Abstract
AbstractDisruptions resulting from an epidemic might often appear to amount to chaos but, in reality, can be understood in a systematic way through the lens of “epidemic psychology”. According to Philip Strong, the founder of the sociological study of epidemic infectious diseases, not only is an epidemic biological; there is also the potential for three psycho-social epidemics: of fear, moralization, and action. This work empirically tests Strong’s model at scale by studying the use of language of 122M tweets related to the COVID-19 pandemic posted in the U.S. during the whole year of 2020. On Twitter, we identified three distinct phases. Each of them is characterized by different regimes of the three psycho-social epidemics. In the refusal phase, users refused to accept reality despite the increasing number of deaths in other countries. In the anger phase (started after the announcement of the first death in the country), users’ fear translated into anger about the looming feeling that things were about to change. Finally, in the acceptance phase, which began after the authorities imposed physical-distancing measures, users settled into a “new normal” for their daily activities. Overall, refusal of accepting reality gradually died off as the year went on, while acceptance increasingly took hold. During 2020, as cases surged in waves, so did anger, re-emerging cyclically at each wave. Our real-time operationalization of Strong’s model is designed in a way that makes it possible to embed epidemic psychology into real-time models (e.g., epidemiological and mobility models).
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Economics, Econometrics and Finance,General Psychology,General Social Sciences,General Arts and Humanities,General Business, Management and Accounting
Reference106 articles.
1. Aiello LM, Petkos G, Martin C, Corney D, Papadopoulos S, Skraba R, Göker A, Kompatsiaris I, Jaimes A (2013) Sensing trending topics in Twitter. IEEE Trans Multimed 15(6):1268–1282
2. Akbik A, Bergmann T, Blythe D, Rasul K, Schweter S, Vollgraf R (2019) FLAIR: an easy-to-use framework for state-of-the-art NLP. In: Proceedings of the conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. ACL, 54–59
3. Alpers GW, Winzelberg AJ, Classen C, Roberts H, Dev P, Koopman C, Taylor CB (2005) Evaluation of computerized text analysis in an internet breast cancer support group. Comput Hum Behav 21(2):361–376
4. Arguello J, Butler BS, Joyce E, Kraut R, Ling KS, Rosé C, Wang X (2006) Talk to me: foundations for successful individual–group interactions in online communities. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 959–968
5. Bagnoli F, Lio P, Sguanci L (2007) Risk perception in epidemic modeling. Phys Rev E 76(6):061904
Cited by
32 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献