IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i4p1345-d319704.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Causes Different Sentiment Classification on Social Network Services? Evidence from Weibo with Genetically Modified Food in China

Author

Listed:
  • Youzhu Li

    (College of Public Administration, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China)

  • Xianghui Gao

    (College of Public Administration, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China)

  • Mingying Du

    (College of Public Administration, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China
    College of Accounting, Wuchang Institute of Technology, Wuhan 430065, China)

  • Rui He

    (College of Public Administration, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China)

  • Shanshan Yang

    (College of Media and Art Design, Wuhan Donghu University, Wuhan 430212, China)

  • Jason Xiong

    (Walker College of Business, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC 28608, USA)

Abstract

(1) Background Genetic Modification (GM) refers to the transfer of genes with known functional traits into the target organism, and ultimately the acquisition of individuals with specific genetic traits. GM technology in China has developed rapidly. However, the process is controversial; thus, future development may be hindered. China has become the world’s largest importer of GM products. Research on the attitudes towards GM food in China will help the government achieve sustainable development by better understanding and applications of the technology. (2) Methods This research utilizes data from Sina Weibo (microblog), one of the biggest social network services (SNS) in China. By using the self-created Python crawler program, comments related to the genetically modified food in the People’s Daily account are analyzed. Sentiment classifications are analyzed via multivariate logistic regression. (3) Results Based on the factor analysis, theme type characteristics, the propagation characteristics, the body information characteristics, and the comment characteristics have different degrees of influence on the user’s emotional distribution. (4) Conclusion Practical implications and conclusions are provided based on the results at the end.

Suggested Citation

  • Youzhu Li & Xianghui Gao & Mingying Du & Rui He & Shanshan Yang & Jason Xiong, 2020. "What Causes Different Sentiment Classification on Social Network Services? Evidence from Weibo with Genetically Modified Food in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:4:p:1345-:d:319704
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/4/1345/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/4/1345/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    2. Jikun Huang & Bowen Peng & Xiaobing Wang, 2017. "Scientists’ attitudes toward agricultural GM technology development and GM food in China," China Agricultural Economic Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 9(3), pages 369-384, September.
    3. James O. Bukenya & Natasha R. Wright, 2007. "Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified tomatoes," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(1), pages 117-130.
    4. Xi Lu & Xiaofei Xie & Ji Xiong, 2015. "Social trust and risk perception of genetically modified food in urban areas of China: the role of salient value similarity," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 199-214, February.
    5. Nofer, Michael & Hinz, Oliver, 2015. "Using Twitter to Predict the Stock Market: Where is the Mood Effect?," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 77140, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    6. Ling Wang & Gongliang Hu & Tiehua Zhou, 2018. "Semantic Analysis of Learners’ Emotional Tendencies on Online MOOC Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    7. Michael Nofer & Oliver Hinz, 2015. "Using Twitter to Predict the Stock Market," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 57(4), pages 229-242, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chun-Chieh Ma & Han-Shen Chen & Hsiao-Ping Chang, 2020. "Crisis Response and Supervision System for Food Security: A Comparative Analysis between Mainland China and Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-13, April.
    2. Taesoo Cho & Taeyoung Cho & Guosong Zhao & Hao Zhang, 2020. "The Impact of South Korea Golf Resort Social Network Services Advertising and Online Word of Mouth on Consumer Brand Value," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-13, May.
    3. Marcela Korenkova & Milan Maros & Michal Levicky & Milan Fila, 2020. "Consumer Perception of Modern and Traditional Forms of Advertising," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-25, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Silvia Garc'ia-M'endez & Francisco de Arriba-P'erez & Ana Barros-Vila & Francisco J. Gonz'alez-Casta~no, 2024. "Detection of Temporality at Discourse Level on Financial News by Combining Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning," Papers 2404.01337, arXiv.org.
    2. Sophie Cockcroft & Mark Russell, 2018. "Big Data Opportunities for Accounting and Finance Practice and Research," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 28(3), pages 323-333, September.
    3. Lehrer, Steven & Xie, Tian & Zhang, Xinyu, 2021. "Social media sentiment, model uncertainty, and volatility forecasting," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    4. Frank Z. Xing & Erik Cambria & Lorenzo Malandri & Carlo Vercellis, 2018. "Discovering Bayesian Market Views for Intelligent Asset Allocation," Papers 1802.09911, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2018.
    5. Francisco de Arriba-P'erez & Silvia Garc'ia-M'endez & Jos'e A. Regueiro-Janeiro & Francisco J. Gonz'alez-Casta~no, 2024. "Detection of financial opportunities in micro-blogging data with a stacked classification system," Papers 2404.07224, arXiv.org.
    6. Heba Ali, 2018. "Twitter, Investor Sentiment and Capital Markets: What Do We Know?," International Journal of Economics and Finance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(8), pages 158-158, August.
    7. Siikanen, Milla & Baltakys, Kęstutis & Kanniainen, Juho & Vatrapu, Ravi & Mukkamala, Raghava & Hussain, Abid, 2018. "Facebook drives behavior of passive households in stock markets," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 208-213.
    8. Bowden, James & Gemayel, Roland, 2022. "Sentiment and trading decisions in an ambiguous environment: A study on cryptocurrency traders," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    9. Wang, Gang-Jin & Xiong, Lu & Zhu, You & Xie, Chi & Foglia, Matteo, 2022. "Multilayer network analysis of investor sentiment and stock returns," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    10. Theophilos Papadimitriou & Periklis Gogas & Athanasios Fotios Athanasiou, 2020. "Forecasting S&P 500 spikes: an SVM approach," Digital Finance, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 241-258, December.
    11. Chen, Wen-Yi & Chen, Mei-Ping, 2022. "Twitter’s daily happiness sentiment, economic policy uncertainty, and stock index fluctuations," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    12. Perez, Charles & Sokolova, Karina & Konate, Malick, 2020. "Digital social capital and performance of initial coin offerings," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    13. Daniele Ballinari & Simon Behrendt, 2021. "How to gauge investor behavior? A comparison of online investor sentiment measures," Digital Finance, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 169-204, June.
    14. Li, Xin & Wen, Yang & Jiang, Jiaojiao & Daim, Tugrul & Huang, Lucheng, 2022. "Identifying potential breakthrough research: A machine learning method using scientific papers and Twitter data," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    15. Liu, Keyan & Zhou, Jianan & Dong, Dayong, 2021. "Improving stock price prediction using the long short-term memory model combined with online social networks," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(C).
    16. Eryka Probierz & Adam Galuszka & Katarzyna Klimczak & Karol Jedrasiak & Tomasz Wisniewski & Tomasz Dzida, 2021. "Financial Sentiment on Twitter's Community and it's Connection to Polish Stock Market Movements in Context of Behavior Modelling," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4B), pages 56-65.
    17. Yılmaz, Emrah Sıtkı & Ozpolat, Aslı & Destek, Mehmet Akif, 2022. "Do Twitter Sentiments Really Effective on Energy Stocks? Evidence from Intercompany Dependency," MPRA Paper 114155, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Teti, Emanuele & Dallocchio, Maurizio & Aniasi, Alberto, 2019. "The relationship between twitter and stock prices. Evidence from the US technology industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    19. Li Li & John Robert Bautista, 2019. "Examining Personal and Media Factors Associated with Attitude towards Genetically Modified Foods among University Students in Kunming, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-14, November.
    20. Qadan, Mahmoud & Aharon, David Y. & Cohen, Gil, 2020. "Everybody likes shopping, including the US capital market," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 551(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:4:p:1345-:d:319704. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.