Cited by 588Social Media and PoliticsSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningComputational and Text Analysis Methods

Predicting the Political Alignment of Twitter Users

Conover, Michael D., Goncalves, Bruno, Ratkiewicz, Jacob, Flammini, Alessandro, Menczer, Filippo·2011·2011 IEEE Third Int'l Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third Int'l Conference on Social Computing

Abstract

The widespread adoption of social media for political communication creates unprecedented opportunities to monitor the opinions of large numbers of politically active individuals in real time. However, without a way to distinguish between users of opposing political alignments, conflicting signals at the individual level may, in the aggregate, obscure partisan differences in opinion that are important to political strategy. In this article we describe several methods for predicting the political alignment of Twitter users based on the content and structure of their political communication in the run-up to the 2010 U.S. midterm elections. Using a data set of 1,000 manually-annotated individuals, we find that a support vector machine (SVM) trained on hash tag metadata outperforms an SVM trained on the full text of users' tweets, yielding predictions of political affiliations with 91% accuracy. Applying latent semantic analysis to the content of users' tweets we identify hidden structure in the data strongly associated with political affiliation, but do not find that topic detection improves prediction performance. All of these content-based methods are outperformed by a classifier based on the segregated community structure of political information diffusion networks (95% accuracy). We conclude with a practical application of this machinery to web-based political advertising, and outline several approaches to public opinion monitoring based on the techniques developed herein.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/passat/socialcom.2011.34

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 44 · Cited by 588

Authors
Conover, M. D., Goncalves, B., Ratkiewicz, J., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F.
Affiliations
Indiana University Bloomington (US)
Venue
2011 IEEE Third Int'l Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third Int'l Conference on Social Computing
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2011-10
Pages
192-199
OpenAlex
W2538660910
Cited by
588
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 69 · 2016: 63 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 15
FWCI
70.34
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Conference on Social Computing (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
Keywords
Twitter users, political affiliation, social media political communication, support vector machine, latent semantic analysis, topic extraction, community structure, political advertising, public opinion monitoring

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