The Social Psychology of Homophily: The Collective Sentiments of Education Advocacy Groups

Abstract

Background/Context

As a major area of civic decision making, public education is a central arena for advocacy groups seeking to influence policy debates. An emerging body of research examines advocates’ use of social media. While debates about policy can be thought of as a clash of large ideas contained within frames, cognitive linguists note that framing strategies are activated by the particular words that advocates choose to convey their positions.

Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study

This study examined the vociferous debate surrounding the Common Core State Standards on Twitter during the height of state adoption in 2014 and 2015. Combining social network analysis and natural language processing techniques, we first identified the organically forming factions within the Common Core debate on Twitter and then captured the collective psychological sentiments of these factions.

Research Design

The study employed quantitative statistical comparisons of the frequency of words used by members of different factions around the Common Core on Twitter that are associated in prior research with four psychological characteristics: mood, motivation, conviction, and thinking style.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were downloaded from Twitter from November 2014 to October 2015 using at least one of three hashtags: #commoncore, #ccss, or #stopcommoncore. The resulting data set consisted of more than 500,000 tweets and retweets from more than 100,000 distinct actors. We then ran a community detection algorithm to identify the structural subcommunities, or factions. To measure the four psychological characteristics, we adapted Pennebaker and colleagues’ Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count libraries. We then connected the individual tweet authors to their faction based on the results of the social network analysis community detection algorithm. Using these groups, and the standardized results for each psychological characteristic/dimension, we performed a series of analyses of variance with Bonferroni corrections to test for differences in the psychological characteristics among the factions.

Findings/Results

For each of the four psychological characteristics, we found different patterns among the different factions. Educators opposed to the Common Core had the highest level of drive motivation, use of sad words, and use of words associated with a narrative thinking style. Opponents of the Common Core from outside education exhibited an affiliative drive motivation, a narrative thinking style, high levels of anger words, and low levels of conviction in their choice of language. Supporters of the Common Core used words that represented a more analytic thinking style, stronger levels of conviction, and words associated with a higher level of achievement orientation.

Conclusions/Recommendations

Individuals on Twitter, mostly strangers to each other, band together to form fluid communities as they share positions on particular issues. On Twitter, these bonds are formed by behavioral choices to follow, retweet, and mention others. This study reveals how like-minded individuals create a collective sentiment through their specific choice of words to express their views. By analyzing the underlying psychological characteristics associated with language, we show the distinct pooled psychologies of activists as they engaged together in political activity in an effort to influence the political environment.

References

Andrews

K. T.

, & Edwards

(2004). Advocacy organizations in the U.S. political process. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 479—506.

Auger

G. A.

(2013). Fostering democracy through social media: Evaluating diametrically opposed nonprofit advocacy organizations’ use of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Public Relations Review, 39 4, 369—376.

Bascia

(1998). Teacher unions and educational reform. In Hargreaves

Lieberman

Fullan

, & Hopkins

(Eds.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 896—915). Kluwer Academic.

Bennett

W. L.

(2012). The personalization of politics political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644 1, 20—39.

Bond

G. D.

, & Lee

A. Y.

(2005). Language of lies in prison: Linguistic classification of prisoners’ truthful and deceptive natural language. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19 3, 313—329.

Borkovec

T. D.

(2002). Life in the future versus life in the present. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9 1, 76—80.

Bortree

D. S.

, & Seltzer

(2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35 3, 317—319.

Bourdieu

(1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7 1, 14—25.

Brewer

P. R.

, & Gross

(2005). Values, framing, and citizens’ thoughts about policy issues: Effects on content and quantity. Political Psychology, 26 6, 929—948. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00451.x

10.

Burr

(1995). An introduction to social constructionism. Routledge.

11.

Burstein

(1998). Interest organizations, political parties, and the study of democratic politics. In Costain

A. N.

, & McFarland

A. S.

(Eds.), Social movements and American political institutions (pp. 39—56). Rowman & Littlefield.

12.

Burt

R. S.

(1992). Structural holes. Harvard University Press.

13.

Burt

R. S.

(1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 2, 339—365.

14.

Coleman

J. S.

(1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95—120.

15.

Daly

A. J.

, & Finnigan

K. S.

(2010). A bridge between worlds: Understanding network structure to understand change strategy. Journal of Educational Change, 11 2, 111—138.

16.

DeBray-Pelot

E. H.

Lubienski

C. A.

, & Scott

J. T.

(2007). The institutional landscape of interest group politics and school choice. Peabody Journal of Education, 82 2–3, 204—230.

17.

Dodds

P. S.

Harris

K. D.

Kloumann

I. M.

Bliss

C. A.

, & Danforth

C. M.

(2011). Temporal patterns of happiness and information in a global social network: Hedonometrics and Twitter. PLoS ONE, 6, e26752. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026752

18.

Education Next. (2016). Results from the 2016 Education Next Poll. http://educationnext.org/2016-ednext-poll-interactive/

19.

Edwards

H. R.

, & Hoefer

(2010). Are social work advocacy groups using Web 2.0 effectively? Journal of Policy Practice, 9 3–4, 220—239.

20.

Fairclough

(1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Language in Social Life Series. Longman.

21.

Fillmore

C. J.

(1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 280 1, 20—32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25467.x

22.

Gee

J. P.

(2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.). Routledge.

23.

Gormley

W. T.

Jr. (2012). Voices for children: Rhetoric and public policy. Brookings Institution Press.

24.

Granovetter

M. S.

(1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 1, 1360—1380.

25.

Granovetter

M. S.

(1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In Marsden

P. V.

, & Lin

(Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 105—130). Sage.

26.

Greenberg

, & MacAulay

(2009). NPO 2.0? Exploring the web presence of environmental nonprofit organizations in Canada. Global Media Journal, 2 1, 63—88.

27.

Greenberg

, & Pyszczynski

(1986). Persistent high self-focus after failure and low self-focus after success: The depressive self-focusing style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 5, 1039—1044.

28.

Guo

, & Saxton

G. D.

(2014). Tweeting social change: How social media are changing nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43 1, 57—79.

29.

Hamilton

Stecher

, & Yuan

(2008). Standards-based reform in the United States: History, research, and future directions (No. RP-1384). RAND Education.

30.

Hansen

(2002). Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 13 3, 232—248.

31.

Haythornthwaite

(2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information, Community & Society, 8 2, 125—147.

32.

Kirst

M. W.

(2007). Politics of charter schools: Competing national advocacy coalitions meet local politics. Peabody Journal of Education, 82 2–3, 184—203.

33.

Labaree

D. F.

(1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34 1, 39—81.

34.

Labaree

D. F.

(2007). Education, markets, and the public good: The selected works of David F. Labaree. Routledge.

35.

Lakoff

(2008). The political mind: Why you can't understand 21st-century politics with an 18th-century brain. Penguin.

36.

Larcker

D. F.

, & Zakolyukina

A. A.

(2012). Detecting deceptive discussions in conference calls. Journal of Accounting Research, 50 2, 495—540. doi:10.1111/j.1475-679x.2012.00450.x

37.

Lin

(1999). Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 25 1, 467—487.

38.

Lin

(2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action (Vol. 19). Cambridge University Press.

39.

Little

, & Skillicorn

(2008, June). Detecting deception in testimony. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference of Intelligence and Security Informatics (pp. 13–18). Taipei, Taiwan.

40.

Liu

(2012). Sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies, 5 1, 1—167.

41.

Louwerse

Lin

Drescher

, & Soumin

(2010). Linguistic cues predict fraudulent events in a corporate social network. Cognitive Science Journal, 32, 961—966. http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2010/papers/0306/paper0306.pdf

42.

Lovejoy

, & Saxton

G. D.

(2012). Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17 3, 337—353.

43.

Lubienski

, & Jameson Brewer

(2016). An analysis of voucher advocacy: Taking a closer look at the uses and limitations of “gold standard” research. Peabody Journal of Education, 91 4, 455—472.

44.

Luke

(2002). Beyond science and ideology critique: Developments in critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 96—110.

45.

Marsden

P. V.

, & Campbell

K. E.

(1984). Measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 63 2, 482—501.

46.

McClelland

D. C.

(1985). Human motivation. Scott Foresman.

47.

McDonnell

, & Weatherford

S. M.

(2013). Organized interests and the Common Core. Educational Researcher, 42, 488—497.

48.

McPherson

Smith-Lovin

, & Cook

J. M.

(2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27 1, 415—444.

49.

Morgan

C. D.

(1935). A method for investigating fantasies. Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry, 34 2, 289—306.

50.

Nelson

T. E.

, & Oxley

Z. M.

(1999). Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. The Journal of Politics, 61 4, 1040—1067. https://doi.org/10.2307/2647553

51.

Nguyen

Doğruöz

A. S.

Rosé

C. P.

, & de Jong

(2016). Computational sociolinguistics: A survey. Computational Linguistics, 42 3, 537—593.

52.

Nicholson

S. P.

, & Howard

R. M.

(2003). Framing support for the Supreme Court in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore. Journal of Politics, 65 3, 676—695. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00207

53.

Olsen

(2009). The role of advocacy in shaping immigrant education: A California case study. Teachers College Record, 111 3, 817—850.

54.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2011). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. Bloomsbury Press.

55.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Chung

C. K.

Ireland

Gonzales

, & Booth

R. J.

(2007). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2007. LIWC.net.

56.

Pennebaker

J. W.

, & King

L. A.

(1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 6, 1296—1312.

57.

Pennebaker

J. W.

, & Lay

T. C.

(2002). Language use and personality during crises: Analyses of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's press conferences. Journal of Research in Personality, 36 3, 271—282.

58.

Poole

W. L.

(2001). The teacher unions’ role in 1990s educational reform: An organizational evolution perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37 2, 173—196.

59.

Putnam

R. D.

(1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science & Politics, 28 4, 664—683.

60.

Reagans

, & McEvily

(2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48 2, 240—267.

61.

Riker

W. H.

Calvert

R. L.

, & Wilson

R. K.

(1996). The strategy of rhetoric: Campaigning for the American Constitution. Yale University Press.

62.

Schattschneider

E. E.

(1960). The semi-sovereign people. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

63.

Scott

(2000). Social network analysis (2nd ed.). Sage.

64.

Scott

(2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Policy, 23 1, 106—136.

65.

Scott

J. T.

(2011). Market-driven education reform and the racial politics of advocacy. Peabody Journal of Education, 86 5, 580—599.

66.

Scott

, & Carrington

(2011). The SAGE handbook of social network analysis. SAGE.

67.

Scott

Lubienski

, & DeBray-Pelot

(2009). The politics of advocacy in education. Educational Policy, 23 1, 3—14.

68.

Smith

M. S.

, & O'Day

J. A.

(1991). Systemic school reform. In Fuhrman

S. H.

, & Malen

(Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 233—267). Falmer Press.

69.

Sniderman

P. M.

, & Theriault

S. M.

(2004). The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In Saris

W. E.

, & Sniderman

P. M.

(Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change (pp. 133—165). Princeton University Press.

70.

Stein

S. J.

(2004). The culture of education policy. Teachers College Press

71.

Stirman

S. W.

, & Pennebaker

J. W.

(2001). Word use in the poetry of suicidal and nonsuicidal. Psychosomatic Medicine, 63 4, 517—522.

72.

Supovitz

Daly

A. J.

, & Del Fresno

(2018). The Common Core debate on Twitter and the rise of the activist public. Journal of Educational Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-018-9327-2

73.

Supovitz

Daly

Del Fresno

, & Kolouch

(2017, May). #commoncore Project, Part 2. http://www.hashtagcommoncore.com

74.

Supovitz

, & McGuinn

(2017). Interest group activity in the context of Common Core implementation. Education Policy. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0895904817719516

75.

Supovitz

, & Reinkordt

(2017). Keep your eye on the metaphor: The framing of the Common Core on Twitter. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25 31. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2285

76.

Tenkasi

, & Chesmore

(2003). Social networks and planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39 3, 281—300.

77.

Tyack

D. B.

, & Cuban

(1995). Tinkering toward utopia. Harvard University Press.

78.

Uzzi

(1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 1, 35—67.

79.

Van Dijk

(1997). Analysing discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 8 1, 5—6.

80.

Vinovskis

M. A.

(1996). An analysis of the concept and uses of systemic educational reform. American Educational Research Journal, 33 1, 53—85.

81.

Walker

J. L.

(1991). Mobilizing interest groups in America. University of Michigan Press.

82.

Wang

, & Fikis

(2017). Common Core standards on Twitter: Public sentiment and opinion leaders. Educational Policy. Advance online publication. Online first. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904817723739

83.

Wetherell

, & Potter

(1988). Discourse analysis and the identification of interpretative repertoires. In Antaki

(Ed.), Analysing everyday explanation (pp. 168—183). Sage.

84.

Winter

D. G.

(1978). Navy leadership and management competencies: Convergence among interviews, test scores, and supervisors’ ratings [Unpublished paper]. Wesleyan University and McBer & Company.

85.

Winter

D. G.

(1980). An exploratory study of the motives of Southern African political leaders measured at a distance. Political Psychology, 2 2, 75—85.

86.

Winter

D. G.

(1987). Leader appeal, leader performance, and the motive profiles of leaders and followers: A study of American presidents and elections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 1, 196—202.

87.

Winter

D. G.

, & McClelland

D. C.

(1978). Thematic analysis: An empirically derived measure of the effects of liberal arts education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70 1, 8—16.

88.

Wooffitt

(2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. Sage.