In this paper we present a computational text analysis technique for measuring the moral loading of concepts as they are used in a corpus. This method is especially useful for the study of online corpora as it allows for the rapid analysis of moral rhetoric in texts such as blogs and tweets as events unfold. We use latent semantic analysis to compute the semantic similarity between concepts and moral keywords taken from the “Moral foundation Dictionary”. This measure of semantic similarity represents the loading of these concepts on the five moral dimensions identified by moral foundation theory. We demonstrate the efficacy of this method using three different concepts and corpora.
AgarwalA.XieB.VovshaI.RambowO.PassonneauR. (2011, June). Sentiment analysis of twitter data. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Languages in Social Media, pp. 30–38. PA, Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics.
2.
AtranS. (2006, September 14). Devoted Actor Versus Rational Actor Models for Understanding World Conflict. Presented To The National Security Council At The White House. Available at: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/atran06/atran06_index.html
3.
AtranS.GingesJ. (2012). Religious and sacred imperatives in human conflict. Science, 336, 855–857.
4.
BakerP. (2004). Unnatural acts: Discourses of homosexuality within the House of Lords debates on gay male law reform. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8, 88–106.
5.
BleiD. M.NgA. Y.JordanM. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet Allocation. The Journal of Machine Learning research, 3, 993–1022.
6.
CliffordS.JeritJ. (in press). How word do the work of politics: Moral foundations Theory and the debate over stem-cell research. Journal of Politics.
7.
CohenT.SchvaneveldtR.WiddowsD. (2010). Reflective Random Indexing and indirect inference: A scalable method for discovery of implicit connections. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 43, 240–256.
DeerwesterS.DumaisS. T.FurnasG. W.LandauerT. K.HarshmanR. (1990). Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American society for information science, 41, 391–407.
10.
DehghaniM.AtranS.IlievR.SachdevaS.MedinD.GingesJ. (2010). Sacred values and conflict over Iran’s nuclear program. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 540–546.
DehghaniM.SagaeK.SachdevaS.GratchJ. (2013). Linguistic Analysis of the debate over the Construction of the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’. Journal of Information Technology & Politics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/19331681.2013.826613
13.
Dumais S. T.LandauerT. K. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological review, 104, 211–240.
FirthJ. (1957) Papers in Linguistics, 1934–1951. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
16.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046.
17.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.KolevaS.MotylM.IyerR.WojcikS.DittoP. H. (2013). Moral foundations Theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130.
18.
HaidtJ.GrahamJ.JosephC. (2009). Above and below left-right: Ideological narratives and moral foundations. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 110–119.
HuX.CaiZ.Wiemer-HastingsP.GraesserA. C.McNamaraD. S. (2007). Strengths, limitations, and extensions of LSA. The handbook of latent semantic analysis, 401–426.
KolevaS.GrahamJ.HaidtJ.IyerR.DittoP. H. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially Purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 184–194.
23.
LakoffG. (2002). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24.
MariettaM. (2008). From my cold, dead hands: Democratic consequences of sacred rhetoric. Journal of Politics, 70, 767–779.
25.
MariettaM. (2009). The absolutist advantage: Sacred rhetoric in contemporary presidential debate. Political Communication, 26, 388–411.
26.
PennebakerJ. W.FrancisM. E.BoothR. J. (2003). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC2001 manual. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
SandhausE. (2008). The New York Times annotated corpus. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
SchützeH. (1997). Ambiguity in language learning: Computational and cognitive models. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
30.
SchützeH. (1998). Automatic word sense discrimination. Computational linguistics, 24, 97–123.
31.
ScottM.TribbleC. (2006). Textual patterns: Key words and corpus analysis in language education. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
32.
TakayamaY.FlournoyR.KaufmannS. (1998). Information mapping: Concept-based information retrieval based on word associations. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
33.
TausczikY. R.PennebakerJ. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24–54.
34.
YuB.KaufmannS.DiermeierD. (2008). Classifying party affiliation from political speech. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 5, 33–48.
