IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/geronb/v76y2021i4pe190-e200..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modern Senicide in the Face of a Pandemic: An Examination of Public Discourse and Sentiment About Older Adults and COVID-19 Using Machine Learning

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaoling Xiang
  • Xuan Lu
  • Alex Halavanau
  • Jia Xue
  • Yihang Sun
  • Patrick Ho Lam Lai
  • Zhenke Wu
  • Deborah S Carr

Abstract

ObjectivesThis study examined public discourse and sentiment regarding older adults and COVID-19 on social media and assessed the extent of ageism in public discourse.MethodsTwitter data (N = 82,893) related to both older adults and COVID-19 and dated from January 23 to May 20, 2020, were analyzed. We used a combination of data science methods (including supervised machine learning, topic modeling, and sentiment analysis), qualitative thematic analysis, and conventional statistics.ResultsThe most common category in the coded tweets was “personal opinions” (66.2%), followed by “informative” (24.7%), “jokes/ridicule” (4.8%), and “personal experiences” (4.3%). The daily average of ageist content was 18%, with the highest of 52.8% on March 11, 2020. Specifically, more than 1 in 10 (11.5%) tweets implied that the life of older adults is less valuable or downplayed the pandemic because it mostly harms older adults. A small proportion (4.6%) explicitly supported the idea of just isolating older adults. Almost three-quarters (72.9%) within “jokes/ridicule” targeted older adults, half of which were “death jokes.” Also, 14 themes were extracted, such as perceptions of lockdown and risk. A bivariate Granger causality test suggested that informative tweets regarding at-risk populations increased the prevalence of tweets that downplayed the pandemic.DiscussionAgeist content in the context of COVID-19 was prevalent on Twitter. Information about COVID-19 on Twitter influenced public perceptions of risk and acceptable ways of controlling the pandemic. Public education on the risk of severe illness is needed to correct misperceptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaoling Xiang & Xuan Lu & Alex Halavanau & Jia Xue & Yihang Sun & Patrick Ho Lam Lai & Zhenke Wu & Deborah S Carr, 2021. "Modern Senicide in the Face of a Pandemic: An Examination of Public Discourse and Sentiment About Older Adults and COVID-19 Using Machine Learning," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 76(4), pages 190-200.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:76:y:2021:i:4:p:e190-e200.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/geronb/gbaa128
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Emilio Paolo Visintin & Alessandra Tasso, 2022. "Are You Willing to Protect the Health of Older People? Intergenerational Contact and Ageism as Predictors of Attitudes toward the COVID-19 Vaccination Passport," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-13, September.
    2. Liat Ayalon & Ella Cohn-Schwartz, 2021. "Measures of self- and other-directed ageism and worries concerning COVID-19 health consequences: Results from a nationally representative sample of Israelis over the age of 50," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-8, May.
    3. Liu, Liyi & Tu, Yan & Zhou, Xiaoyang, 2022. "How local outbreak of COVID-19 affect the risk of internet public opinion: A Chinese social media case study," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    4. Rakhi Batra & Ali Shariq Imran & Zenun Kastrati & Abdul Ghafoor & Sher Muhammad Daudpota & Sarang Shaikh, 2021. "Evaluating Polarity Trend Amidst the Coronavirus Crisis in Peoples’ Attitudes toward the Vaccination Drive," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-14, May.

    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:oup:geronb:v:76:y:2021:i:4:p:e190-e200.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology .

    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.