Communication research has extensively addressed the influence of social media on protest. We seek to add to this body of research by examining how sentiment contained in Twitter communication about protest can condition the public reach of this communication. Specifically, we are interested in whether Twitter communication couched in negative sentiments like anger, disgust, and fear will drive this reach more than communication couched in positive sentiment such as trust, joy, and surprise. We rely on sentiment analysis to examine roughly 30,000 tweets surrounding the summer of 2019 Protests in Puerto Rico. These protests centered on a scandal involving former Governor Ricardo Rossello that ultimately led to his resignation. The analysis required adapting an English language sentiment dictionary to Spanish. Our results suggest that protesters frequently tweeted with both positive and negative sentiment when calling for the governor’s resignation, but ultimately, those tweets couched in negative sentiment, when compared to those with positive sentiment, had the most reach. That said, those tweets including either positive or negative sentiment had more reach than those absent sentiment.
AbrahamChildsAlbertoJenaro. 2015. “The Privatization of the Puerto Rico Telephone Company: A History of Neoliberal Acquisition and Discourse, 1974-1998.” Ambitos de Encuentro8 (2): 27–62.
AndrewsKenneth T.BiggsMichael. 2006. “The Dynamics of Protest Diffusion: Movement Organizations, Social Networks, and News Media in the 1960 Sit-Ins.” American Sociological Review71 (5): 752–777.
4.
BennettW. Lance. 2016. News: The politics of illusion. University of Chicago Press.
5.
BernabeRafael. 1998. “Puerto Rico’s La Huelga del Pueblo.” Against the Current13 (4): 3–7.
BonillaYarimarRosaJonathan. 2015. “# Ferguson: Digital Protest, Hashtag Ethnography, and the Racial Politics of Social Media in the United States.” American Ethnologist42 (1): 4–17.
8.
BraderTed. 2005. “Striking a Responsive Chord: How Political Ads Motivate and Persuade Voters by Appealing to Emotions.” American Journal of Political Science49: 388–405.
9.
BraderTedValentinoNicholasSuhayElizabeth. 2008. “What Triggers Public Opposition to Immigration? Anxiety, Group Cues, and the Immigration Threat.” American Journal of Political Science52: 959–978.
10.
Bravo-MarquezFelipeMendozaMarceloPobleteBarbara. 2014. “Meta-Level Sentiment Models for Big Social Data Analysis.” Knowledge-Based Systems69: 86–99.
11.
Camara-FuertesLuis R.2020. “Liberal or Conservative, Left or Right: The Identification with Ideological Labels by Puerto Rican Legislators.” Caribbean Studies48 (1): 45–69.
12.
DruckmanJames N.PetersonErikSlothuusRune. 2013. “How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation.” American Political Science Review107: 57–79.
13.
EganPatrick. 2013. Partisan Priorities: How Issue Ownership Drives and Distorts American Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
FerraraEmilioYangZeyao. 2015. “Measuring Emotional Contagion in Social Media.” PloS One10 (11): e0142390.
15.
GainousJasonWagnerKevin M. 2014. Tweeting to Power: The Social Media Revolution in American Politics. Oxford University Press.
16.
GarrettR. Kelly. 2009. “Echo Chambers Online?: Politically Motivated Selective Exposure among Internet News Users.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14 (2): 265–285.
17.
GarrettR. KellyCarnahanDustinLynchEmily K.. 2013. “A Turn Toward Avoidance? Selective Exposure to Online Political Information, 2004–2008.” Political Behavior35 (1): 113–134.
18.
González-BailónSandraBorge-HolthoeferJavierRiveroAlejandroMorenoYamir. 2011. “The Dynamics of Protest Recruitment Through an Online Network.” Scientific Reports1 (1): 1–7.
19.
GoodinRobert E.TillyCharles. 2006. The Oxford handbook of contextual political analysis, Vol. 5. New York, NY, USA: Oxford Handbooks of Political.
20.
GraberDoris A.2009. Mass Media and American Politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
21.
GrimmerJustinStewartBrandon M.. 2013. “Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts.” Political Analysis21 (3): 267–297.
22.
HolianDamien. 2004. “He’s Stealing My Issues! Clinton’s Crime Rhetoric and the Dynamics of Issue Ownership.” Political Behavior26 (2): 95–124.
23.
IyengarShantoLelkesYphtachLevenduskyMatthewMalhotraNeilWestwoodSean J.. 2019. “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science22: 129–146.
24.
JasperJ.2011. “Emotions and Social Movements: Twenty Years of Theory and Research.” Review of Sociology37: 285–303.
25.
JasperJames M.1998. The Emotions of Protest: Affective and Reactive Emotions in and Around Social Movements. Sociological Forum13: 397–424, Springer.
26.
JasperJames M.2008. The Art of Moral protest: Culture, biography, and creativity in social movements. University of Chicago Press.
27.
KahnKim FridkinKenneyPatrick J.. 1999. “Do Negative Campaigns Mobilize or Suppress Turnout? Clarifying the Relationship Between Negativity and Participation.” American Political Science Review93: 877–889.
28.
KarpfDavid. 2016. “The Clickbait Candidate.” The Chronicle of Higher Education19.
