Paper detail

Quantifying Latent Moral Foundations in Twitter Narratives: The Case of the Syrian White Helmets Misinformation

For years, many studies employed sentiment analysis to understand the reasoning behind people's choices and feelings, their communication styles, and the communities which they belong to. We argue that gaining more in-depth insight into moral dimensions coupled with sentiment analysis can potentially provide superior results. Understanding moral foundations can yield powerful results in terms of perceiving the intended meaning of the text data, as the concept of morality provides additional information on the unobservable characteristics of information processing and non-conscious cognitive processes. Therefore, we studied latent moral loadings of Syrian White Helmets-related tweets of Twitter users from April 1st, 2018 to April 30th, 2019. For the operationalization and quantification of moral rhetoric in tweets, we use Extended Moral Foundations Dictionary in which five psychological dimensions (Harm/Care, Fairness/Reciprocity, In-group/Loyalty, Authority/Respect and Purity/Sanctity) are considered. We show that people tend to share more tweets involving the virtue moral rhetoric than the tweets involving the vice rhetoric. We observe that the pattern of the moral rhetoric of tweets among these five dimensions are very similar during different time periods, while the strength of the five dimension is time-variant. Even though there is no significant difference between the use of Fairness/Reciprocity, In-group/Loyalty or Purity/Sanctity rhetoric, the less use of Harm/Care rhetoric is significant and remarkable. Besides, the strength of the moral rhetoric and the polarization in morality across people are mostly observed in tweets involving Harm/Care rhetoric despite the number of tweets involving the Harm/Care dimension is low.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.