Cited by 26Social and Intergroup PsychologyComputational and Text Analysis MethodsSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining

Trait Associations for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in News Media: A Computational Analysis

Open access
Bhatia, Sudeep, Goodwin, Geoffrey P., Walasek, Lukasz·2018·Social Psychological and Personality Science

Abstract

We study media representations of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In particular, we train models of semantic memory on a large number of news media outlets that published online articles during the course of the election. Based on the structure of word co-occurrence in these media outlets, our models learn semantic representations for the two presidential candidates as well as for widely studied personality traits. We find that models trained on media outlets most read by Clinton voters and media outlets most read by Trump voters differ in the strength of association between the two candidates’ names and trait words pertaining to morality. We observe some differences for trait words pertaining to warmth, but none for trait words pertaining to competence.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1948550617751584

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in Linguistics. London, England: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bhatia, S., Goodwin, G. P., & Walasek, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
Corresponding author
Bhatia, Sudeep
Venue
Social Psychological and Personality Science
Published
2018-01-16
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
123-130
ISSN
  • 1948-5506 (ISSN-L)
  • 1948-5514
OpenAlex
W2782772014
Cited by
26
References
46
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
9.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Psychological and Personality Science (publishedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SES-1626825)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Keywords
Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, 2016 US presidential election, media representation, personality traits, word co-occurrence, morality, warmth, competence, partisanship

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