skip to main content
10.1145/3110025.3110060acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Understanding Psycho-Sociological Vulnerability of ISIS Patronizers in Twitter

Authors Info & Claims
Published:31 July 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is a Salafi jihadist militant group that has made extensive use of online social media platforms to promulgate its ideologies and evoke many individuals to support the organization. The psycho-sociological background of an individual plays a crucial role in determining his/her vulnerability of being lured into joining the organisation and indulge in terrorist activities, since his/her behavior largely depends on the society s/he was brought up in. Here, we analyse five sociological aspects -- personality, values & ethics, optimism/pessimism, age and gender to understand the psycho-sociological vulnerability of individuals over Twitter. Experimental results suggest that psycho-sociological aspects indeed act as foundation to discover and differentiate between prominent and unobtrusive users in Twitter.

References

  1. L. Curtis, L. Coffey, D. Inserra, D. Kochis, W. Lohman, J. Meservey, J. Phillips, and R. Simcox, "Combatting the isis foreign fighter pipeline: A global approach," The Heritage Foundation Special Report on Terrorism, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. J. Berger and J. Morgan, "The isis twitter census: Defining and describing the population of isis supporters on twitter," The Brookings Project on US Relations with the Islamic World, vol. 3, no. 20, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. W. M. Walid, "# failedrevolutions: Using twitter to study the antecedents of isis support," arXiv preprint arXiv, vol. 1503, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. A. Bermingham, M. Conway, L. McInerney, N. O'Hare, and A. F. Smeaton, "Combining social network analysis and sentiment analysis to explore the potential for online radicalisation," in ASONAM. IEEE, 2009, pp. 231--236.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. L. Blaker, "The islamic states use of online social media," Military Cyber Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 4, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. H. Saif, M. Fernández, M. Rowe, and H. Alani, "On the role of semantics for detecting pro-isis stances on social media," in ISWC 2016, Kobe, Japan, October, 2016., 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. T. Maheshwari, A. N. Reganti, T. Chakraborty, and A. Das, "Socioethnic ingredients of social network communities," in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, CSCW 2017, Portland, OR, USA, February 25 - March 1, 2017, Companion Volume, 2017, pp. 235--238. [Online]. Available: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3026322Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. L. R. Goldberg, "An alternative "description of personality": the big-five factor structure," Journal of personality and social psychology, vol. 59, no. 6, p. 1216, 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. S. H. Schwartz, "Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries," in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, M. Zanna, Ed. New York: Academic Press, 1992, vol. 25, pp. 1--65.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. X. Ruan, S. R. Wilson, and R. Mihalcea, "Finding optimists and pessimists on twitter," in The 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2016, p. 320. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. F. Rangel, P. Rosso, B. Verhoeven, W. Daelemans, M. Potthast, and B. Stein, "Overview of the 4th author profiling task at pan 2016: cross-genre evaluations," Working Notes Papers of the CLEF, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. S. M. Mohammad, S. Kiritchenko, and X. Zhu, "NRC-Canada: Building the state-of-the-art in sentiment analysis of tweets," arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.6242, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. A. Esuli and F. Sebastiani, "Sentiwordnet: A publicly available lexical resource for opinion mining," in Proceedings of LREC, vol. 6. Citeseer, 2006, pp. 417--422.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. F. Celli, F. Pianesi, D. Stillwell, and M. Kosinski, "The workshop on computational personality recognition 2013," in Proceedings of the AAAI. AAAI, 2013, pp. 2--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. B. Verhoeven, W. Daelemans, and T. De Smedt, "Ensemble methods for personality recognition," in Proceedings of WCPR13, in conjunction with ICWSM-13, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. S. H. Schwartz, G. Melech, A. Lehmann, S. Burgess, M. Harris, and V. Owens, "Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement," Journal of cross-cultural psychology, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 519--542, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. T. Maheshwari, A. N. Reganti, U. Kumar, T. Chakraborty, and A. Das, "Semantic interpretation of social network communities," in Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, February 4--9, 2017, San Francisco, California, USA., 2017, pp. 4967--4968.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. P. R. Monge and N. S. Contractor, Theories of communication networks. Oxford University Press, USA, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. S. Cutter, B. J. Boruff, and W. L. Shirley, "Social vulnerability to environmental hazards," Hazards, Vulnerability, and Environmental Justice, pp. 115--132, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. Understanding Psycho-Sociological Vulnerability of ISIS Patronizers in Twitter

      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
        ASONAM '17: Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2017
        July 2017
        698 pages
        ISBN:9781450349932
        DOI:10.1145/3110025

        Copyright © 2017 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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 components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 31 July 2017

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate116of549submissions,21%

        Upcoming Conference

        KDD '24

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader