This article provides a comprehensive investigation on the relations between virality of news articles and the emotions they are found to evoke. Virality, in our view, is a phenomenon with many facets, i.e. under this generic term several different effects of persuasive communication are comprised. By exploiting a high-coverage and bilingual corpus of documents containing metrics of their spread on social networks as well as a massive affective annotation provided by readers, we present a thorough analysis of the interplay between evoked emotions and viral facets. We highlight and discuss our findings in light of a cross-lingual approach: while we discover differences in evoked emotions and corresponding viral effects, we provide preliminary evidence of a generalized explanatory model rooted in the deep structure of emotions: the Valence-Arousal-Dominance (VAD) circumplex. We find that viral facets appear to be consistently affected by particular VAD configurations, and these configurations indicate a clear connection with distinct phenomena underlying persuasive communication.
Recently, the relation between content characteristics and virality has begun to be investigated, especially with regard to textual content. @cite_3 , for instance, features derived from sentiment analysis of comments are used to predict the popularity of stories. The relevant work in @cite_6 measures a different form of content spreading, by analyzing which are the features of a movie quote that make it memorable" online. Another approach to content virality, somehow complementary to the previous one, is presented in @cite_18 , where the authors investigate which modification dynamics make a meme spread from one person to another (as compared with movie quotes which spread remaining exactly the same). Louis and Nenkova @cite_2 focused on influential scientific articles in newspapers, considering characteristics such as readability, description vividness, use of unusual words and affective content, comparing high quality articles (NYT articles appearing in The Best American Science Writing" anthology) against typical NYT articles.
@cite_18 @cite_6 @cite_3 @cite_2
76678209 2953303434 2102838093 2184410296
Reactions to textual content posted in an online social network show different dynamics depending on the linguistic style and readability of the submitted content. Do similar dynamics exist for responses to scientific articles? Our intuition, supported by previous research, suggests that the success of a scientific article depends on its content, rather than on its linguistic style. In this article, we examine a corpus of scientific abstracts and three forms of associated reactions: article downloads, citations, and bookmarks. Through a class-based psycholinguistic analysis and readability indices tests, we show that certain stylistic and readability features of abstracts clearly concur in determining the success and viral capability of a scientific article. A citing sentence is one that appears in a scientific article and cites previous work. Citing sentences have been studied and used in many applications. For example, they have been used in scientific paper summarization, automatic survey generation, paraphrase identification, and citation function classification. Citing sentences that cite multiple papers are common in scientific writing. This observation should be taken into consideration when using citing sentences in applications. For instance, when a citing sentence is used in a summary of a scientific paper, only the fragments of the sentence that are relevant to the summarized paper should be included in the summary. In this paper, we present and compare three different approaches for identifying the fragments of a citing sentence that are related to a given target reference. Our methods are: word classification, sequence labeling, and segment classification. Our experiments show that segment classification achieves the best results. Incivility in public discussions has received increasing attention from academic and popular commentators in recent years. In an effort to better understand the nature and determinants of such incivility, this study examined a 3-week census of articles and comments posted to a local newspaper’s website—totaling more than 300 articles and 6,400 comments. The results of the content analysis show that incivility occurs frequently and is associated with key contextual factors, such as the topic of the article and the sources quoted within the article. We also find that, contrary to popular perceptions, frequent commenters are more civil than are infrequent commenters, and uncivil commenters are no less likely than civil commenters to use evidence in support of their claims. The link between affect, defined as the capacity for sentimental arousal on the part of a message, and virality, defined as the probability that it be sent along, is of significant theoretical and practical importance, e.g. for viral marketing. A quantitative study of emailing of articles from the NY Times finds a strong link between positive affect and virality, and, based on psychological theories it is concluded that this relation is universally valid. The conclusion appears to be in contrast with classic theory of diffusion in news media emphasizing negative affect as promoting propagation. In this paper we explore the apparent paradox in a quantitative analysis of information diffusion on Twitter. Twitter is interesting in this context as it has been shown to present both the characteristics social and news media. The basic measure of virality in Twitter is the probability of retweet. Twitter is different from email in that retweeting does not depend on pre-existing social relations, but often occur among strangers, thus in this respect Twitter may be more similar to traditional news media. We therefore hypothesize that negative news content is more likely to be retweeted, while for non-news tweets positive sentiments support virality. To test the hypothesis we analyze three corpora: A complete sample of tweets about the COP15 climate summit, a random sample of tweets, and a general text corpus including news. The latter allows us to train a classifier that can distinguish tweets that carry news and non-news information. We present evidence that negative sentiment enhances virality in the news segment, but not in the non-news segment. We conclude that the relation between affect and virality is more complex than expected based on the findings of Berger and Milkman (2010), in short 'if you want to be cited: Sweet talk your friends or serve bad news to the public'.