| Literature DB >> 35682439 |
Abstract
Social media (SM) functions such as hashtags and photo uploading can enrich and expedite user interactions, but can also facilitate the online spread of antisocial norms. Mask aversion is one such antisocial norm shared on SM in the current COVID-19 pandemic circumstances. This study utilized the social representation theory (SRT) to explore how mask aversion is visually represented in the Instagram photos tagged with #NoMask. It examined the overall content of the photos, the characteristics of the faces portrayed in the photos, and the presented words in the photos. Additionally, the study grouped the photos through k-means clustering and compared the resulting clusters in terms of content, characteristics of the faces, presented words, pixel-level characteristics, and the public's responses to the photos. The results indicate that people, especially human faces, were visually represented the most in the Instagram photos tagged with #NoMask. Two clusters were generated by k-means clustering-Text-centered and people-centered. The visual representations of the two clusters differed in terms of content characteristics and pixel-level attributes. The texts presented in the photos manifested a unique way of delivering key messages. The photos of the people-centered cluster received more positive comments than the text-centered one; however, the two clusters were not significantly different in eliciting engagement. This study can contribute to expanding the scope of SRT to visual representations and hashtag movements.Entities:
Keywords: #NoMask; Instagram; hashtag; k-means clustering; social representation theory
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35682439 PMCID: PMC9180303 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19116857
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Determining the optimal number of clusters via k-means clustering using (a) the elbow method and (b) the silhouette score method.
Figure 2The overall content of the Instagram photos with a #NoMask hashtag: the frequency of photos by content category (left), and the content tags with the highest mean confidence scores (right).
The mean of facial features of the Instagram photos with a #NoMask hashtag.
| Feature | Mean (SD) |
|---|---|
| Number of faces | 1.441 (1.614) |
| Closeup | 0.110 (0.132) |
| Face ratio | 0.120 (0.134) |
| Age | 30.997 (10.787) |
| Gender | 0.855 (1.366) |
| Anger | 0.014 (0.081) |
| Contempt | 0.013 (0.061) |
| Disgust | 0.002 (0.024) |
| Fear | 0.002 (0.026) |
| Happiness | 0.433 (0.436) |
| Sadness | 0.019 (0.077) |
| Surprise | 0.017 (0.087) |
| Neutral | 0.499 (0.421) |
Figure 3The 50 most frequent words presented in the Instagram photos with a #NoMask hashtag.
Figure 4The comparison between clusters (upper vs. lower rows) of the Instagram photos with a #NoMask hashtag in terms of the content: the frequency of photos by content category (left column), and the content tags with the highest mean confidence scores (right column).
The mean comparison of facial features between clusters of the Instagram photos with a #NoMask hashtag.
| Feature | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | t |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of faces | 0.320 | 0.675 | −22.329 * |
| Closeup | 0.011 | 0.056 | −35.973 * |
| Face ratio | 0.013 | 0.061 | −36.738 * |
| Age | 7.311 | 14.380 | −33.475 * |
| Gender | 0.153 | 0.413 | −21.078 * |
| Anger | 0.006 | 0.006 | −0.229 |
| Contempt | 0.002 | 0.006 | −8.861 * |
| Disgust | 0.001 | 0.001 | −1.013 |
| Fear | 0.001 | 0.001 | 2.079 * |
| Happiness | 0.072 | 0.211 | −31.517 * |
| Sadness | 0.006 | 0.008 | −3.888 * |
| Surprise | 0.005 | 0.008 | −3.236 * |
| Neutral | 0.111 | 0.234 | −26.594 * |
* p < 0.05
Figure 5The 30 most frequent words in the Instagram photos with a #NoMask hashtag calculated by cluster.
The mean comparison of pixel-level features between clusters of the Instagram photos with a #NoMask hashtag.
| Feature | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | t |
|---|---|---|---|
| Red mean | 150.756 | 125.352 | 41.639 * |
| Red variance | 4953.540 | 4631.434 | 10.894 * |
| Green mean | 145.916 | 116.136 | 50.536 * |
| Green variance | 4939.018 | 4288.623 | 22.782 * |
| Blue mean | 145.276 | 111.059 | 56.675 * |
| Blue variance | 4771.863 | 4066.758 | 23.713 * |
| Saturation mean | 60.708 | 81.059 | −34.837 * |
| Saturation variance | 3016.080 | 2936.486 | 2.759 * |
| Value mean | 163.111 | 137.228 | 44.193 * |
| Value variance | 4561.874 | 4435.141 | 4.540 * |
| Hue peaks | 2.144 | 2.166 | −1.577 |
| Brightness | 147.289 | 118.316 | 50.381 * |
| Colorfulness | 35.170 | 40.213 | −16.172 * |
| Naturalness | 0.356 | 0.440 | −15.394 * |
| Contrast | 63.567 | 61.118 | 11.600 * |
| RGB contrast | 115.070 | 111.426 | 10.112 * |
| Sharpness | 7,4597.393 | 8,2896.601 | −8.018 * |
* p < 0.05.