Cited by 120Mental Health via WritingEmotion and Mood RecognitionWorkplace Health and Well-being

Twitter Analysis: Studying US Weekly Trends in Work Stress and Emotion

Open access
Wang, Wei, Hernandez, Ivan, Newman, Daniel A., He, Jibo, Bian, Jiang·2016·Applied Psychology

Abstract

We propose the use of Twitter analysis as an alternative source of data to document weekly trends in emotion and stress, and attempt to use the method to estimate the work recovery effect of weekends. On the basis of 2,102,176,189 Tweets, we apply Pennebaker's linguistic inquiry word count (LIWC) approach to measure daily Tweet content across 18 months, aggregated to the US national level of analysis. We derived a word count dictionary to assess work stress and applied p‐technique factor analysis to the daily word count data from 19 substantively different content areas covered by the LIWC dictionaries. Dynamic factor analysis revealed two latent factors in day‐level variation of Tweet content. These two factors are: (a) a negative emotion/stress/somatic factor, and (b) a positive emotion/food/friends/home/family/leisure factor, onto which elements of work, money, achievement, and health issues have strong negative loadings. The weekly trend analysis revealed a clear “Friday dip” for work stress and negative emotion expressed on Twitter. In contrast, positive emotion Tweets showed a “mid‐week dip” for Tuesday‐Wednesday‐Thursday and “weekend peak” for Friday through Sunday, whereas work/money/achievement/health problem Tweets showed a small “weekend dip” on Fridays through Sundays. Results partially support the Effort‐Recovery theory. Implications and limitations of the method are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/apps.12065

Cites

42 of 42 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?

  • Several works on depression have emerged based on social networks: Twitter and Facebook.

    “Several works on depression have emerged.They are based on social networks: Twitter [23,24] and Facebook [25,26].”

    From Survey on AI-Based Multimodal Methods for Emotion Detection (2019) · cites this paper as [23]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, W., Hernandez, I., Newman, D. A., He, J., & Bian, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Central Florida (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Wichita State University USA
  • University of Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Wang, Wei
Venue
Applied Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-03-15
Volume
65
Issue
2
Pages
355-378
ISSN
  • 0269-994X (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0597
OpenAlex
W2352058509
Cited by
120
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1
FWCI
14.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research (submittedVersion)
  • Holmes Museum Of Anthropology (Wichita State University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
Keywords
occupational stress, emotions, Twitter, social media, LIWC, Friday effect, positive emotions, negative emotions, somatic symptoms

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