Literature DB >> 27257310

Social Media Analyses for Social Measurement.

Michael F Schober1, Josh Pasek1, Lauren Guggenheim1, Cliff Lampe1, Frederick G Conrad1.   

Abstract

Demonstrations that analyses of social media content can align with measurement from sample surveys have raised the question of whether survey research can be supplemented or even replaced with less costly and burdensome data mining of already-existing or "found" social media content. But just how trustworthy such measurement can be-say, to replace official statistics-is unknown. Survey researchers and data scientists approach key questions from starting assumptions and analytic traditions that differ on, for example, the need for representative samples drawn from frames that fully cover the population. New conversations between these scholarly communities are needed to understand the potential points of alignment and non-alignment. Across these approaches, there are major differences in (a) how participants (survey respondents and social media posters) understand the activity they are engaged in; (b) the nature of the data produced by survey responses and social media posts, and the inferences that are legitimate given the data; and (c) practical and ethical considerations surrounding the use of the data. Estimates are likely to align to differing degrees depending on the research topic and the populations under consideration, the particular features of the surveys and social media sites involved, and the analytic techniques for extracting opinions and experiences from social media. Traditional population coverage may not be required for social media content to effectively predict social phenomena to the extent that social media content distills or summarizes broader conversations that are also measured by surveys.

Entities:  

Year:  2016        PMID: 27257310      PMCID: PMC4884815          DOI: 10.1093/poq/nfv048

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Opin Q        ISSN: 0033-362X


  14 in total

1.  Maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice.

Authors:  Barry Schwartz; Andrew Ward; John Monterosso; Sonja Lyubomirsky; Katherine White; Darrin R Lehman
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2002-11

2.  Political science. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook.

Authors:  Eytan Bakshy; Solomon Messing; Lada A Adamic
Journal:  Science       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology.

Authors:  C F Turner; L Ku; S M Rogers; L D Lindberg; J H Pleck; F L Sonenstein
Journal:  Science       Date:  1998-05-08       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Analyzing online sentiment to predict telephone poll results.

Authors:  King-wa Fu; Chee-hon Chan
Journal:  Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw       Date:  2013-02-01

5.  Diurnal and seasonal mood vary with work, sleep, and daylength across diverse cultures.

Authors:  Scott A Golder; Michael W Macy
Journal:  Science       Date:  2011-09-30       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  A Review of Facebook Research in the Social Sciences.

Authors:  Robert E Wilson; Samuel D Gosling; Lindsay T Graham
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2012-05

7.  New Challenges to Social Measurement.

Authors:  Douglas S Massey; Roger Tourangeau
Journal:  Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci       Date:  2013-01

8.  Assessing Google flu trends performance in the United States during the 2009 influenza virus A (H1N1) pandemic.

Authors:  Samantha Cook; Corrie Conrad; Ashley L Fowlkes; Matthew H Mohebbi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-08-19       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Precision and Disclosure in Text and Voice Interviews on Smartphones.

Authors:  Michael F Schober; Frederick G Conrad; Christopher Antoun; Patrick Ehlen; Stefanie Fail; Andrew L Hupp; Michael Johnston; Lucas Vickers; H Yanna Yan; Chan Zhang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Real-time sharing and expression of migraine headache suffering on Twitter: a cross-sectional infodemiology study.

Authors:  Thiago D Nascimento; Marcos F DosSantos; Theodora Danciu; Misty DeBoer; Hendrik van Holsbeeck; Sarah R Lucas; Christine Aiello; Leen Khatib; MaryCatherine A Bender; Jon-Kar Zubieta; Alexandre F DaSilva
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 5.428

View more
  10 in total

1.  Augmenting Household Expenditure Forecasts with Online Employee-generated Company Reviews.

Authors:  Efthymia Symitsi; Panagiotis Stamolampros; Antonios Karatzas
Journal:  Public Opin Q       Date:  2021-09-01

2.  Measuring social integration and tie strength with smartphone and survey data.

Authors:  Agnete S Dissing; Cynthia M Lakon; Thomas A Gerds; Naja H Rod; Rikke Lund
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-08-23       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Psychological and physiological effects of applying self-control to the mobile phone.

Authors:  David M Markowitz; Jeffrey T Hancock; Jeremy N Bailenson; Byron Reeves
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-11-04       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Analyzing user-generated content using natural language processing: a case study of public satisfaction with healthcare systems.

Authors:  Anna Ruelens
Journal:  J Comput Soc Sci       Date:  2021-10-29

5.  Sweet tweets! Evaluating a new approach for probability-based sampling of Twitter.

Authors:  Trent D Buskirk; Brian P Blakely; Adam Eck; Richard McGrath; Ravinder Singh; Youzhi Yu
Journal:  EPJ Data Sci       Date:  2022-02-19       Impact factor: 3.184

6.  A systematic literature review of how and whether social media data can complement traditional survey data to study public opinion.

Authors:  Maud Reveilhac; Stephanie Steinmetz; Davide Morselli
Journal:  Multimed Tools Appl       Date:  2022-02-14       Impact factor: 2.577

7.  Spatiotemporal variations of public opinion on social distancing in the Netherlands: Comparison of Twitter and longitudinal survey data.

Authors:  Chao Zhang; Shihan Wang; Erik Tjong Kim Sang; Marieke A Adriaanse; Lars Tummers; Marijn Schraagen; Ji Qi; Mehdi Dastani; Henk Aarts
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-07-28

8.  Online and Social Media Data As an Imperfect Continuous Panel Survey.

Authors:  Fernando Diaz; Michael Gamon; Jake M Hofman; Emre Kıcıman; David Rothschild
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-05       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Public Reactions to the New York State Policy on Flavored Electronic Cigarettes on Twitter: Observational Study.

Authors:  Li Sun; Xinyi Lu; Zidian Xie; Dongmei Li
Journal:  JMIR Public Health Surveill       Date:  2022-02-03

10.  Barriers to blood donation on social media: An analysis of Facebook and Twitter posts.

Authors:  Steven Ramondt; Melissa Zijlstra; Peter Kerkhof; Eva-Maria Merz
Journal:  Transfusion       Date:  2020-08-08       Impact factor: 3.337

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.