pilot study joy on average 23% of a user’s updates “Fireworks at the Cumming fairgrounds were Yay!” “Just snagged last copy of wii sports resort. awesome. Sophia had a blast. Lucy said, “ooooh,” over and over. Good times with my family.!” sadness on average 10% of a user’s updates “RIP Kathy. Live life for today. You never know how long you have.!”
  • 19. study detailsautomated analysis of the users’ tweets based onLIWC“expression of emotion” => “existence of emotivewords”
  • 20. some gender differences joy sadness other emotions
  • 21. results…some gender differences number of followees clustering coefficient
  • 22. results…some gender differences gain reciprocity rate
  • 23. analysisindependent variables: joy (interactions-updates), sadness (interactions-updates), emo (interactions-updates)3 linear regression models for dependent variables: number of followers network density reciprocity rate
  • 24. results… explaining number of followers (R2 = .22) @follower … joy-interactions .35 ** @follower … sadness-interactions .20 ** ** p < .01
  • 25. results… explaining network density (R2 = .33) yay! joy-updates -.10 ** @follower … sadness-interactions -.18 ** number of followers -.50 ** ** p < .01
  • 26. limitations & future workbetter emotion classifierimprove sampling, increase datasetculture dependentdyad-level analysis
  • 27. today’s more specific storyTwitter and networks:Part 1. social sharing of emotion andnetworks on TwitterPart 2. unfollowing on Twitter
  • 28. study 2unfollowing on TwitterKivran-Swaine, Govindan & Naaman.The Impact of Network Structure onBreaking Ties in Online SocialNetworks: Unfollowing on Twitter.(CHI 2011).
  • 29. blue=unfollow
  • 30. main question:what structural properties of the social network of nodes and dyads predict the breaking of ties (unfollows) on Twitter?
  • 31. theory backgroundtie strengthembeddedness within networkspower & status
  • 32. datacontent dataset from Naaman, Boase, Lai (2010)social network dataset from Kwak et al. (2010)Twitter API – connections still exist 9 months later? 715 seed nodes 245,586 “following” connections to seed nodes 30.6% dropped between 07/2009 & 04/2010
  • 33. analysis* independent variables (computed for our 245K dyads) seed properties follower-count, follower-to-followee ratio, network density, reciprocity rate, follow-back rate follower properties follower-count, follower-to-followee ratio dyad properties reciprocity, common neighbors, common followers, common friends, right transitivity, left transitivity, mutual transitivity, prestige ratio
  • 34. <disclaimer>the following slides are NOT scientific evidenceand are shown here for illustration purposesno control for intra-seed effects; no inter-variableeffectsno R installation was harmed in the making of thefollowing figures
  • 35. effect of number of followers (none):
  • 36. effect of reciprocity (large):
  • 37. effect of reciprocity (another view):
  • 38. effect of follow-back rate
  • 39. effect of common neighbors
  • 40. </disclaimer>back to scientific results (made R break sweat)sparing you the details, though
  • 41. in-depth analysisthe details you did not want to know…multi-level logistic regression (dyads/edgesnested within seed nodes)three models; full one includes seed, follower, anddyadic/edge variablescomplete details: in the paper
  • 42. some resultseffect of tie strength on breaking of ties *** dyadic reciprocity (-) *** network density (-) *** highly statistically significant
  • 43. some resultseffect of power & status on breaking of ties *** prestige ratio (+) *** follow-back rate (-) *** f’s follower-to followee ratio (-) *** dyadic reciprocity (-) *** highly statistically significant
  • 44. some resultseffect of embeddedness on breaking of ties *** common neighbors (-) *** highly statistically significant
  • 45. limitations & future workonly two snapshots: add moreadditional (non-structural) variables (e.g.,frequency of posting!)emotion and tie breaks
  • 46. …and even broaderwhat can we learn from social dynamics onTwitter (and Facebook) about: our relationships? our language? our society and culture? our interests and activities?
  • 47. for more detailshttp://bit.ly/infoseminar
  • 48. thank you mornaaman.com mor@rutgers.edu @informor Rutgers SC&I Social Media Information Lab
  • 49. NYC vs. Washington DC