Cited by 177Sentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningHate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment

Moral foundations twitter corpus: a collection of 35k tweets annotated for moral sentiment

Open access
Hoover, Joe, Portillo-Wightman, Gwenyth, Yeh, Leigh, Havaldar, Shreya, Davani, Aida Mostafazadeh, Lin, Ying, Kennedy, Brendan, Atari, Mohammad +10 more·2020·Social Psychological and Personality Science

Abstract

Research has shown that accounting for moral sentiment in natural language can yield insight into a variety of on- and off-line phenomena such as message diffusion, protest dynamics, and social distancing. However, measuring moral sentiment in natural language is challenging, and the difficulty of this task is exacerbated by the limited availability of annotated data. To address this issue, we introduce the Moral Foundations Twitter Corpus, a collection of 35,108 tweets that have been curated from seven distinct domains of discourse and hand annotated by at least three trained annotators for 10 categories of moral sentiment. To facilitate investigations of annotator response dynamics, we also provide psychological and demographic metadata for each annotator. Finally, we report moral sentiment classification baselines for this corpus using a range of popular methodologies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1948550619876629

Cites

48 of 48 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?

  • On the MFTC dataset, BERT, despite being applied cross-context, outperformed GPT-4 on the Authority and Purity foundations, and GPT-4-Turbo also on the Loyalty foundation.

    “Further comparisons (Tables S7 and S8 in Rathje et al. (75)) on another moral foundations dataset, on which the BERT model was not fine-tuned (MFTC; (81)), showed that BERT, despite being applied cross-context, outperformed GPT-4 on the Authority and Purity foundations, and GPT-4-Turbo also on the Loyalty foundation.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hoover, J., Portillo-Wightman, G., Yeh, L., Havaldar, S., Davani, A. M., Lin, Y., Kennedy, B., Atari, M., Kamel, Z., Mendlen, M., Moreno, G., Park, C., Chang, T. E., Chin, J., Leong, C., Leung, J. Y., Mirinjian, A., & Dehghani, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Dehghani, Morteza
Venue
Social Psychological and Personality Science
Published
2020-02-19
Volume
11
Issue
8
Pages
1057-1071
ISSN
  • 1948-5506 (ISSN-L)
  • 1948-5514
OpenAlex
W3008655042
Cited by
177
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
FWCI
10.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Psychological and Personality Science (publishedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Army Research Laboratory
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Keywords
moral sentiments, moral foundations, Twitter, annotated corpus, social media discourse, message dissemination, protest dynamics, social distancing

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