Advertisement

How People Talk About Armed Conflicts

  • Jeremy R. Cole
  • Ying Xu
  • David Reitter
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9708)

Abstract

Armed conflicts around the world produce displacement, injury, and death. This study examines how anonymous and pseudonymous Internet commenters discuss such conflicts. Specifically, we ask how permissible it is to express positive or negative sentiments about these conflicts as a function of variables including region, conflict nature, and severity. Data from the Armed Conflicts Database is aggregated to identify a number of potential factors that may influence views on acceptable sentiments. We used sentiment analysis to code a large-scale sample of the Reddit corpus. We judged permissibility using the Reddit voting features. This revealed that positive sentiments are found not permissible for higher numbers of fatalities, and that negative sentiments are found to be more permissible for certain regions and older conflicts, but less permissible for territorial conflicts. Thus, this study provides evidence that many features help construct public perception of a conflict.

Keywords

Behavioral and social sciences Corpus linguistics GLMM Armed conflicts Public opinion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under grants titled “Updating the Militarized Dispute Data Through Crowdsourcing” (SBE-SES-1528624) and “Alignment in webforum discourse” (CISE-IIS-1459300).

References

  1. 1.
    Armed Conflict Database: Monitoring Conflicts Worldwide (2016). https://acd.iiss.org/en
  2. 2.
    Berinsky, A.J.: In Time of War: Understanding American Public Opinion from World War II to Iraq. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dunn, O.J.: Estimation of the medians for dependent variables. In: The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, pp. 192–197 (1959)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gartner, S.S., Segura, G.M.: War, casualties, and public opinion. J. Conflict Resolut. 42(3), 278–300 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gartner, S.S., Segura, G.M.: Race, casualties, and opinion in the vietnam war. J. Politics 62(1), 115–146 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gelpi, C., Feaver, P.D., Reifler, J.: Paying the Human Costs of War: American Public Opinion and Casualties in Military Conflicts. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hawkins, V.: Media selectivity and the other side of the CNN effect: the consequences of not paying attention to conflict. Media War Confl. 4(1), 55–68 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lim, M.: Clicks, cabs, and coffee houses: social media and oppositional movements in Egypt, 2004–2011. J. Commun. 62(2), 231–248 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nelson, T.E., Clawson, R.A., Oxley, Z.M.: Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 91(3), 567–583 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Neuman, W.R., Guggenheim, L., Jang, S.M., Bae, S.Y.: The dynamics of public attention: agenda-setting theory meets big data. J. Commun. 64(2), 193–214 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nossek, H.: Our news and their news: the role of national identity in the coverage of foreign news. Journalism 5(3), 343–368 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sacco, V., Bossio, D.: Using social media in the news reportage of war & conflict: opportunities and challenges. J. Media Innovations 2(1), 59–76 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seib, P.: Beyond the Front Lines: How the News Media Cover a World Shaped by War. Palgrave Macmilan, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shirky, C.: The political power of social media. Foreign Aff. 90(1), 28–41 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Socher, R., Perelygin, A., Wu, J.Y., Chuang, J., Manning, C.D., Ng, A.Y., Potts, C.: Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), vol. 1631, p. 1642Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Information Science and TechnologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations