Tweets on a horror movie: An investigation into relationships between sentiment strength,cognitive language and tweet virality

Abstract

This article studies how sentiment strength and cognitive language may influence the levels of tweet virality. A total of 11,381 tweets about a horror movie (‘Mother!’) were collected. Based on the definitions of two independent variables: sentiment strength and cognitive language use, and the dependent variable: tweet virality, the data descriptive statistics and analysis of variance (ANOVA) analysis were applied to reveal the relationships between tweet virality and sentiment and cognitive factors. The results indicate that a high tweet virality is associated with either a lower level of sentiment strength or/and a higher level of cognitive language use by a statistically significant margin. This finding is more evident for negative tweets. The study findings help improve the understanding about sentimental and cognitive factors impacting tweet virality and guide the movie industry to improve marketing movie content to achieve high virality on social media. The conclusions can also be applied to other industries, government agencies, organisations and individuals who intend to quickly disseminate specific information on social media platforms.

Keywords

Cognitive language use sentiment analysis social media tweet virality

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Nahon

Hemsley

. Introduction: virality of pets and presidents. In: Nahon

Hemsley

. (eds) Going Viral. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013, pp. 21–34.

Faasse

Chatman

Martin

. A comparison of language use in pro-and anti-vaccination comments in response to a high profile Facebook post. Vaccine 2016; 34(47): 5808–5814.

Barbosa

RRL

Sánchez-Alonso

Sicilia-Urban

. Evaluating hotels rating prediction based on sentiment analysis services. Aslib J Inform Manag 2015; 4: 392–407.

Zhu

Mei

Wei

et al. Prediction of online topics’ popularity patterns. J Inf Sci 2022; 48(2): 141–151.

Sutton

Spiro

Johnson

et al. Warning tweets: serial transmission of messages during the warning phase of a disaster event. Inf Commun Soc 2014; 17(6): 765–787.

Shen

. Analyzing and predicting news popularity on Twitter. Int J Inf Manag 2015; 35(6): 702–711.

Berger

Milkman

. What makes online content viral? J Mark Res 2012; 49(2): 192–205.

Naveed

Gottron

Kunegis

et al. Bad news travel fast: a content-based analysis of interestingness on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international web science conference, Koblenz, 15–17 June 2011.

Suh

Hong

Pirolli

et al. Want to be retweeted? Large scale analytics on factors impacting retweet in Twitter network. In: IEEE second international conference on social computing, Minneapolis, MN, 20–22 August 2010, pp. 177–184. New York: IEEE.

10.

Baccianella

Esuli

Sebastiani

. Sentiwordnet 3.0: an enhanced lexical resource for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. In: Proceedings of the seventh international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC’10), vol. 10, 2010 May, pp. 2200–2204. Valletta: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).

11.

Pfitzner

Garas

Schweitzer

. Emotional divergence influences information spreading in Twitter. In: Sixth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media, 20 May 2012, pp. 543–546. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI.

12.

Pennebaker

Chung

Frazee

et al. When small words foretell academic success: the case of college admissions essays. PLoS ONE 2014; 9(12): e115844.

13.

Ferrara

Yang

. Quantifying the effect of sentiment on information diffusion in social media. PeerJ Comput Sci 2015; 1: e26.

14.

Stieglitz

Dang-Xuan

. Emotions and information diffusion in social media: sentiment of microblogs and sharing behavior. J Manag Inf Syst 2013; 29(4): 217–248.

15.

Tsugawa

Ohsaki

. On the relation between message sentiment and its virality on social media. Soc Netw Anal Min 2017; 7(1): 9.

16.

Yin

Bond

Zhang

. Anxious or angry? Effects of discrete emotions on the perceived helpfulness of online reviews. MIS Quart 2014; 38(2): 539–560.

17.

Ragini

Anand

PMR

Bhaskar

. Big data analytics for disaster response and recovery through sentiment analysis. Int J Inf Manag 2018; 42: 13–24.

18.

Hansen

Arvidsson

Nielsen

et al. Good friends, bad news: affect and virality in Twitter. In: Park

Yang

Lee

. (eds) Future information technology. Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer, 2011, pp. 34–43.

19.

Alajmi

Farhan

. The intersection of source, message, and recipient characteristics on information-exchange activity via Twitter. In: Conference on e-business, e-services and e-society, September 2016, pp. 332–353. Cham: Springer.

20.