29.
KinderDonald R.KalmoeNathan P.. 2017. Neither Liberal nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
30.
KraftPatrick W.KrupnikovYannaMilitaKerriRyanJohn BarryStuartSoroka. 2020. “Social Media and the Changing Information Environment: Sentiment Differences in Read Versus Recirculated News Content.” Public Opinion Quarterly84 (S1): 195–215.
31.
LopezRamon. 2006. “Las Camisetas de Vieques: Mitologia y Militancia de una Lucha Popular.” Centro Journal18 (1): 37–61.
32.
MarcusGeorge E.MacKuenMichael B.. 1993. “Anxiety, Enthusiasm and the Vote: The Emotional Underpinnings of Learning and Involvement During Presidential Campaigns.” American Political Science Review87: 672–685.
33.
MarcusGeorge E.Russell NeumanW.MacKuenMichael B.. 2000. Affective Intelligence & Political Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
MartinPaul S.2004. “Inside the Black Box of Negative Campaign Effects: Three Reasons Why Negative Campaigns Mobilize.” Political Psychology25 (4): 545–562.
35.
McCaffreyKatherine T.2006. “Social Struggle against the U.S. Navy in Vieques, Puerto Rico: Two Movements in History.” Latin American Perspectives33 (1): 83–101.
36.
MikaMarie. 2006. “Framing the Issue: Religion, Secular Ethics and the Case of Animal Rights Mobilization.” Social Forces85 (2): 915–941.
37.
MohammadSaif M.TurneyPeter D.. Nrc emotion lexicon. National Research Council, Canada2013; 234.
38.
NaiAlessandro. 2018. “Fear and Loathing in Populist Campaigns? Comparing the Communication Style of Populists and Non-Populists in Elections Worldwide.” Journal of Political Marketing20: 1–32.
39.
NicholsonStephen P.2012. “Polarizing Cues.” American Journal of Political Science56 (1): 52–66.
40.
ParaliticiJosé F.2006. “Las luchas Civiles de un Pueblo: El Caso de Vieques.” Plaza Crítica2, 2: 73–83.
41.
PetrocikJohn R.1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science40 (3): 825–850.
42.
PughJeff. 2008. “Vectors of Contestation: Social Movements and Party Systems in Ecuador and Colombia.” Latin American Essays21 (Summer): 46–65.
43.
RidoutTravis N.SearlesKathleen. 2011. “It’s My Campaign I’ll Cry if I Want To: How and When Campaigns Use Emotional Appeals.” Political Psychology32 (3): 439–458.
44.
SchussmanAlanSouleSarah A.. 2005. “Process and Protest: Accounting for Individual Protest Participation.” Social Forces84 (2): 1083–1108.
45.
SearsDavid O.FreedmanJonathan L.. 1967. “Selective Exposure to Information: A Critical Review.” The Public Opinion Quarterly31 (2): 194–213.
46.
SeebergHenrik Bech. 2020. “Issue Ownership Attack: How a Political Party can Counteract a Rival’s Issue Ownership.” West European Politics43 (4): 772–794.
47.
SidesJohn. 2006. “The origins of campaign agendas.” British Journal of Political Science36: 407–436.
48.
SorokaStuartMcAdamsStephen. 2015. “News, politics, and negativity.” Political Communication32 (1): 1–22.
49.
SweenyJoAnne. 2019. “Incitement in the Era of Trump and Charlottesville.” Cap. UL Rev47: 585.
50.
TreschAnkeJonasLefevereWalgraveStefaan. 2015. “‘Steal Me if You Can!’ The impact of Campaign Messages on Associative Issue Ownership.” Party Politics21 (2): 198–208.
51.
ValentinoNicholas A.BraderTedGroenendykEric W.GregorowiczKryshaHutchingsVincent L.. 2011. “Election Night’s Alright for Fighting: The Role of Emotions in Political Participation.” The Journal of Politics73: 156–170.
52.
Van ZomerenMartijnSpearsRussellFischerAgneta HLeachColin Wayne. 2004. “Put Your Money Where Your Mouth is! Explaining Collective Action Tendencies Through Group-Based Anger and Group Efficacy.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology87, 5: 649–664.
53.
Velez-VelezRoberto. 2015. “All Puerto Rico with Vieques: Mobilizing Support Through Social Skills and Field Dynamics.” Social Movement Studies14 (5): 539–556.
54.
WagnerKevin MGainousJason. 2021. “Tweeting Politics: How the Internet has Allowed Politicians to Influence Political News Coverage in the U.S.” In The New Digital Battlefield: Social Media and Elections in Comparative Perspective, edited by TarrasDavidRichardDavid. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press: (3): 60-82.
55.
WalgraveStefaanJonasLefevereNuytemansMichiel. 2009. “Issue Ownership Stability and Change: How Political Parties Claim and Maintain Issues Through Media Appearances.” Political Communication26 (2): 153–172.
56.
YaqubUssamaChunSoon AeAtluriVijayalakshmiVaidyaJaideep. 2017. “Analysis of Political Discourse on Twitter in the Context of the 2016 US Presidential Elections.” Government Information Quarterly34 (4): 613–626.
57.
ZallerJohn R.1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
