Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influence modeling of opinion switching by Twitter users in public shaming events

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Social Network Analysis and Mining Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Public shaming is mass criticism of someone for perceived violation of an established social norm. These events are ever increasing in number and scope on online social media platforms. An individual instance of shaming is, as a matter of fact, an expression of opinion regarding the target or victim of the event. Public shaming events are more engaging and often evoke stronger opinions from users than word of mouth spreading of information. This work models polarity of a user’s opinion as a function of several factors, such as his/her recently held opinions, received opinions and the environment, in online public shaming events on Twitter. Specifically, we investigate the opinion change process of Twitter users by highlighting the influence of responsible factors. A semi-supervised representation learning model is used to get opinion vectors from tweets. Next, an opinion prediction model based on the user’s past opinions, received opinions and environment is designed. We show that opinion changes can be attributed to factors in varying proportions depending on the direction of the change. Thus, a strategy to stop a shaming event by inducing opinion changes in the participants needs to take into account the direction of the change. Efficacy of possible counter measures to shaming is analyzed based on our findings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://github.com/google-research/bert#pre-training-tips-and-caveats.

  2. http://tensorflow.org.

  3. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3460780.

  4. https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/tweets/timelines/api-reference/get-statuses-user_timeline.

  5. https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/tweets/timelines/api-reference/get-statuses-home_timeline.

References

  • Bakshy E, Hofman JM, Mason WA, Watts DJ (2011) 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

  • Basak R, Sural S, Ganguly N, Ghosh SK (2019) Online public shaming on Twitter: detection, analysis, and mitigation. IEEE Trans Comput Soc Syst 6(2):208–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann F, Lorenz-Spreen P, Sokolov IM, Starnini M (2019) Modeling echo chambers and polarization dynamics in social networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:190612325

  • Bredereck R, Elkind E (2017) Manipulating opinion diffusion in social networks. In: IJCAI, pp 894–900

  • Castellano C, Muñoz MA, Pastor-Satorras R (2009) Nonlinear q-voter model. Phys Rev E 80(4):041129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cha M, Haddadi H, Benevenuto F, Gummadi KP (2010) Measuring user influence in Twitter: the million follower fallacy. In: Fourth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media

  • Chen X, Lijffijt J, De Bie T (2018) Quantifying and minimizing risk of conflict in social networks. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pp 1197–1205

  • Clifford P, Sudbury A (1973) A model for spatial conflict. Biometrika 60(3):581–588

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Deffuant G, Neau D, Amblard F, Weisbuch G (2000) Mixing beliefs among interacting agents. Adv Complex Syst 3(01n04):87–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devlin J, Chang MW, Lee K, Toutanova KN (2018) Bert: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv:181004805

  • Goldenberg J, Libai B, Muller E (2001) Talk of the network: a complex systems look at the underlying process of word-of-mouth. Mark Lett 12(3):211–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter M, Soong R (1983) Threshold models of diffusion and collective behavior. J Math Sociol 9(3):165–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerra PC, Nalon R, Assunção R, Meira Jr W (2017) Antagonism also flows through retweets: the impact of out-of-context quotes in opinion polarization analysis. In: Eleventh international AAAI conference on web and social media

  • Hegselmann R, Krause U et al (2002) Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 5(3):1–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Jedrzejewski A, Sznajd-Weron K (2018) Impact of memory on opinion dynamics. Phys A Stat Mech Appl 505:306–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelman HC (1958) Compliance, identification, and internalization three processes of attitude change. J Confl Resolut 2(1):51–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kempe D, Kleinberg J, Tardos É (2005) Influential nodes in a diffusion model for social networks. In: International colloquium on automata, languages, and programming. Springer, Berlin, pp 1127–1138

  • Matakos A, Terzi E, Tsaparas P (2017) Measuring and moderating opinion polarization in social networks. Data Min Knowl Discov 31(5):1480–1505

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Morales A, Borondo J, Losada JC, Benito RM (2015) Measuring political polarization: Twitter shows the two sides of Venezuela. Chaos Interdiscip J Nonlinear Sci 25(3):033114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olivares G, Cárdenas JP, Losada JC, Borondo J (2019) Opinion polarization during a dichotomous electoral process. Complexity 2019:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prasetya HA, Murata T (2020) A model of opinion and propagation structure polarization in social media. Comput Soc Netw 7(1):1–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Razis G, Anagnostopoulos I (2014) Influencetracker: rating the impact of a Twitter account. In: IFIP International conference on artificial intelligence applications and innovations. Springer, Berlin, pp 184–195

  • Rogers EM (1962) Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronson J (2015) So you’ve been publicly shamed. Picador, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Su W, Guo J, Chen X, Chen G (2019) Noise-induced synchronization of Hegselmann–Krause dynamics in full space. IEEE Trans Autom Control 64(9):3804–3808

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Sundararajan M, Taly A, Yan Q (2017) Axiomatic attribution for deep networks. In: Proceedings of the 34th international conference on machine learning, vol 70, pp 3319–3328. JMLR.org

  • Sutskever I, Vinyals O, Le QV (2014) Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. Proceedings of advances in neural information processing systems 27:3104–3112

    Google Scholar 

  • Weng J, Lim EP, Jiang J, He Q (2010) Twitterrank: finding topic-sensitive influential twitterers. In: Proceedings of the third ACM international conference on web search and data mining, pp 261–270

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India

    Rajesh Basak, Soumya K. Ghosh & Shamik Sural

Authors
  1. Rajesh Basak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Soumya K. Ghosh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shamik Sural
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajesh Basak.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Basak, R., Ghosh, S.K. & Sural, S. Influence modeling of opinion switching by Twitter users in public shaming events. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 10, 84 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-020-00698-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-020-00698-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation