Skip to main content

Assessing Sentiment of the Expressed Stance on Social Media

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Social Informatics (SocInfo 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 11864))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Stance detection is the task of inferring viewpoint towards a given topic or entity either being supportive or opposing. One may express a viewpoint towards a topic by using positive or negative language. This paper examines how the stance is being expressed in social media according to the sentiment polarity. There has been a noticeable misconception of the similarity between the stance and sentiment when it comes to viewpoint discovery, where negative sentiment is assumed to mean against stance, and positive sentiment means in-favour stance. To analyze the relation between stance and sentiment, we construct a new dataset with four topics and examine how people express their viewpoint with regards these topics. We validate our results by carrying a further analysis of the popular stance benchmark SemEval stance dataset. Our analyses reveal that sentiment and stance are not highly aligned, and hence the simple sentiment polarity cannot be used solely to denote a stance toward a given topic.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://figure-eight.com/.

References

  1. Achananuparp, P., Hu, X., Shen, X.: The evaluation of sentence similarity measures. In: Song, I.-Y., Eder, J., Nguyen, T.M. (eds.) DaWaK 2008. LNCS, vol. 5182, pp. 305–316. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85836-2_29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Agarwal, A., Singh, R., Toshniwal, D.: Geospatial sentiment analysis using twitter data for UK-EU referendum. J. Inf. Optim. Sci. 39(1), 303–317 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  3. An, J., Kwak, H., Posegga, O., Jungherr, A.: Political discussions in homogeneous and cross-cutting communication spaces (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Biber, D., Finegan, E.: Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Process. 11(1), 1–34 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Darwish, K., Magdy, W., Zanouda, T.: Improved stance prediction in a user similarity feature space. In: ASONAM 2017 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ebrahimi, J., Dou, D., Lowd, D.: A joint sentiment-target-stance model for stance classification in tweets. In: COLING, pp. 2656–2665 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Elfardy, H., Diab, M.: CU-GWU perspective at SemEval-2016 task 6: ideological stance detection in informal text. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2016), pp. 434–439 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gomaa, W.H., Fahmy, A.A.: A survey of text similarity approaches. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 68(13), 13–18 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hu, Y., Wang, F., Kambhampati, S.: Listening to the crowd: automated analysis of events via aggregated twitter sentiment. In: Twenty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Igarashi, Y., Komatsu, H., Kobayashi, S., Okazaki, N., Inui, K.: Tohoku at SemEval-2016 Task 6: feature-based model versus convolutional neural network for stance detection. In: SemEval@ NAACL-HLT, pp. 401–407 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kareem, D., Peter, S., Aupetit, M.J., Preslav, N.: Unsupervised user stance detection on Twitter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.02000 (2019)

