Twitter-based measures of neighborhood sentiment as predictors of residential population health

Joseph Gibbons; Robert Malouf; Brian Spitzberg; Lourdes Martinez; Bruce Appleyard; Caroline Thompson; Atsushi Nara; Ming-Hsiang Tsou

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0219550

Abstract

Several studies have recently applied sentiment-based lexicons to Twitter to gauge local sentiment to understand health behaviors and outcomes for local areas. While this research has demonstrated the vast potential of this approach, lingering questions remain regarding the validity of Twitter mining and surveillance in local health research. First, how well does this approach predict health outcomes at very local scales, such as neighborhoods? Second, how robust are the findings garnered from sentiment signals when accounting for spatial effects? To evaluate these questions, we link 2,076,025 tweets from 66,219 distinct users in the city of San Diego over the period of 2014-12-06 to 2017-05-24 to the 500 Cities Project data and 2010–2014 American Community Survey data. We determine how well sentiment predicts self-rated mental health, sleep quality, and heart disease at a census tract level, controlling for neighborhood characteristics and spatial autocorrelation. We find that sentiment is related to some outcomes on its own, but these relationships are not present when controlling for other neighborhood factors. Evaluating our encoding strategy more closely, we discuss the limitations of existing measures of neighborhood sentiment, calling for more attention to how race/ethnicity and socio-economic status play into inferences drawn from such measures.

Citation: Gibbons J, Malouf R, Spitzberg B, Martinez L, Appleyard B, Thompson C, et al. (2019) Twitter-based measures of neighborhood sentiment as predictors of residential population health. PLoS ONE 14(7): e0219550. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219550

Editor: Christopher M. Danforth, University of Vermont, UNITED STATES

Received: November 9, 2018; Accepted: June 26, 2019; Published: July 11, 2019

Copyright: © 2019 Gibbons et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data used in this study is third party data, not owned by the authors. Twitter data can be accessed through their API with some restrictions (https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/api-reference-index.html). To access to Twitter Streaming API, we first created a developer account (https://developer.twitter.com/en/apply-for-access.html). From there, we obtained an consumer key and access token to obtain the data (https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/basics/authentication/guides/access-tokens.html). All other sources of data used in this study are publicly available. We accessed American Community Survey data with the 'ACS' R package, which obtains the data through the American Community Survey's API. An access key is required for this API and can be obtained through the Census API website (https://api.census.gov/data/key_signup.html). We obtained the Census data directly from the National Historical Geographic Information System website (https://www.nhgis.org/). We obtained the 500 Cities data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's 500 Cities website (https://chronicdata.cdc.gov/browse?category=500+Cities). We did not have any special access privileges for any of these sources.

Funding: This material is partially based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1416509, IBSS project titled “Spatiotemporal Modeling of Human Dynamics Across Social Media and Social Networks”. Funding was also provided by the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities, Grant No. U54MD012397. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Social media such as Twitter have introduced new methodologies for measuring health behaviors and outcomes. Collectively, social media represent a relatively real-time large-scale snapshot of the messages, meanings and moods of a population. Every tweet is a signal of the sender’s state of mind and state of being at that moment. Every tweet is also an attempt at influence on the receiver’s state of mind and state of being[1]. To the extent that such communication processes succeed in influencing others, then not only do social media signal a population’s experiential state, but they also are a mechanism by which such states are socially constructed [2].

Evidence abounds that sentiment expressed in social media both signal and construct important social dynamics in society. Expressed sentiments influence a host of individual and population-level health outcomes [3,4]. These effects can include people using social media to discuss their current health as well as those expressing attitudes, which in turn, can affect the health of others. Examples of sentiment’s role on health are varied, affecting areas including food consumption [5,6], physical activity [5], drug and alcohol use [4,7,8], sleep disorders [8,9], depression [10], suicidality [11–13], heart disease [10,14], and overall mortality [10]. There are developing theories of social construction [15] and contagion [3] that implicate language itself in both reflecting and influencing such health outcomes. Sentiments derived from social media thus present great potential in the study of health.

There is a growing interest in leveraging sentiment data to measure the overall well-being of places [16]. Past research has shown that the overall mood of neighborhoods can affect health. For example, high stress neighborhoods are related to several health issues, ranging from poor sleep to coronary problems[17–24]. Based on this connection, several scholars have sought to leverage sentiment data from social media to gather the overall ‘mood’ of a neighborhood as a way to predict health outcomes, including heart disease [5,6,14]. These developments suggest exciting new means to determine the overall health in communities without having to rely on costly surveys and other obtrusive methods. However, new questions of validity arise with such sentiment measures. For example, are sentiments signaling health, or some intermediary factors that are correlated to both sentiment and health?

