IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0254638.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social sentiment segregation: Evidence from Twitter and Google Trends in Chile during the COVID-19 dynamic quarantine strategy

Author

Listed:
  • Fernando Díaz
  • Pablo A Henríquez

Abstract

The Chilean health authorities have implemented a sanitary strategy known as dynamic quarantine or strategic quarantine to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic. Under this system, lockdowns were established, lifted, or prolonged according to the weekly health authorities’ assessment of municipalities’ epidemiological situation. The public announcements about the confinement situation of municipalities country-wide are made typically on Tuesdays or Wednesdays before noon, have received extensive media coverage, and generated sharp stock market fluctuations. Municipalities are the smallest administrative division in Chile, with each city broken down typically into several municipalities. We analyze social media behavior in response to the confinement situation of the population at the municipal level. The dynamic quarantine scheme offers a unique opportunity for our analysis, given that municipalities display a high degree of heterogeneity, both in size and in the socioeconomic status of their population. We exploit the variability over time in municipalities’ confinement situations, resulting from the dynamic quarantine strategy, and the cross-sectional variability in their socioeconomic characteristics to evaluate the impact of these characteristics on social sentiment. Using event study and panel data methods, we find that proxies for social sentiment based on Twitter queries are negatively related (more pessimistic) to increases in the number of confined people, but with a statistically significant effect concentrated on people from the wealthiest cohorts of the population. For indicators of social sentiment based on Google Trends, we found that search intensity during the periods surrounding government announcements is positively related to increases in the total number of confined people. Still, this effect does not seem to be dependent on the segments of the population affected by the quarantine. Furthermore, we show that the observed heterogeneity in sentiment mirrors heterogeneity in stock market reactions to government announcements. We provide evidence that the observed stock market behavior around quarantine announcements can be explained by the number of people from the wealthiest segments of the population entering or exiting lockdown.

