This article presents a study of the content, use of sources and information sharing about climate change analysing over 60,000 tweets collected using a random week sample. We discuss the potential for studying Twitter as a communicative space that is rich in different types of information and presents both new challenges and opportunities. Our analysis combines automatic thematic analysis, semantic network analysis and text classification according to psychological process categories. We also consider the media ecology of tweets and the external web links that users shared. In terms of content, the network of topics uncovered presents a multidimensional discourse that accounts for complex causal links between climate change and its consequences. The media ecology analysis revealed a narrow set of sources with a major role played by traditional media and that emotionally arousing text was more likely to be shared.
AndersonAABrossardDScheufeleDA (2010) The changing information environment for nanotechnology: Online audiences and content. Journal of Nanoparticle Research12: 1083–1094.
2.
BastianMHeymannSJacomyM (2009) Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In: International AAAI conference on weblogs and social media, San Jose, May 2009. San Jose, US: San Jose Mc Enery Convention Center.
BauerMWGaskellG (1999) Towards a paradigm for research on social representations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour29(2): 163–186.
5.
BergerJMilkmanKL (2012) What makes online content viral?Journal of Marketing Research49(2): 192–205.
6.
BogdanovPBuschMMoehlisJSinghAK (2013) The social media genome: Modeling individual topic-specific behavior in social media. In: IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining ASONAM, Niagara, 25–28 August 2013. Niagara, ON, Canada: University of Calgary.
7.
BorraERiederB (2014) Programmed method: Developing a toolset for capturing and analyzing tweets. Aslib Journal of Information Management66(3): 262–278.
8.
BradleyMMLangPJ (1994) Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry25(1): 49–59.
9.
CarleyKM (1993) Coding choices for textual analysis: A comparison of content analysis and map analysis. Social Methodology23: 75–126.
10.
CarleyKMPalmquistM (1992) Extracting, representing, and analyzing mental models. Social Forces70(3): 601–636.
11.
CarvalhoA (2010) Climate change as a ‘grand narrative’. Journal of Science Communication9(4): C03.
12.
ChungCJParkHW (2010) Textual analysis of a political message: The inaugural addresses of two Korean presidents. Social Science Information49(2): 215–239.
13.
CollinsAMQuillianMR (1972) How to make a language user. In: TulvingEDonaldsonW (eds) Organization of Memory. New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 309–351.
14.
DanowskiJ (1993) Network analysis of message content. In: RichardsWBarnettG (eds) Progress in Communication Science. Norwood, MA: Ablex, pp. 197–222.
15.
DanowskiJA (2010) Inferences from word networks in messages. In: KrippendorffKBockM (eds) The Content Analysis Reader. London: SAGE, pp. 421–430.
16.
DeerwesterSCDumaisSTLandauerTKFurnasGWHarshmanRA (1990) Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science41(6): 391–407.
17.
DoerfelML (1998) What constitutes semantic network analysis? A comparison of research and methodologies. Connections21(2): 16–26.
18.
FiedlerKMataA (2014) The art of exerting verbal influence through powerful lexical stimuli. In: ForgasJPVinczeOLászlóJ (eds) Social Cognition and Communication. New York, NY: Psychology Press, pp. 43–62.
19.
FreemanLC (1979) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks1: 215–239.
20.
GaskellGBauerMDurantJ (1998) The representations of biotechnology: Policy, media and public perceptions. In: DurantJBauerMGaskellG (eds) Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Source Book. London: Science Museum Press, pp. 3–15.
21.
HansenLKArvidssonANielsenFÅColleoniE (2011) Good friends, bad news-affect and virality in Twitter. Future Information Technologies185: 34–43.
22.
HerringSC (2010) Web content analysis: Expanding the paradigm. In: HunsingerJAllenMKlastrupL (eds) The International Handbook of Internet Research. Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 233–249.
23.
HöijerB (2010) Emotional anchoring and objectification in the media reporting on climate change. Public Understanding of Science19(6): 717–731.
24.
