Advertisement

Personality Analysis of Social Media Influencers as a Tool for Cultural Institutions

  • Vassilis PoulopoulosEmail author
  • Costas Vassilakis
  • Angela Antoniou
  • George Lepouras
  • Manolis Wallace
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11196)

Abstract

Open image in new window Nowadays, more and more cultural venues tend to utilize social media as a main tool for marketing, spreading their messages, engaging public and raising public awareness towards culture. It comes to a point where the massive of content in social media makes it a tedious procedure to contact the appropriate audience, the people that would really be stimulated by cultural information. In this notion, we assume that establishing conversations of high impact can possibly guide the cultural venues to audiences that can benefit more. These conversations usually include the so called influencers, users whose opinion can affect many people on social media; the latter usually referred to as followers. In this research paper we examine the characteristics of the influencers that can affect the procedures of a cultural venue on social media. The research is done within the scope of “CrossCult” EU funded project.

Keywords

User modeling Personality traits Influencers Cultural informatics Social media 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This work has been partially funded by the project CrossCult: “Empowering reuse of digital cultural heritage in context-aware crosscuts of European history”, funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, Grant#693150.

References

  1. 1.
    Falk, J.H., Dierking, L.D.: The Museum Experience Revisited. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, 416 p. (2013). ISBN 978-1-61132-044-2Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maslow, A.H.: A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 50(4), 370–396 (1943)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duncan, S., Barrett, L.F.: Affect is a form of cognition: a neurobiological analysis. Cogn. Emot. 21(6), 1184–1211 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930701437931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harmon-Jones, E., Gable, P.A., Price, T.F.: Does negative affect always narrow and positive affect always broaden the mind? Considering the influence of motivational intensity on cognitive scope. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 22(4), 301–307 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harmon-Jones, E., Harmon-Jones, C., Amodio, D.M., Gable, P.A.: Attitudes toward emotions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101(6), 1332 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sheng, C.W., Chen, M.C.: A study of experience expectations of museum visitors. Tour. Manag. 33(1), 53–60 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Economou, M., Meintani, E.: Promising beginning? Evaluating museum mobile phone apps (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kietzmann, J.H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I.P., Silvestre, B.S.: Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Bus. Horiz. 54(3), 241–251 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Panahi, S., Watson, J., Partridge, H.: Social media and tacit knowledge sharing: developing a conceptual model. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 64, 1095–1102 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morris, M.R., Teevan, J., Panovich, K.: What do people ask their social networks, and why?: a survey study of status message Q&A behavior. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1739–1748. ACM, April 2010Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Trusov, M., Bodapati, A.V., Bucklin, R.E.: Determining influential users in internet social networks. J. Mark. Res. 47(4), 643–658 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gnambs, T., Batinic, B.: A personality-competence model of opinion leadership. Psychol. Mark. 29(8), 606–621 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bakshy, E., Hofman, J.M., Mason, W.A., Watts, D.J.: Everyone’s an influencer: quantifying influence on twitter. In: Proceedings of the Fourth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pp. 65–74. ACM, February 2011Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bakshy, E., Eckles, D., Yan, R., Rosenn, I.: Social influence in social advertising: evidence from field experiments. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 146–161 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Soren, B.J.: Museum experiences that change visitors. Mus. Manag. Curatorship 24(3), 233–251 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Anderson, L.W., et al.: A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Longman Publishing, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Artz, A.F., Armour-Thomas, E.: Development of a cognitive-metacognitive framework for protocol analysis of mathematical problem solving in small groups. Cognit. Instr. 9(2), 137–175 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., Krathwohl, D.R.: Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain, vol. 19, p. 56. David McKay Co Inc., New York (1956)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Daudelin, M.W.: Learning from experience through reflection. Organ. Dyn. 24(3), 36–48 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Freberg, K., Graham, K., McGaughey, K., Freberg, L.A.: Who are the social media influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Public Relat. Rev. 37(1), 90–92 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peng, W., Sun, T.: U.S. Patent 8,312,056. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, D.C. (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Booth, N., Matic, J.A.: Mapping and leveraging influencers in social media to shape corporate brand perceptions. Corp. Commun.: Int. J. 16(3), 184–191 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fan, W., Gordon, M.D.: The power of social media analytics. Commun. ACM 57(6), 74–81 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Colbert, F., Courchesne, A.: Critical issues in the marketing of cultural goods: the decisive influence of cultural transmission. City Cult. Soc. 3(4), 275–280 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scullard, M., Baum, D.: Everything DiSC Manual. Wiley, London (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sugerman, J.: Using the DiSC® model to improve communication effectiveness. Ind. Commer. Train. 41(3), 151–154 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krueger, D.: Characteristics of the female entrepreneur. J. Bus. Entrep. 12(1), 87 (2000)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lykourentzou, I., Antoniou, A., Naudet, Y., Dow, S.P.: Personality matters: balancing for personality types leads to better outcomes for crowd teams. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, pp. 260–273. ACM, February 2016Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lykourentzou, I., Naudet, Y., Vandenabeele, L.: Reflecting on European history with the help of technology: the CrossCult project. In: Proceedings of the 14th Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage, pp. 67–70. Eurographics Association, October 2016Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Villa Romana Del Casale. http://www.villaromanadelcasale.it. Accessed Aug 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Knowledge and Uncertainty Research LaboratoryUniversity of the PeloponneseTripolisGreece
  2. 2.University of the PeloponneseTripolisGreece

Personalised recommendations