Suggested Citation

  • Fernando Díaz & Pablo A Henríquez, 2021. "Social sentiment segregation: Evidence from Twitter and Google Trends in Chile during the COVID-19 dynamic quarantine strategy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-29, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0254638
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254638
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0254638
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0254638&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0254638?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simon Freyaldenhoven & Christian Hansen & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2019. "Pre-event Trends in the Panel Event-Study Design," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(9), pages 3307-3338, September.
    2. Hamid, Alain & Heiden, Moritz, 2015. "Forecasting volatility with empirical similarity and Google Trends," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 62-81.
    3. David Card, 1990. "The Impact of the Mariel Boatlift on the Miami Labor Market," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 43(2), pages 245-257, January.
    4. Cribari-Neto, Francisco, 2004. "Asymptotic inference under heteroskedasticity of unknown form," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 215-233, March.
    5. Malcolm Baker & Jeffrey Wurgler, 2007. "Investor Sentiment in the Stock Market," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 129-152, Spring.
    6. Broadstock, David C. & Zhang, Dayong, 2019. "Social-media and intraday stock returns: The pricing power of sentiment," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 116-123.
    7. Bijl, Laurens & Kringhaug, Glenn & Molnár, Peter & Sandvik, Eirik, 2016. "Google searches and stock returns," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 150-156.
    8. Charles J. Corrado, 2011. "Event studies: A methodology review," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 51(1), pages 207-234, March.
    9. Gu, Chen & Kurov, Alexander, 2020. "Informational role of social media: Evidence from Twitter sentiment," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    10. Alberto Abadie, 2005. "Semiparametric Difference-in-Differences Estimators," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(1), pages 1-19.
    11. Ball, R & Brown, P, 1968. "Empirical Evaluation Of Accounting Income Numbers," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(2), pages 159-178.
    12. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2006. "Identification and Inference in Nonlinear Difference-in-Differences Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(2), pages 431-497, March.
    13. Meyer, Bruce D & Viscusi, W Kip & Durbin, David L, 1995. "Workers' Compensation and Injury Duration: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(3), pages 322-340, June.
    14. Pagan, Adrian, 1984. "Econometric Issues in the Analysis of Regressions with Generated Regressors," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 25(1), pages 221-247, February.
    15. Athey, Susan & Imbens, Guido W., 2022. "Design-based analysis in Difference-In-Differences settings with staggered adoption," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 226(1), pages 62-79.
    16. Nagao, Shintaro & Takeda, Fumiko & Tanaka, Riku, 2019. "Nowcasting of the U.S. unemployment rate using Google Trends," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 103-109.
    17. Greyling, Talita & Rossouw, Stephanie & Adhikari, Tamanna, 2020. "A tale of three countries: How did Covid-19 lockdown impact happiness?," GLO Discussion Paper Series 584, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    18. Audrino, Francesco & Sigrist, Fabio & Ballinari, Daniele, 2020. "The impact of sentiment and attention measures on stock market volatility," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 334-357.
    19. Kim, Neri & Lučivjanská, Katarína & Molnár, Peter & Villa, Roviel, 2019. "Google searches and stock market activity: Evidence from Norway," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 208-220.
    20. Bennett, Magdalena, 2021. "All things equal? Heterogeneity in policy effectiveness against COVID-19 spread in chile," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    21. Andrew Goodman-Bacon, 2018. "Difference-in-Differences with Variation in Treatment Timing," NBER Working Papers 25018, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    22. Zhi Da & Joseph Engelberg & Pengjie Gao, 2011. "In Search of Attention," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 66(5), pages 1461-1499, October.
    23. Fama, Eugene F, et al, 1969. "The Adjustment of Stock Prices to New Information," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, February.
    24. Cheng-Few Lee & John C. Lee (ed.), 2015. "Handbook of Financial Econometrics and Statistics," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-1-4614-7750-1, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Athey, Susan & Imbens, Guido W., 2022. "Design-based analysis in Difference-In-Differences settings with staggered adoption," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 226(1), pages 62-79.
    2. Dmitry Arkhangelsky & Guido Imbens, 2023. "Causal Models for Longitudinal and Panel Data: A Survey," Papers 2311.15458, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    3. Anastasiou, Dimitris & Ballis, Antonis & Drakos, Konstantinos, 2022. "Constructing a positive sentiment index for COVID-19: Evidence from G20 stock markets," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    4. Papadamou, Stephanos & Fassas, Athanasios & Kenourgios, Dimitris & Dimitriou, Dimitrios, 2020. "Direct and Indirect Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic on Implied Stock Market Volatility: Evidence from Panel Data Analysis," MPRA Paper 100020, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Lyócsa, Štefan & Baumöhl, Eduard & Výrost, Tomáš & Molnár, Peter, 2020. "Fear of the coronavirus and the stock markets," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    6. Tihana Škrinjarić, 2019. "Time Varying Spillovers between the Online Search Volume and Stock Returns: Case of CESEE Markets," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-30, October.
    7. Chen, Jiafeng & Glaeser, Edward & Wessel, David, 2023. "JUE Insight: The (non-)effect of opportunity zones on housing prices," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    8. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    9. Rösner, Anja & Haucap, Justus & Heimeshoff, Ulrich, 2020. "The impact of consumer protection in the digital age: Evidence from the European Union," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    10. Erlend E. Bø & Joel Slemrod & Thor O. Thoresen, 2015. "Taxes on the Internet: Deterrence Effects of Public Disclosure," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 7(1), pages 36-62, February.
    11. Roth, Jonathan & Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C. & Bilinski, Alyssa & Poe, John, 2023. "What’s trending in difference-in-differences? A synthesis of the recent econometrics literature," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 235(2), pages 2218-2244.
    12. Lechner, Michael, 2011. "The Estimation of Causal Effects by Difference-in-Difference Methods," Foundations and Trends(R) in Econometrics, now publishers, vol. 4(3), pages 165-224, November.
    13. Ballinari, Daniele & Audrino, Francesco & Sigrist, Fabio, 2022. "When does attention matter? The effect of investor attention on stock market volatility around news releases," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    14. Jiafeng Chen & Edward Glaeser & David Wessel, 2022. "JUE Insight: The (Non-)Effect of Opportunity Zones on Housing Prices," Papers 2204.06967, arXiv.org.
    15. Ying Wang & Hongwei Zhang & Wang Gao & Cai Yang, 2023. "Spillover effects from news to travel and leisure stocks during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from the time and frequency domains," Tourism Economics, , vol. 29(2), pages 460-487, March.
    16. Michele Costola & Michael Donadelli & Luca Gerotto & Ivan Gufler, 2022. "Global risks, the macroeconomy, and asset prices," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 63(5), pages 2357-2388, November.
    17. Martina Halouskov'a & Daniel Stav{s}ek & Mat'uv{s} Horv'ath, 2022. "The role of investor attention in global asset price variation during the invasion of Ukraine," Papers 2205.05985, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    18. Ekinci, Cumhur & Bulut, Ali Eray, 2021. "Google search and stock returns: A study on BIST 100 stocks," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    19. Desagre, Christophe & D’Hondt, Catherine, 2021. "Googlization and retail trading activity," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C).
    20. Halousková, Martina & Stašek, Daniel & Horváth, Matúš, 2022. "The role of investor attention in global asset price variation during the invasion of Ukraine," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0254638. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.