@inproceedings{AbramovaBatzelModesti2022,
  author    = {Abramova, Olga and Batzel, Katharina and Modesti, Daniela},
  title     = {Coping and regulatory responses on social media during health crisis},
  series = {Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences},
  publisher = {HICSS Conference Office University of Hawaii at Manoa},
  address   = {Honolulu},
  isbn      = {978-0-9981331-5-7},
  pages     = {10},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {During a crisis event, social media enables two-way communication and many-to-many information broadcasting, browsing others' posts, publishing own content, and public commenting. These records can deliver valuable insights to approach problematic situations effectively. Our study explores how social media communication can be analyzed to understand the responses to health crises better. Results based on nearly 800 K tweets indicate that the coping and regulation foci framework holds good explanatory power, with four clusters salient in public reactions: 1) "Understanding" (problem-promotion); 2) "Action planning" (problem-prevention); 3) "Hope" (emotion-promotion) and 4) "Reassurance" (emotion-prevention). Second, the inter-temporal analysis shows high volatility of topic proportions and a shift from self-centered to community-centered topics during the course of the event. The insights are beneficial for research on crisis management and practicians who are interested in large-scale monitoring of their audience for well-informed decision-making.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HagemannAbramova2023,
  author    = {Hagemann, Linus and Abramova, Olga},
  title     = {Sentiment, we-talk and engagement on social media},
  series = {Internet research},
  volume    = {33},
  journal   = {Internet research},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Emeral},
  address   = {Bingley},
  issn      = {1066-2243},
  doi       = {10.1108/INTR-12-2021-0885},
  pages     = {2058 -- 2085},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Purpose Given inconsistent results in prior studies, this paper applies the dual process theory to investigate what social media messages yield audience engagement during a political event. It tests how affective cues (emotional valence, intensity and collective self-representation) and cognitive cues (insight, causation, certainty and discrepancy) contribute to public engagement. Design/methodology/approach The authors created a dataset of more than three million tweets during the 2020 United States (US) presidential elections. Affective and cognitive cues were assessed via sentiment analysis. The hypotheses were tested in negative binomial regressions. The authors also scrutinized a subsample of far-famed Twitter users. The final dataset, scraping code, preprocessing and analysis are available in an open repository. Findings The authors found the prominence of both affective and cognitive cues. For the overall sample, negativity bias was registered, and the tweet's emotionality was negatively related to engagement. In contrast, in the sub-sample of tweets from famous users, emotionally charged content produced higher engagement. The role of sentiment decreases when the number of followers grows and ultimately becomes insignificant for Twitter participants with many followers. Collective self-representation ("we-talk") is consistently associated with more likes, comments and retweets in the overall sample and subsamples. Originality/value The authors expand the dominating one-sided perspective to social media message processing focused on the peripheral route and hence affective cues. Leaning on the dual process theory, the authors shed light on the effectiveness of both affective (peripheral route) and cognitive (central route) cues on information appeal and dissemination on Twitter during a political event. The popularity of the tweet's author moderates these relationships.},
  language  = {en}
}