KrippendorffK (1987) Association, agreement, and equity. Quality and Quantity21: 109–123.
25.
KwakHLeeCParkHMoonS (2010) What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In: The 19th international conference on World Wide Web, Raleigh, NC, 26–30 April. Raleigh, NC: Raleigh Convention Center.
Lansdall-WelfareTSudhaharSVeltriGACristianiniN (2014) On the coverage of science in the media: A big data study on the impact of the Fukushima disaster. In: IEEE international conference on big data, Washington, DC, October 2014.
28.
MoscoviciS (2000) Social Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
29.
MoserSC (2010) Communicating climate change: History, challenges, process and future directions. WIREs Climate Change1: 31–53.
30.
NewmanM (2006) Modularity and community structure in networks. PNAS103(23): 8577–8582.
31.
OgdenS (2001) The language of agricultural biotechnology: Terminate or be terminated. Organization & Environment14: 336–340.
32.
PearceWHolmbergKHellstenINerlichB (2014) Climate change on Twitter: Topics, communities and conversations about the 2013 IPCC Working Group 1 Report. PLoS ONE. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094785.
33.
PennebakerJW (2011) The Secret Life of Pronouns: What Our Words Say about Us. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.
34.
PennebakerJWChungCK (2013) Counting little words in big data: The psychology of individuals, communities, culture, and history. In: ForgasJPOrsolyaVLászlóJ (eds) Social Cognition and Communication. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis, pp. 25–42.
35.
PennebakerJWBoothRJFrancisME (2007a) Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: A Text Analysis Program (Version LIWC2007). Austin, TX: LIWC.net.
36.
PennebakerJWChungCIrelandMGonzalesABoothRJ (2007b) The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC2007. Austin, TX: LIWC.net.
37.
PirolliP (2007) Information Foraging Theory: Adaptive Interaction with Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38.
PoppingR (2003) Knowledge graphs and network text analysis. Social Science Information42(1): 91–106.
39.
RothCCointetJP (2010) Social and semantic coevolution in knowledge networks. Social Networks32(1): 16–29.
40.
SchäferMS (2012) Online communication on climate change and climate politics: A literature review. WIREs Climate Change. 3(6): 527–543 DOI: 10.1002/wcc.191.
41.
SchmidtJ (2014) Twitter and rise of personal publics. In: WellerKBrunsABurgessJMahrtMPuschmannC (eds) Twitter and Society. New York, NY: Peter Lang, pp. 3–14.
42.
SegerbergABennettWL (2011) Social media and the organization of collective action: Using Twitter to explore the ecologies of two climate change protests. The Communication Review14(3): 197–215.
43.
SuerdemABauerMWHowardSRubyL (2013) PUS in turbulent times II – A shifting vocabulary that brokers inter-disciplinary knowledge. Public Understanding of Science22(1): 2–15.
44.
TausczikYRPennebakerJW (2010) The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology29(1): 24–54.
45.
VeltriG (2013a) Microblogging and nanotweets: Nanotechnology on Twitter. Public Understanding of Science22(7): 832–849.
46.
VeltriG (2013b) Viva la nano-revolucion! A semantic analysis of the Spanish National Press. Science Communication35(2): 143–167.
47.
WellerKBrunsABurgessJMahrtMPuschmannC (2014) Twitter and Society. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
48.
YangJ (2015) Effects of popularity-based news recommendations (‘most-viewed’) on users’ exposure to online news. Media Psychology. 19(2): 243–271 DOI: 10.1080/15213269.2015.1006333.
49.
YuanEJFengMDanowskiJA (2013) ‘Privacy’ in semantic networks on Chinese social media: The case of Sina Weibo. Journal of Communication63(6): 1011–1031.
50.
ZywicaJDanowskiJ (2008) The faces of Facebookers: Investigating social enhancement and social compensation hypotheses; Predicting Facebook and offline popularity from sociability and self-esteem, and mapping the meanings of popularity with semantic networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14(1): 1–34.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
