skip to main content
10.1145/3173574.3173658acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Conversations in the Eye of the Storm: At-Scale Features of Conversational Structure in a High-Tempo, High-Stakes Microblogging Environment

Published:19 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

This work propels social media research beyond the single post as the unit of analysis toward fuller treatment of interaction by making the construct of the conversation analytically available. We offer a method for constructing @reply conversations in Twitter to apprehend social media conversational features at scale. We apply this method to the high-tempo, high-stakes environment of 2012's Hurricane Sandy, with its high volume of online talk by affected locals and distinct disaster-stage phasing by which to consider interactional difference. We investigate the temporality of conversations; the relationality of who speaks to whom; the number and kind of conversationalists; and how content affects temporal features. The analysis reveals that, during the height of the emergency, people expand conversations both in number and kind of conversational partners-just as their information search intensifies. This expansion contributes to longer, slower-paced conversations in the high-emergency period, suggesting reliance on online relationships during times of greatest uncertainty.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

pn1556-file5.mp4

mp4

6.1 MB

pn1556.mp4

mp4

236.3 MB

References

  1. Jennings Anderson, Marina Kogan, Melissa Bica, Leysia Palen, Kenneth M. Anderson, Rebecca E. Morss, Julie Demuth, Heather Lazrus, Olga Wilhelmi, and Jennifer Henderson. 2016. Far Far Away in Far Rockaway: Responses to Risks and Impacts during Hurricane Sandy through First-Person Social Media Narratives. In Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on Information System for Crisis Response and Managements (ISCRAM '2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmer Arif, John J. Robinson, Stephanie A. Stanek, Elodie S. Fichet, Paul Townsend, Zena Worku, & Kate Starbird, 2017. A Closer Look at the Self-Correcting Crowd: Examining Corrections in Online Rumors. In Proc. of CSCW (pp. 155--168). ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. JinYoung Bak, Suin Kim, & Alice Oh. 2012. Selfdisclosure and relationship strength in Twitter conversations. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Short Papers-Volume 2 (pp. 60--64). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Eytan Bakshy, Jake M. Hofman, Winter A. Mason, and Duncan J. Watts. 2011. Everyone's an influencer: quantifying influence on twitter. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining (WSDM '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 65--74. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Eytan Bakshy, Itamar Rosenn, Cameron Marlow, and Lada Adamic. 2012. The role of social networks in information diffusion. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web (WWW '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 519--528. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Eric S. Blake, Todd B. Kimberlain, Robert J. Berg, John P. Cangialosi, and John L. Beven II. (2013).Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Sandy. National Hurricane Center, 12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Catherine A. Bliss, Isabel M. Kloumann, Kameron Decker Harris, Christopher M. Danforth, and Peter Sheridan Dodds. (2012). Twitter reciprocal reply networks exhibit assortativity with respect to happiness. Journal of Computational Science, 3(5), 388--397.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Axel Bruns and Jean E. Burgess (2011). The use of Twitter hashtags in the formation of ad hoc publics. In 6th European Consortium for Political Research General Conference, 25--27 August 2011, University of Iceland, Reykjavik.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornelia Caragea, Anna Squicciarini, Sam Stehle, Kishore Neppalli, and Andrea Tapia. (2014). Mapping Moods: Geo-Mapped Sentiment Analysis During Hurricane Sandy. In Proceedings of eleventh international conference on Information System for Crisis Response and Managements (ISCRAM '2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Fabio Celli & Luca Rossi. 2012. The role of emotional stability in Twitter conversations. In Proceedings of the workshop on semantic analysis in social media (pp. 1017). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Meeyoung Cha, Hamed Haddadi, Fabricio Benevenuto, and Krishna P. Gummadi. Measuring User Influence in Twitter: The Million Follower Fallacy. In Proceedings of fourth international conference of Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM '10). pp 10--17 (2010): 30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Munmun De Choudhury, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, and Gloria Mark. 2014. "Narco" emotions: affect and desensitization in social media during the mexican drug war. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3563--3572. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Martin Dittus, Giovanni Quattrone, and Licia Capra. 2016. Analysing Volunteer Engagement in Humanitarian Mapping: Building Contributor Communities at Large Scale. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 108--118. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Russell Rowe Dynes. 1970. Organized Behavior in Disaster. Heath Lexington Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. FEMA (July 1, 2013). Hurricane Sandy FEMA After Action Report, http://www.fema.gov/media-librarydata/20130726--1923--25045--7442/sandy_fema_aar.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Charles E. Fritz and J. H. Mathewson. 1957. Convergence Behavior in Disasters: A Problem in Social Control. Committee on Disaster Studies, Disaster Study No. 9. Washington, DC, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. R. Stuart Geiger and Aaron Halfaker. 2013. Using edit sessions to measure participation in wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 861--870. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Bruce Evan Goldstein. (Ed.). Collaborative resilience: moving through crisis to opportunity. MIT Press. (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Bruno Gonçalves, Nicola Perra, & Alessandro Vespignani. 2011. Modeling users' activity on twitter networks: Validation of dunbar's number. PloS one, 6(8), e22656.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Mark Granovetter. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In Sociological theory 1.1:201--233.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Aniko Hannak, Drew Margolin, Brian Keegan, & Ingmar Weber. 2014. Get Back! You Don't Know Me Like That: The Social Mediation of Fact Checking Interventions in Twitter Conversations. In ICWSM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Bartosz Hawelka, Izabela Sitko, Euro Beinat,Stanislav Sobolevsky, Pavlos Kazakopoulos, & Carlo Ratti, 2014. Geo-located Twitter as proxy for global mobility patterns. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 41(3), 260--271.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Amanda Hughes, Leysia Palen, Jeannette Sutton, Sophia Liu, & Sarah Vieweg. 2008. "Site-Seeing" in Disaster: An Examination of On-Line Social Convergence Proceedings of the Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Brian Keegan, Darren Gergle, & Noshir Contractor. 2013. Hot off the wiki: Structures and dynamics of Wikipedia's coverage of breaking news events. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(5), 595--622.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Brian Keegan, Darren Gergle, and Noshir Contractor. 2012. Staying in the loop: structure and dynamics of Wikipedia's breaking news collaborations. In Proceedings of the Eighth Annual International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (WikiSym '12). Article 1, 10 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. James M. Kendra and Tricia Wachtendorf. 2003. Reconsidering Convergence and Converger Legitimacy in Response to the World Trade Center Disaster. Terrorism and Disaster: New Threats, New Ideas (Research in Social Problems and Public Policy) 11: 97--122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Suin Kim, JinYoung Bak, & Alice Oh. 2012, May. Do You Feel What I Feel? Social Aspects of Emotions in Twitter Conversations. In ICWSM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Marina Kogan, Leysia Palen, and Kenneth M. Anderson. 2015. Think Local, Retweet Global: Retweeting by the Geographically-Vulnerable during Hurricane Sandy. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '15), 981--993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Haewoon Kwak, Changhyun Lee, Hosung Park, and Sue Moon. 2010. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web(WWW '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 591--600. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Jeffrey K. Lazo, Ann Bostrom, Rebecca E. Morss, Julie L. Demuth & Heather Lazrus. 2015. Factors affecting hurricane evacuation intentions. Risk analysis, 35(10), 1837--1857.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Sophia Liu, Leysia Palen, Jeannette Sutton, Amanda Hughes, & Sarah Vieweg. 2008. In Search of the Bigger Picture: The Emergent Role of On-Line PhotoSharing in Times of Disaster. Proceedings of the Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management Conference (ISCRAM)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Rebecca E. Morss, Julie Demuth, Jeffrey K. Lazo, Katherine Dickinson, Heather Lazrus, and Betty H. Morrow, B. H. (2015) Understanding public hurricane evacuation decisions and responses to forecast and warning messages, submitted to Weather and Forecasting.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. M. E. J. Newman. (2003). Mixing patterns in networks. Physical Review E,67(2), 026126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. M.E.J. Newman, Duncan Watts, & Steven Strogatz. 2002. Random graph models of social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(suppl 1), 2566--2572.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Leysia Palen, Sarah Vieweg, Sophia B. Liu, and Amanda Lee Hughes. 2009. Crisis in a Networked World. In Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 27, 4: 467--480. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Leysia Palen and Kenneth M. Anderson (2016). Crisis Informatics-New Data for Extraordinary Times.Science, Vol 353, Issue 6296, 15 Jul 2016, pp. 224--225.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Sung-Yueh Perng, Monika Buscher, Lisa Wood, Ragnhild Halvorsrud, Michael Stiso, Leonardo Ramirez, and Amro Al-Akkad. 2013. Peripheral response: microblogging during the 22/7/2011 Norway attacks. International Journal of Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management 5, 1: 41--57.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. John W. Powell. 1954. An introduction to the natural history of disaster. University of Maryland: Disaster Research Project.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Yan Qu, Chen Huang, Pengyi Zhang, and Jun Zhang. 2011. Microblogging after a major disaster in China: a case study of the 2010 Yushu earthquake. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 25--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Alan Ritter, Colin Cherry, & Bill Dolan. 2010. Unsupervised modeling of twitter conversations. In Human Language Technologies: The 2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 172180). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Daniel M. Romero, Brendan Meeder, and Jon Kleinberg. 2011. Differences in the mechanics of information diffusion across topics: idioms, political hashtags, and complex contagion on twitter. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web (WWW '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 695--704. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Harvey Sacks, Emanuel A. Schegloff, & Gail Jefferson (1978). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. In Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 7--55).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Emanuel A. Schegloff. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American anthropologist, 70(6), 1075--1095.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Georg Simmel. 2010. Conflict and the web of group affiliations. Simon and Schuster.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Robert Soden and Leysia Palen. 2014. From Crowdsourced Mapping to Community Mapping: The Post-Earthquake Work of OpenStreetMap Haiti. In Proceedings of the Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (COOP '14), 311--326.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Kate Starbird. 2013. Delivering patients to sacré coeur: collective intelligence in digital volunteer communities. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 801810. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Kate Starbird and Leysia Palen. Pass it on?: Retweeting in mass emergency. In Proceedings of seventh international conference on Information System for Crisis Response and Managements (ISCRAM '2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Kate Starbird and Leysia Palen. 2011. "Voluntweeters": self-organizing by digital volunteers in times of crisis. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '11), 1071--1080. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Kate Starbird and Leysia Palen. 2013. Working and sustaining the virtual "Disaster Desk". In Proceedings of the ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW '13), 491--502. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Jeannette Sutton, Leysia Palen, & Irina Shklovski. 2008. Backchannels on the Front Lines: Emergent Use of Social Media in the 2007 Southern California Fires. Proceedings of the Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management Conference (ISCRAM).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Ralph H. Turner. Rumor as Intensified Information Seeking; Earthquake Rumors in China and the United States, in Disasters, Collective Behavior and Social Organization, R.R. Dynes and K.J. Tierney, Editors. 1990, University of Delaware Press: Newark. p. 244256.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Sarah Vieweg, Leysia Palen, L. Sophia Liu, Amanda Hughes, & Jeannette Sutton 2008. Collective Intelligence in Disaster: An Examination of the Phenomenon in the Aftermath of the 2007 Virginia Tech Shootings. Proceedings of the Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management Conference (ISCRAM).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Stanley Wasserman and Katherine Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Karl E. Weick. 1993. The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. In Administrative science quarterly, 628--652.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Karl E. Weick. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Joanne I. White, Leysia Palen, and Kenneth M. Anderson. 2014. Digital mobilization in disaster response: the work & self-organization of on-line pet advocates in response to hurricane sandy. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing (CSCW '14), 866--876. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Joanne I. White and Leysia Palen. 2015. Expertise in the Wired Wild West. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 662--675. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Sarita Yardi & Danah boyd. (2010). Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5), 316--327.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Michelle Yonetani and Tim Morris. (2013). Global Estimates 2012: people displaced by disasters. IDMCGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Conversations in the Eye of the Storm: At-Scale Features of Conversational Structure in a High-Tempo, High-Stakes Microblogging Environment

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        April 2018
        8489 pages
        ISBN:9781450356206
        DOI:10.1145/3173574

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 19 April 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        CHI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate666of2,590submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader