Cited by 78Sentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningComputational and Text Analysis MethodsDigital Marketing and Social Media

Gender bias in sentiment analysis

Open access
Thelwall, Mike·2018·Online Information Review

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to test if there are biases in lexical sentiment analysis accuracy between reviews authored by males and females. Design/methodology/approach: This paper uses data sets of TripAdvisor reviews of hotels and restaurants in the UK written by UK residents to contrast the accuracy of lexical sentiment analysis for males and females. Findings: Male sentiment is harder to detect because it is less explicit. There was no evidence that this problem could be solved by gender-specific lexical sentiment analysis. Research limitations/implications: Only one lexical sentiment analysis algorithm was used. Practical implications: Care should be taken when drawing conclusions about gender differences from automatic sentiment analysis results. When comparing opinions for product aspects that appeal differently to men and women, female sentiments are likely to be overrepresented, biasing the results. Originality/value: This is the first evidence that lexical sentiment analysis is less able to detect the opinions of one gender than another.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/oir-05-2017-0139

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thelwall, M.
Affiliations
University of Wolverhampton (GB)
Corresponding author
Thelwall, Mike
Venue
Online Information Review
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2018-02-12
Volume
42
Issue
1
Pages
45-57
ISSN
1468-4527 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2760255222
Cited by
78
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Online Information Review (publishedVersion)
  • Wolverhampton Intellectual Repository and E-Theses (University of Wolverhampton) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
Keywords
gender bias, TripAdvisor reviews, implicit sentiment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review