Rudat

Buder

Hesse

. Audience design in Twitter: retweeting behavior between informational value and followers’ interests. Comput Hum Behav 2014; 35: 132–139.

21.

Yan

Tan

. Feeling blue? Go online: an empirical study of social support among patients. Inf Syst Res 2014; 25(4): 690–709.

22.

Salehi-Esfahani

Ravichandran

Israeli

et al. Investigating information adoption tendencies based on restaurants’ user-generated content utilizing a modified information adoption model. J Hosp Tour Manag 2016; 25(8): 925–953.

23.

Huang

Hong

Burtch

. Social network integration and user content generation: evidence from natural experiments. MIS Quart 2017; 41(4): 1035–1058.

24.

NodeXL, https://www.smrfoundation.org/nodexl/ (2016, accessed 29 May 2022).

25.

Clauset

Shalizi

Newman

. Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Rev 2009; 51(4): 661–703.

26.

Hassan

Aljohani

Tarar

et al. Exploiting tweet sentiments in altmetrics large-scale data. Arxiv 2008, https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.13023

27.

Hassan

Saleem

Soroya

et al. Sentiment analysis of tweets through Altmetrics: a machine learning approach. J Inf Sci 2021; 47(6): 712–726.

28.

Ren

Dong

Padmanabhan

et al. How does social media sentiment impact mass media sentiment? A study of news in the financial markets. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2021; 72(9): 1183–1197.

29.

. Sentiment classification in social media data by combining triplet belief functions. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. Epub ahead of print 18 November 2021. DOI: 10.1002/asi.24605.

30.

Harb

Ebeling

Becker

. A framework to analyze the emotional reactions to mass violent events on Twitter and influential factors. Inform Process Manag 2020; 57(6): 102372.

31.

Ebeling

Sáenz

CAC

Nobre

et al. The effect of political polarization on social distance stances in the Brazilian COVID-19 scenario. J Doc Data Manag 2021; 12(1): 86–108.

32.

Blanco

Lourenço

. Optimism and pessimism analysis using deep learning on COVID-19 related Twitter conversations. Inform Process Manag 2022; 59(3): 102918.

33.

Pandey

Singh Rajpoot

Saraswat

. Twitter sentiment analysis using hybrid cuckoo search method. Inform Process Manag 2017; 53(4): 764–779.

34.

Mohammad

Zhu

Kiritchenko

et al. Sentiment, emotion, purpose, and style in electoral tweets. Inform Process Manag 2015; 51(4): 480–499.

35.

Tubishat

Idris

Abushariah

MAM

. Implicit aspect extraction in sentiment analysis: review, taxonomy, opportunities, and open challenges. Inform Process Manag 2018; 54(4): 545–563.

36.

Saif

Fernandez

et al. Contextual semantics for sentiment analysis of Twitter. Inform Process Manag 2016; 52(1): 5–19.

37.

Xing

Pallucchini

Cambria

. Cognitive-inspired domain adaptation of sentiment lexicons. Inform Process Manag 2019; 56(3): 554–564.

38.

Yadollahi

Shahraki

Zaiane

. Current state of text sentiment analysis from opinion to emotion mining. ACM Comput Surv 2018; 50(2): 1–33.

39.

VADER-sentiment-analysis, https://github.com/cjhutto/vaderSentiment (2022, accessed 10 May 2022).

40.

Opinion finder system, https://mpqa.cs.pitt.edu/opinionfinder/ (2015, accessed 29 May 2022).

41.

SentiStrength, http://sentistrength.wlv.ac.uk (2016, accessed 29 May 2022).

42.

Thelwall

Buckley

Paltoglou

et al. Sentiment strength detection in short informal text. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2010; 61(12): 2544–2558.

43.

Thelwall

Mas-Bleda

. YouTube science channel video presenters and comments: female friendly or vestiges of sexism? Aslib J Inf Manag 2018; 70(1): 28–46.

44.

Tausczik

Pennebaker

. The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. J Lang Soc Psychol 2010; 29(1): 24–54.

45.

Cohen

. The concepts of power analysis. In: Cohen

(ed.) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988, pp. 1–17.

46.

De Martino

Kumaran

Seymour

et al. Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science 2006; 313(5787): 684–687.

47.

Storbeck

Clore

. On the interdependence of cognition and emotion. Cogn Emot 2007; 21(6): 1212–1237.

48.

Talmi

Frith

. Feeling right about doing right. Nature 2007; 446(7138): 865–866.