skip to main content
10.1145/3406865.3418375acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

Text Mining for Social Good; Context-aware Measurement of Social Impact and Effects Using Natural Language Processing

Published:17 October 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Exposure to information sources of different types and modalities, such as social media, movies, scholarly reports, and interactions with other communities and groups can change a person's values as well as their knowledge and attitude towards various social phenomena. My doctoral research aims to analyze the effect of these stimuli on people and groups by applying mixed-method approaches that include techniques from natural language processing, close reading, and machine learning. The research leverages different types of user-generated texts (i.e., social media and customer reviews), and professionally-generated texts (i.e., scholarly publications and organizational documents) to study (1) the impact of information that aims to advance social good for individuals and society, and (2) the impact of social and individual biases on people's language use. This work contributes to advancing knowledge, theory and computational solutions relevant to the field of computational social science. The approaches and insights discussed can provide a better understanding of people's attitudes and judgments toward issues and events of general interest, which is necessary to develop solutions for minimizing biases, filter bubbles, and polarization while also improving the effectiveness of interpersonal and societal discourse.

References

  1. Johanna Blakley, Grace Huang, Sheena Nahm, and Heesung Shin. 2016. Changing appetites & changing minds: Measuring the impact of" Food, Inc.". The USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center, nd (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ryan L Boyd, Steven R Wilson, James W Pennebaker, Michal Kosinski, David J Stillwell, and Rada Mihalcea. 2015. Values in words: Using language to evaluate and understand personal values. In Ninth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Elisabetta Crocetti, Silvia Moscatelli, Goda Kaniuonyte, Susan Branje, Rita ukauskien e, and Monica Rubini. 2018. 'Adolescents' self-perception of morality, competence, and sociability and their Interplay with quality of family, friend, and school relationships: a three-wave longitudinal study. Journal of youth and adolescence 47, 8 (2018), 1743--1754.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Susan T Fiske. 1993. Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American psychologist 48, 6 (1993), 621.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Jesse Graham, Jonathan Haidt, Sena Koleva, Matt Motyl, Ravi Iyer, Sean P Wojcik, and Peter H Ditto. 2013. Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 47. Elsevier, 55--130.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Justin Grimmer and Brandon M Stewart. 2013. Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political analysis 21, 3 (2013), 267--297.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham. 2007. When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research 20, 1 (2007), 98--116.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Bibb Latané. 1981. The psychology of social impact. American psychologist 36, 4 (1981), 343.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Michela Menegatti and Monica Rubini. 2017. Gender bias and sexism in language. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Saif Mohammad, Svetlana Kiritchenko, Parinaz Sobhani, Xiaodan Zhu, and Colin Cherry. 2016. Semeval-2016 task 6: Detecting stance in tweets. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2016). 31--41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Gregory Park, H Andrew Schwartz, Johannes C Eichstaedt, Margaret L Kern, Michal Kosinski, David J Stillwell, Lyle H Ungar, and Martin EP Seligman. 2015. Automatic personality assessment through social media language. Journal of personality and social psychology 108, 6 (2015), 934.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Rezvaneh Rezapour, Jutta Bopp, Norman Fiedler, Diana Steffen, Andreas Witt, and Jana Diesner. 2020. Beyond Citations: Corpus-based Methods for Detecting the Impact of Research Outcomes on Society. In Proceedings of The 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference. 6777--6785.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Rezvaneh Rezapour and Jana Diesner. 2017. Classification and detection of micro-level impact of issue-focused documentary films based on reviews. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, 1419--1431.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Rezvaneh Rezapour, Saumil H Shah, and Jana Diesner. 2019. Enhancing the Measurement of Social Effects by Capturing Morality. In Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis. 35--45.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Maarten Sap, Saadia Gabriel, Lianhui Qin, Dan Jurafsky, Noah A Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Social Bias Frames: Reasoning about Social and Power Implications of Language. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.03891 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Anya Schiffrin, Cristobal Vasquez, and Nawei Yang. 2014. Measuring Media Impact. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. H Andrew Schwartz, Johannes C Eichstaedt, Margaret L Kern, Lukasz Dziurzynski, Stephanie M Ramones, Megha Agrawal, Achal Shah, Michal Kosinski, David Stillwell, Martin EP Seligman, et al. 2013. Personality, gender, and age in the language of social media: The open-vocabulary approach. PloS one 8, 9 (2013), e73791.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Galit Shmueli et al. 2010. To explain or to predict? Statistical science 25, 3 (2010), 289--310.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Harry C Triandis. 1989. The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological review 96, 3 (1989), 506.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Michele Vecchione, Shalom Schwartz, Guido Alessandri, Anna K Döring, Valeria Castellani, and Maria Giovanna Caprara. 2016. Stability and change of basic personal values in early adulthood: An 8-year longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality 63 (2016), 111--122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Text Mining for Social Good; Context-aware Measurement of Social Impact and Effects Using Natural Language Processing

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CSCW '20 Companion: Companion Publication of the 2020 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
          October 2020
          559 pages
          ISBN:9781450380591
          DOI:10.1145/3406865

          Copyright © 2020 Owner/Author

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 17 October 2020

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • abstract

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

          Upcoming Conference

          CSCW '24

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader