Despite recent and growing interest in using Twitter to examine human behavior and attitudes, there is still significant room for growth regarding the ability to leverage Twitter data for social science research. In particular, gleaning demographic information about Twitter users—a key component of much social science research—remains a challenge. This article develops an accurate and reliable data processing approach for social science researchers interested in using Twitter data to examine behaviors and attitudes, as well as the demographic characteristics of the populations expressing or engaging in them. Using information gathered from Twitter users who state an intention to not vote in the 2012 presidential election, we describe and evaluate a method for processing data to retrieve demographic information reported by users that is not encoded as text (e.g., details of images) and evaluate the reliability of these techniques. We end by assessing the challenges of this data collection strategy and discussing how large-scale social media data may benefit demographic researchers.
AchrekarHarshavardhanGandheAvinashLazarusRossYuSsu-HsinLiuBenyuan. 2011. “Predicting Flu Trends Using Twitter Data.” First International Workshop on Cyber-Physical Networking Systems (CPNS) 2011, IEEE Infocom, Shanghai, China.
2.
AndersonStephanie L.AdamsGlennPlautVictoria C.. 2008. “The Cultural Grounding of Personal Relationship: The Importance of Attractiveness in Everyday Life.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology95:352–68.
BehrendTara S.SharekDavid J.MeadeAdam W.WiebeEric N.. 2011. “The Viability of Crowdsourcing for Survey Research.” Behavior research methods43:800–13.
5.
BelliRobert F.TraugottMichael W.YoungMargaretMcGonagleKatherine A.. 1999. “Reducing Vote Overreporting in Surveys: Social Desirability, Memory Failure, and Source Monitoring.” Public Opinion Quarterly63:90–108.
Brickman BhuttaChristine. 2012. “Not by the Book: Facebook as a Sampling Frame.” Sociological Methods & Research41:57–88.
8.
BuhrmesterMichaelKwangTracyGoslingSamuel D.. 2011. “Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-quality, Data?” Perspectives on Psychological Science6:3–5.
9.
BurgessJeanBrunsAxel. 2012. “Twitter Archives and the Challenges of ‘Big Social Data’ for Media and Communication Research.” M/C Journal15:1–7.
10.
CambriaErikWangHaixunWhiteBebo. 2014. “Guest Editorial: Big Social Data Analysis.” Knowledge-Based Systems69:1–2.
11.
CassaChristopher A.ChunaraRumiMandlKennethBrownsteinJohn S.. 2013. “Twitter as a Sentinel in Emergency Situations: Lessons from the Boston Marathon Explosions.” PLoS Currents: 1–5.
12.
ConoverM.RatkiewiczJ.FranciscoM.GonçalvesB.FlamminiA.MenczerF.. 2011. “Political Polarization on Twitter.” Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), July 17-21, Barcelona, Spain.
13.
De LonguevilleBertrandSmithRobin S.LuraschiGinaluca. 2009. “Omg, from Here, I Can See the Flames!: A Use Case of Mining Location Based Social Networks to Acquire Spatio-temporal Data on Forest Fires.” Pp. 73–80 in Proceedings of the 2009 International Workshop on Location Based Social Networks, November 3, Seattle, WA: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).
14.
DiakopoulosNicholas A.ShammaDavid A.. 2010. “Characterizing Debate Performance Via Aggregated Twitter Sentiment.” Pp. 1195–98 in Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Atlanta, GA: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).
GoffmanErving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
18.
GolderScott A.MacyMichael W.. 2011. “Diurnal and Seasonal Mood Vary with Work, Sleep, and Daylength across Diverse Cultures.” Science333:1878–81.
19.
GolderScott A.MacyMichael. 2012. “Social Science with Social Media.” ASA Footnotes40:7.
20.
HeaivilinN.GerbertB.PageJ. E.GibbsJ. L.. 2011. “Public Health Surveillance of Dental Pain via Twitter.” Journal of Dental Research90:1047–51.
21.
HolbrookAllyson L.KrosnickJon A.. 2010. “Social Desirability Bias in Voter Turnout Reports: Tests Using the Item Count Technique.” Public Opinion Quarterly74:37–67.
22.
IpeirotisPanagiotis G.2010. Demographics of Mechanical Turk (Tech. Rep. No. CeDER-10-01). New York: New York University. Retrieved December 21, 2012 (http://hdl.handle.net/2451/29585).
23.
JanusAlexander L.2010. “The Influence of Social Desirability Pressures on Expressed Immigration Attitudes.” Social Science Quarterly91:928–46.
24.
JavaAkshaySongXiaodanFininTimTsengBelle. 2007. “Why We Twitter: Understanding Microblogging Usage and Communities.” Pp. 56–65. in Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1stSNA-KDD 2007 Workshop on Web Mining and Social Network Analysis. San Jose, CA: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).
25.
KoepflerJes A.FleischmannKenneth R.. 2012. “Studying the Values of Hard-to-reach Populations: Content Analysis of Tweets by the 21st Century Homeless.” Pp. 48–55 in Proceedings of the 2012 iConference: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).
LassenDavid S.BrownAdam R.. 2011. “Twitter: The Electoral Connection?” Social Science Computer Review29:419–36.
28.
LazerDavidBrewerDevonChristakisNicholasFowlerJamesKingGary. 2009. “Life in the Network: The Coming Age of Computational Social Science.” Science323:721–23.
29.
LazerDavidKennedyRyanKingGaryVespignaniAlessandro. 2014. “Big Data. The Parable of Google Flu: Traps in Big Data Analysis.” Science (New York, NY)343:1203–05. Retrieved June 2, 2014 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24626916).
30.
LoweJohn B.BarnesMargaretTeoCynthiaSuthernsStephanie. 2012. “Investigating the Use of Social Media to Help Women from Going back to Smoking Post-partum.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health36:30–32.
31.
MargeM.BanerjeeS.RudnickyA. I.. 2010. “Using the Amazon Mechanical Turk for Transcription of Spoken Language.” Pp. 5270–73 in Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, edited byHansenJ.. Dallas, TX: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
32.
MarwickAlice E.BoydDanah. 2010. “I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience.” New Media & Society13:114–33.
33.
MasonWinterSuriSiddharth. 2012. “Conducting Behavioral Research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.” Behavior Research Methods44:1–23.
MorenoMegan A.GrantAllisonKacvinskyLaurenEganKatie G.FlemingMichael F.. 2012. “College Students’ Alcohol Displays on Facebook: Intervention Considerations.” Journal of American College Health60:388–94.
36.
NaamanMorBeckerHilaGravanoLuis. 2011. “Hip and Trendy: Characterizing Emerging Trends on Twitter.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology62:902–18.
37.
ReipsUlf-DietrichGaraizarPablo. 2011. “Mining Twitter: A Source for Psychological Wisdom of the Crowds.” Behavior Research Methods43:635–42.
38.
RogersToddAidaMasa. 2011. “Why Bother Asking? The Limited Value of Self-reported Vote Intention.” HKS Working Paper No. RWP12-001. Available at SSRN. Retrieved February 23, 2015 (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1971312).
39.
SmallMario Luis. 2009. Unanticipated Gains: Origins of Network Inequality in Everyday Life. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
40.
SnowRionO’ConnorB.JurafskyDanielNgA. Y.. 2008. “Cheap and Fast—But Is It Good?: Evaluating Non-expert Annotations for Natural Language Tasks.” Pp. 254–65 in Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Honolulu, Hawaii: Association for Computational Linguistics.
41.
SuttonJeannette N.SpiroEmma S.JohnsonBrittaFitzhughSean M.GreczekMathewButtsCarter T.. 2012. “Connected Communications: Network Structures of Official Communications in a Technological Disaster.” in Proceedings of the International Systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM) 2012, edited by RistvejLeon Rothkrantz JozefFrancoZeno. Vancouver, Canada: Simon Fraser University. Retrieved January 26, 2015 (http://www.iscramlive.org/ISCRAM2012/proceedings/ISCRAM2012_proceedings.pdf).
42.
TourangeauRogerYanTing. 2007. “Sensitive Questions in Surveys.” Psychological Bulletin133:859–83.
43.
TumasjanA.SprengerT. O.SandnerP. G.WelpeI. M.. 2010. “Election Forecasts with Twitter: How 140 Characters Reflect the Political Landscape.” Social Science Computer Review29:402–18.
44.
UmbersonDebraHughesMichael. 1987. “The Impact of Physical Attractiveness on Achievement and Psychological Well-being.” Social Psychology Quarterly50:227–36.
45.
UrbanoJuliánMoratoJorgeMarreroM.MartínDiego. 2010. “Crowdsourcing Preference Judgments for Evaluation of Music Similarity Tasks.” Pp. 9–16 in Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR 2010 Workshop on Crowdsourcing for Search Evaluation (CSE 2010), edited byLeaseM.CarvalhoV.YilmazE.. Geneva, Switzerland: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).
46.
ValkenburgPatti M.PeterJochenSchoutenAlexander P.. 2006. “Friend Networking Sites and Their Relationship to Adolescents’ Well-being and Social Self-esteem.” CyberPsychology & Behavior9:584–90.
47.
WongFelix Ming FaiSenSoumyaChiangMung. 2012. “Why Watching Movie Tweets Won’t Tell the Whole Story?” Pp. 61–66 in Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Workshop on Online Social Networks, August 13–17, Helsinki, Finland: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).
48.
YardiSaritaBoydDanah. 2010. “Dynamic Debates: An Analysis of Group Polarization over Time on Twitter.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society30:316–27.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