  12. Krejzl, P., Steinberger, J.: UWB at SemEval-2016 Task 6: stance detection. In: SemEval@ NAACL-HLT, pp. 408–412 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lee, H.W.: Using Twitter Hashtags to gauge real-time changes in public opinion: an examination of the 2016 US presidential election. In: Staab, S., Koltsova, O., Ignatov, D.I. (eds.) SocInfo 2018. LNCS, vol. 11186, pp. 168–175. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01159-8_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Liu, B., et al.: Sentiment analysis and subjectivity. Handb. Nat. Lang. Process. 2(2010), 627–666 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mohammad, S., Kiritchenko, S., Sobhani, P., Zhu, X.D., Cherry, C.: SemEval-2016 task 6: detecting stance in tweets. In: SemEval@ NAACL-HLT, pp. 31–41 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mohammad, S.M., Sobhani, P., Kiritchenko, S.: Stance and sentiment in tweets. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. (TOIT) 17(3), 26 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Overbey, L.A., Batson, S.C., Lyle, J., Williams, C., Regal, R., Williams, L.: Linking Twitter sentiment and event data to monitor public opinion of geopolitical developments and trends. In: Lee, D., Lin, Y.-R., Osgood, N., Thomson, R. (eds.) SBP-BRiMS 2017. LNCS, vol. 10354, pp. 223–229. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60240-0_26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Park, S., Ko, M., Kim, J., Liu, Y., Song, J.: The politics of comments: predicting political orientation of news stories with commenters’ sentiment patterns. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 113–122. ACM (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Smith, K.S., McCreadie, R., Macdonald, C., Ounis, I.: Analyzing disproportionate reaction via comparative multilingual targeted sentiment in Twitter. In: Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2017, pp. 317–320. ACM (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sobhani, P., Mohammad, S., Kiritchenko, S.: Detecting stance in tweets and analyzing its interaction with sentiment. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pp. 159–169 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Somasundaran, S., Wiebe, J.: Recognizing stances in ideological on-line debates. In: Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Computational Approaches to Analysis and Generation of Emotion in Text, pp. 116–124. Association for Computational Linguistics (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Trabelsi, A., Zaiane, O.R.: Unsupervised model for topic viewpoint discovery in online debates leveraging author interactions. In: Twelfth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Tsolmon, B., Kwon, A.-R., Lee, K.-S.: Extracting social events based on timeline and sentiment analysis in Twitter corpus. In: Bouma, G., Ittoo, A., Métais, E., Wortmann, H. (eds.) NLDB 2012. LNCS, vol. 7337, pp. 265–270. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31178-9_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Unankard, S., Li, X., Sharaf, M., Zhong, J., Li, X.: Predicting Elections from social networks based on sub-event detection and sentiment analysis. In: Benatallah, B., Bestavros, A., Manolopoulos, Y., Vakali, A., Zhang, Y. (eds.) WISE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8787, pp. 1–16. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11746-1_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abeer Aldayel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

A Analysis of the Textual Patterns

A Analysis of the Textual Patterns

To gauge the similarity between the vocabulary choice that has been used to express the sentiment and stance we analyzed the tweets in the two datasets using Jaccard similarity. We used Jaccard coefficient the widely adopted measure to capture the overlap between two sets [1, 3, 8]. In this analysis, for each sentiment and stance gold labels we combine all tweets and use Term Frequency-Inverse Document (TF-IDF), to find important words in each type of sentiment and stance. In order to compute the TF-IDF on tweet level we consider each tweet as document. Using TF-IDF helps in filtering out less significant words. The Jaccard similarity between the set of sentiment and stance words defined as following:

$$\begin{aligned} Jaccard(W_{sentiment},W_{stance}) = \frac{W_{sentiment} \cap W_{stance}}{W_{sentiment} \cup W_{stance}} \end{aligned}$$
(1)

where W\(_{sentiment}\) and W\(_{stance}\) denote the list of top N words by TF-IDF value for the tweets with specific sentiment and stance type.

Fig. 3.
figure 3

Jaccard similarity of the top N-most frequent words between sentiment and stance.

Figure 3 shows that the similarity between the words that have been used to express favor stance has less than 20% of similarity with tweets that has a positive sentiment. That means users tend to express their Favor stance without using positive sentiment words. In contrast, the common words for against stance have the most significant similarity with against sentiment words. The Jacquard similarity become stable with growing N. As Fig. 4 shows that the overall agreement between the sentiment and the stance is minuscule in general. The tweets that have against-negative labels constitutes less than 33%. Similarly less than 8% of the data has positive sentiment and favor stance. This shows that in general negative words tend to be similar to the against words while the matching cases are minuscule. On the other-hand, the matching cases where the tweet express favor and positive sentiment constitute about 8.9% and 4% of the overall data of SemEval stance and CD stance dataset.

Fig. 4.
figure 4

Tweets with matching and mixed stance and sentiment.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Aldayel, A., Magdy, W. (2019). Assessing Sentiment of the Expressed Stance on Social Media. In: Weber, I., et al. Social Informatics. SocInfo 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11864. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34971-4_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34971-4_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-34970-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-34971-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics