Research on endogenous internet public opinion dissemination in Chinese universities based on SNIDR model

Abstract

During an emergency, the negative Internet public opinion in colleges and universities, especially the negative endogenous public opinion, will have a serious impact on the reputation of colleges and universities. It is of great significance to find out the negative influencing factors of endogenous public opinion and explore the mechanism of public opinion dissemination for resolving the crisis of public opinion in universities. The existing research does not distinguish the endogenous Internet public opinion in colleges and universities from the general Internet public opinion in colleges and universities, and the SIR model adopted fails to fully reflect the difference between students and other dissemination subjects of endogenous public opinion in campus. In addition, various research methods and models currently used focus on the static expression of dissemination results, and the explanation of results is insufficient. The reason is that they do not well express the dynamic interaction mechanism between influencing factors and the dynamic conversion rate between roles. In this study, based on the improved infectious disease model and system dynamics theory, AnyLogic software is used to simulate the improved SNIDR model of infectious disease, to analyze the sensitivity of school supervision, school intervention, school response time and information transparency and to study the dynamic conversion rate between different roles. The SNIDR model effectively simulates the process of endogenous public opinion dissemination in colleges and universities after emergencies. The results show that, what has the greatest impact on the dissemination of public opinion is the school’s supervision and intervention efforts, which can suppress the dissemination from the source. Information transparency is an auxiliary variable and cannot function independently. During the dissemination period, the timelier the school responds, the faster the spreaders will drop to zero, and the better it will be to control the secondary dissemination of public opinion.

Keywords

SNIDR model governance strategies internet public opinion dissemination mechanism emergency

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Hafızoglu

F.M.

and Sen

, Analysis of opinion spread through migration and adoption in agent communities, International Conference on Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems (2012), 153–167.

Garrett

R.K.

, et al., A turn toward avoidance? Selective exposure to online political information 2004–2008, Political Behavior 35(1) (2013), 113–134.

Lin

and Tsai

C.H.

, Taking stock of social-political polarization in Asia: political communication, social media and digital governance, Asian Journal of Communication 32(2) (2022), 71–74.

Hong

and Kim

S.H.

, Political polarization on twitter: Implications for the use of social media in digital governments, Government Information Quarterly 33(4) (2016), 777–782.

Ito

T.A.

, et al., Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: the negativity bias in evaluative categorizations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75(4) (1998), 887.

Rozin

and Royzman

E.B.

, Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion, Personality and Social Psychology Review 5(4) (2001), 296–320.

and Shen

, Negativity makes us polarized: a longitudinal study of media tone and opinion polarization in Hong Kong, Asian Journal of Communication 30(3-4) (2020), 199–220.

Zhou

and Gao

, Research on the generation logic, risk characteristics and coping strategies of Internet Public Opinion in colleges and universities, Information Science 40(3) (2022), 152–158.

Chen

, et al., A quantitative analysis of doctoral dissertations in communication in mainland China, Asian Journal of Communication 31(6) (2021), 453–469.

10.

Zeng

Theory and Practice of Network Public Opinion Guidance in Colleges and Universities, Guilin: Guangxi Normal University Press, 2013, pp. 15.

11.

Taubman

, A not-so World Wide Web: The Internet, China, and the challenges to nondemocratic rule, Political Communication 15(2) (1998), 255–272.

12.

Lin

, et al., Evolution mechanism and coping strategies of online public opinion in colleges and universities, Contemporary Youth Research 38(4) (2020), 90–95+115.

13.

Zhang

, Research on Internet Public Opinion and crisis management in colleges and universities under the information environment, Information Journal 30(8) (2010), 51–54+60.

14.

Chen

, et al., Research on the generalization of network public opinion in college emergencies, Information Journal 30(5) (2011), 6–9.

15.

Zhou

and Wang

, Research on the generation, dissemination and guidance mechanism of Internet public opinion in colleges and universities, Party Building and Ideological Education in Schools 38(24) (2020), 59–60+63.

16.

Huang

, et al., Research on the innovation of network public opinion control and guidance mechanism in colleges and universities in We Media era, Information Science 39(4) (2021), 62–67+91.

17.

Zhao

, et al., The influence of multi-variation in-trust web feature behavior performance on the information dissemination mechanism in virtual community, Sustainability 14(10) (2022), 6122.

18.

Newman

M.E.

, Scientific collaboration networks, II, Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality, Physical Review E 64(1) (2001), 016132.

19.

Wang

, et al., A discrete electronic word-of-mouth propagation model and its application in online social networks, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 527 (2019), 121172.

20.

Feng

, Research on emergency response mechanism in colleges and universities from the perspective of network governance, Educational Theory and Practice 36(6) (2016), 25–26.

21.

Wei

and Tian

, Research on influencing factors of network public opinion communication of emergencies in colleges and universities, Information Science 39(12) (2021), 53–59.

22.

Luarn

and Hsieh

A.Y.

, Speech or silence: the effect of user anonymity and member familiarity on the willingness to express opinions in virtual communities, Online Information Review 38(7) (2014), 881–895.

23.

Samaddar

, et al., Diffusion of disaster-preparedness information by hearing from early adopters to late adopters in coastal bangladesh, Sustainability 14(7) (2022), 3897.

24.

Understanding potential cyber-armies in elections: A study of taiwan. Wang

M.H.

, et al., Understanding potential cyberarmies in elections: A study of taiwan, Sustainability 12(6) (2020), 2248.

25.

Wang

and Li

, Research on the propagation and governance of public opinion information under the joint action of internal and external factors, Aslib Journal of Information Management, 75(2) (2022), 193–214.

26.

Zhao

and Wan

, Research on the dynamic model of social network public opinion communication based on information communication model-SIR infectious disease model, Information Science 35(12) (2017), 34–38.

27.

Peng

, et al., Research on public opinion dissemination and early warning mechanism of complex network based on SIR-EGM model, Information Science 38(3) (2020), 145–153.

28.

Chen

and Huang

, Research on the dissemination and control of sudden online public opinion based on SEIQR evolutionary game model, Information Science 37(3) (2019), 60–68.

29.

Zhong

and Sun

, Public opinion dissemination and control of major emergencies based on infectious disease model, Information Theory and Practice 41(5) (2018), 104–109.

30.

Wang

, Constructing the network public opinion communication model of colleges and universities based on infectious disease theory, Young Journalist 78(8) (2018), 44–45.

31.

, et al., Control model of social network public opinion communication based on opinion leader, Control Theory and Application, 37(12) (2020), 1–12.

32.

Zhou

and Gao

, Research on the generation logic, risk characteristics and coping strategies of online public opinion in colleges and universities, Information Science 40(3) (2022), 152–158.

33.

Allport

G.W.

and Postman

, An analysis of rumor, Public Opinion Quarterly 10(4) (1946), 501–517.

34.

Liberman

and Chaiken

, Defensive processing of personally relevant health messages, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18(6) (1992), 669–679.

35.

Rosnow

R.L.

, Rumor as communication: A contextualist approach, Journal of Communication 38(1) (1988), 12–28.

36.

Park

, et al., Factors influencing intention to upload content on Wikipedia in South Korea: The effects of social norms and individual differences, Computers in Human Behavior 28(3) (2012), 898–905.

37.

Zhou

and Jing

, Multidimensional mining of public opinion in emergency events, The Electronic Library 38(3) (2020), 545–560.

38.

Choe

and Raschky

P.A.

, Media, institutions, and government action: Prevention vs. palliation in the time of cholera, European Journal of Political Economy 41 (2016), 75–93.

39.

Sullivan

, China’s Weibo: Is faster different? New Media & Society 16(1) (2014), 24–37.

40.

Kermack

W.O.

and McKendrick

A.G.

, Contributions to the mathematical theory of epidemics–I, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 53(1-2) (1991), 33–55.

41.

Zhang

, et al., Internet public opinion dissemination mechanism of COVID-19: Evidence from the Shuanghuanglian event, Data Technologies and Applications 56(2) (2022), 283–302.

42.

Shi

, et al., Study on the spread of unsafe behavior of laboratory personnel based on SD-SEIR model, Complex Systems and Complexity Science 18(3) (2021), 67–74.

43.

Xie

, et al., Study on SIR model of repeated infection of food safety network public opinion, Journal of Systems Engineering 37(2) (2022), 145–160.

44.

Yan

, et al., Research on classification and classification of emergencies in emergency management, Management Review 17(4) (2005), 37–41.