Influence of controlled and uncontrolled interventions on Twitter in different target groups

In this paper the influence of interventions on Twitter users is studied. We define influence in a) number of participants, b) size of the audience, c) amount of activity, and d) reach. Influence is studied for four different target groups: a) politicians, b) journalists, c) employees and d) the general public. Furthermore, two types of interventions are studied: a) by all Twitter users (i.e., uncontrolled interventions), and b) those tweeted by an organization that benefits from any resulting influence (i.e., controlled interventions). As a case study, tweets about a large Dutch governmental organization are used. Results show a clear relation between the number of uncontrolled interventions and influence in all four target groups, for each of the defined types of influence. Controlled interventions show less influence: Significant influence was found for the general public, but influence for politicians and employees was only mildly significant, and no influence was found for journalists. The effect found for uncontrolled interventions however suggests that this influence is indeed reachable for some target groups, even when the number of interventions is small, and very well reachable for all target groups, provided the number of interventions is large enough. In addition to this we found that interventions influence groups to a different extent. Own employees were influenced strongest, differing significantly from the other groups.

[1]  Evan T. R. Rosenman Retweets|but Not Just Retweets: Quantifying and Predicting Inuence on Twitter , 2012 .

[2]  Fang Wu,et al.  Social Networks that Matter: Twitter Under the Microscope , 2008, First Monday.

[3]  Thomas Meyer,et al.  Media Democracy: How the Media Colonize Politics , 2002 .

[4]  Chanthika Pornpitakpan The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades' Evidence , 2004 .

[5]  Margarete Boos,et al.  Attitude Change in Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of Anonymity and Category Norms , 2003 .

[6]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  The role of social networks in information diffusion , 2012, WWW.

[7]  Scott Counts,et al.  Predicting the Speed, Scale, and Range of Information Diffusion in Twitter , 2010, ICWSM.

[8]  C. van der Eijk The Netherlands: Media and politics between segmented pluralism and market forces. , 2000 .

[9]  John T. Cacioppo,et al.  Persuasiveness of Communications is Affected by Exposure Frequency and Message Quality: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Persisting Attitude Change , 1980, Current Issues and Research in Advertising.

[10]  Christos Faloutsos,et al.  Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining , 2013, ASONAM 2013.

[11]  Esteban Moro,et al.  Social Features of Online Networks: The Strength of Intermediary Ties in Online Social Media , 2011, PloS one.

[12]  Remco Wijn,et al.  On the Social-Communicative Function of Justice: The Influence of Communication Goals and Personal Involvement on the Use of Justice Assertions , 2010, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[13]  Pramila M. Chawan,et al.  Sentiment Analysis and Influence Tracking using Twitter , 2012 .