In establishing the usefulness of sentiment inferred from social media to determine health outcomes, there are considerations to be raised. First, how useful is aggregated emotional sentiment derived from social media? One of the key advantages of social media data are their individualized character, allowing for fine grained study of sentiment. Much of the existing publicly available health data are reported at an aggregate level, including census tracts, zip codes, and counties [16]. As such, the usefulness of sentiment is determined in part by how it can predict the aggregate well-being of a population and place. Several studies have already identified links between Twitter sentiment and health outcomes at a county level, including physical activity, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and mortality [4,6,14,25]. However, linking Twitter health outcomes with datasets at smaller scales like census tracts, to our knowledge, has not yet been done [26–28].

Second, health outcomes are known to vary spatially, clustering more in some areas over others [29–31]. Some of this concentration is likely due to local forces such as concentrated socioeconomic disadvantage. However, certain forms of poor health, including stress, can be predicted by its neighboring presence, spilling over into a given area [32]. There also may be unmodeled spatial effects that affect health, including sentiment. It becomes important therefore to determine whether sentiment has an independent relationship to health outcomes independent of these other neighborhood effects.

This study evaluates the singular impact of neighborhood sentiment as measured by social media by comparing the relation of an established method of identifying sentiment to neighborhood health outcomes, including self-rated mental health, sleep quality, and heart disease as exemplars. There are relatively well-established relationships between sentiment and sleep disorders or deprivation [26], and significant inroads are progressing in sleep disorder surveillance of social media language [9]. Likewise, mental health indicators [27] such as depression can both be located linguistically in sentiment from social media [28,33–35] and associated with social media use [36]. Finally, mining of sentiments expressed in social media has demonstrated robust relationships with heart disease and cardiac-related illness [4,6,10,14]. Thus, these three measures were chosen first for their interrelationships to social media communication processes, and second for their diversity in effects: self-rated mental health being related to well-being, poor sleep as a social behavior, and heart disease a physical health outcome. These variables allow a valuable window for examining whether and how local sentiment relates to local health. In turn, this approach can establish how well sentiment predicts health outcomes when controlling for relevant neighborhood factors.

Data and methods

Study location

For this study, we focus on the city of San Diego, CA. While San Diego has a large population, 1,307,402 based on the 2010 Census, its built environment varies from a dense urban core to lower density suburban stretches. There is also considerable demographic variation in the city. Based on our analysis of census tract-level 2010–2014 American Community Survey data for San Diego, we found that while the Southeastern sections of the city are mostly non-White and low-income, the Northwestern sections of the city are Whiter and more affluent. This diversity in built environment and demographic environment makes San Diego an ideal site for study. The unit of analysis for this study was the census tract. Tracts were chosen because the health outcome data were derived from this local scale, as described below. Tracts are also useful as they are a common proxy of neighborhoods in city research [37], allowing greater generalizability of our findings. One consideration with San Diego is that there is a section of the city that is not connected to the rest. This ‘island’ is problematic for the spatial weighting used in this analysis discussed below, which requires that all neighborhoods share borders. As such, we omitted southern sections of the city from our final analysis. In addition, tracts for which fewer than 1,000 tweets were collected have been excluded. These omitted tracts accounted for only 7.77 percent of all the tracts in the city. Our final dataset includes a total count of 281 census tracts.

Measuring neighborhood sentiment

To measure the emotional sentiment of neighborhoods, we leveraged the content of Twitter data. Twitter is a short-form blogging system, which had until recently been limited to 140 characters a post. Geo-referenced tweets for this study were collected using the web-based application Geoviewer [38]. All data use was consistent with user expectations as per Twitter Terms of Service. Several steps were made to prepare these data for analysis. Tweets that could be located with a census tract in the parts of San Diego studied were filtered by matching the source against a whitelist of interactive Twitter applications. The accepted clean source strings were: Fenix for Android, Flamingo for Android, Tweetbot for Mac, Tweetbot for iOS, Tweetings for iPad, Tweetings for iPhone, Twitter for Android, Twitter for iPhone, Twitter for Android, Twitter for Android Tablets, Twitter for BlackBerry, Twitter for BlackBerry, Twitter for Windows, Twitter for Windows Phone, Twitter for iPad, Twitter for iPhone. This led to the exclusion of tweets from automated services that post job ads, traffic updates, earthquake reports, and such. It also excluded automated cross-posts from other social media platforms such as Instagram and FourSquare, as well as duplicate tweets. As these tweets were not collected randomly, there is the potential for sampling bias in our results. The final database included 2,076,025 tweets from 66,219 distinct users over the period 2014-12-06 to 2017-05-24. Fig 1 shows the number of tweets collected in each of the 281 census tracts in central San Diego.

Download:

Fig 1. Number of tweets collected by census tract.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219550.g001

To measure the overall sentiment of aggregated tweets, we applied the ‘Hedonometer’ developed by Dodds and colleagues [39,40]. This method was chosen in part because it had been used in previous tract-level studies on health [5]. This approach uses a large lexicon of more than 10,000 frequently occurring words annotated for sentiment by human raters. Each word was rated independently on a “happiness” scale of 1 to 9 (ranging from least to most positive) by 50 users on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk platform, yielding a human-derived average happiness rating h_avg. To increase the metric’s robustness against random variation between raters and texts, Dodds et al. ignore words with an h_avg rating between 4 and 6 (i.e., within ±1 point of the hypothetical neutral value 5). This leaves a vocabulary of 3,731 coded words, which Dodds et al. released as the labMT 1.0 data set.

Given the average happiness ratings of individual words, the average happiness of a text is simply the weighted average of the happiness ratings of the constituent words. More specifically, the average happiness of a text T is where h_avg(w_i) is the happiness rating for the ith word in labMT and f(w_i) is the frequency of that word in T.

It should be noted that the Hedonometer was initially designed to measure happiness at a larger scale than that used in this study, such as states [39]. Nonetheless, the highly local focus used in this study allows us to asses local issues in the derivation of h_avg(T) scores that may not be identified otherwise.

While our central interest is in annotated lexicons, there is also a question to be raised as for how these lexicons differ from those derived from supervised machine learning. Sentiment models derived from supervised machine learning are learned from a representative distribution of words occurring and may not be subject to the annotator biases found with the h_avg. To evaluate the applicability of our findings with the h_avg to supervised lexicon methods, we utilize a supervised machine learning system, the VADER (Valence Aware Dictionary for sEntiment Reasoning) in supplemental analysis[41].

Measuring health outcomes

Our three outcome variables include poor self-rated mental health, the percentage of respondents 18 or over “who report 14 or more days during the past 30 days during which their mental health was not good;” poor sleep, the percent of respondents 18 and over who sleep less than 7 hours during a 24 hour period; and heart disease, the percent of respondents 18 and over who “report ever having been told by a doctor, nurse, or other health professional that they had angina or coronary heart disease.” These measures were derived from the 500 Cities Project, an initiative on the part of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to provide local level estimates of health risks, health outcomes, and healthy behaviors based on the 2014 wave of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), a nationally representative household telephone survey administered by the CDC. Tract and city estimates from the BRFSS were derived through multilevel strategy linking geocoded county-level BRFSS data to block-level demographic data from the 2010 Census to predict the characteristics of health by location [42].

To validate this method of data creation, the CDC created county-level estimates out of their local area estimations and compared them to the raw BRFSS estimates for counties in Missouri [43] and Massachusetts [44]. They found these measures closely paralleled one another. Thus far, tract estimates have only been generated for the 2014 BRFSS data.

Demographic measures

Demographic measures were obtained from the 2010–2014 American Community Survey. Given the level of collinearity that can exist between aggregated measures, care was taken to identify variables with the least collinearity. First, based on previous research on neighborhood context and health outcomes [45], we derived a composite measure of socio-economic status derived from principal component analysis of percent of tract living in poverty (loading -0.77), percent with a professional degree (loading 0.91), percent with a bachelor’s degree or greater (loading 0.90), median household income (loading 0.89), median rent (loading 0.80), and median household value (loading 0.84). This component accounts for 73.74% of the common variance in the variables. Tract-level scores were derived through the regression method [46]. In addition, we accounted for the percent of the population with some form of insurance, the percent female, the percent aged 50 and over, and percent nonwhite.

Measuring the built environment.

Most travel behavior and built environment research currently relies on the “D-variables,” first developed by Cervero and Kockelman, who originally coined the first three variable names—density, diversity, and design [47]. Based on this approach, we used measures of regional accessibility through a) the number of jobs accessible within a 45-minute trip by transit, and b) the number of jobs within a 45-minute trip by auto. Regional accessibility is one of the strongest predictors of lowering auto use. For walkability and bike-ability, we used intersection density, which is often used as a reliable proxy [48–50].

Analytical approach

We used multivariate generalized linear models to identify how neighborhood attributes like aggregated sentiment affect population-level screening behaviors. To manage the spatial autocorrelation in our results, this study makes use of Exploratory Spatial Dependence Analysis (ESDA), specifically Local Indicators of Spatial Autocorrelation (LISA), to determine the presence of spatial autocorrelation and Spatial Regression to model for any local interference in the results [51]. There are two estimation strategies to manage spatial dependence in regression models: the first seeks to account for spatial lag by including a lag term, the standardized levels of the dependent variable in adjacent areas, ρ, into the model as a predictor; the second strategy incorporates a spatial error term, λ, to filter out the effects of autocorrelation from the model[52–54]. Through a series of Lagrange multiplier tests suggested by Baltagi et al.[55], we determined that spatial dependence was best accounted for by both spatial lag and spatial error. We accounted for both forms with Spatial Autoregressive Model with Autoregressive Disturbances (SARAR) that includes terms for spatial lag and error as outlined by Kelejian and Prucha [56]. The model takes on the form: and with Z_n = [X_n, W_ny] and δn = [β′n,λn]'. Here y_n denotes the n× 1 vector of observations of the dependent variable, X_n denotes the n × k matrix of non-stochastic (exogenous) regressors, W_n and M_n are n × n non-stochastic matrices, u_n denotes the n × 1 vector of regression disturbances, ε_n is an n × 1 vector of innovations, λ_n and ρ_n are unknown scalar parameters, and β_n is a k × 1 vector of unknown parameters. The matrices W_n and M_n are typically referred to as spatial weights matrices, and λ_n and ρ_n are typically called spatial autoregressive parameters. The analysis allows for W_n = M_n, which will frequently be the case in applications. The vectors ȳ_n = W_ny_n and ū_n = M_nu_n are typically referred to as spatial lags of y_n and u_n, respectively. We note that all quantities can depend on the sample size and so some of the exogenous regressors may be spatial lags of exogenous variables. Thus, the model is relatively general in that it allows for spatial spillovers in the endogenous variables, exogenous variables and disturbances.

Analyzing aggregate measures such as these limits the ability to make claims about individual level outcomes because of the potential for ecological fallacy and the modifiable areal unit problem [57,58]. Arguments and assumptions therefore need to be reserved to group-level effects.

Results

The descriptive findings are reported in Table 1. First, the hedonometer grand mean score for a census tract in the measured sections of San Diego (h_avg) was 5.985. We visualize the distribution of h_avg scores by tract with Fig 2. On average 10.694 percent of the measured tracts report poor self-rated mental health, though some tracts have as much as 20.600 percent reporting poor self-rated mental health. Next, on average 33.139 percent of the measured tracts report poor sleep, with some tracts reporting as many as 44.200 percent. Last, on average 4.540 percent of tract residents report heart disease, with as many as 13.500 percent in some areas. In sum, there is a fair amount of variation in the health outcomes in the tracts across the measured sections of San Diego.

Download:

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219550.t001

Download:

Fig 2. h_avg by census tract.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219550.g002

We utilized Exploratory Spatial Data Analysis (ESDA) to determine the underlying spatial autocorrelation in our outcomes. Across all three measures we found significant (p≤ 0.001) and moderate spatial autocorrelation with self-rated mental health (0.542), poor sleep (0.339), and heart disease (0.239). To further assess the presence of these clusters, we utilize Local Indicators of Spatial Autocorrelation (LISA), which displays the local iterations of the Moran’s I scores. Presented in Fig 3, these maps display clearly demarcated spatial clusters of significantly higher poor health (High-High) and areas that significantly lack poor health (Low-Low). To clarify, the Low-Low areas do not necessarily have high rates of good health, but they do lack unhealthy people. Self-rated mental health and poor sleep present a similar spatial pattern, with the High-High areas mainly in southeastern San Diego and the Low-Low areas mainly to the North and West of the city. Heart disease displays a different pattern, with four large High-High clusters. While one of these clusters is in southeastern San Diego, another is in the western reaches of the city, which contained the Low-Low clusters for mental health and sleep.

Download:

Fig 3. Exploratory spatial data analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219550.g003

We report our regression results in Table 2; Models 1, 4, and 7 are OLS findings of the h_avg measure with the health outcomes. Comparisons of the h_avg coefficients across models were assessed using the technique described by Clogg, Petkova, and Haritou [59]. We find based on Models 1 and 4 that the h_avg has significant and negative self-rated mental health (-1.294***) and poor sleep (-.2.118***) respectively. Meanwhile, as shown in Model 7 h_avg has no significant relationship with chronic heart disease. The negative relation of happiness to these outcomes is notable, model 1 for example implies that tracts with ‘happier’ Twitter activity are reporting worse self-rated mental health. A post regression analysis reveals the residuals of the OLS were significantly (p≤0.001) spatially autocorrelated, indicating bias in our estimations not being accounted for.

Download:

Table 2. Multiple regression results for health outcomes—Hedonometer.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219550.t002

Using a Lagrange multiplier test [55], we determined that the SARAR model [56] was the best estimation strategy for our models, which are reported in Models 2, 5, and 8. These Models show that the h_avg is still significant in predicting self-rated mental health and poor sleep, but the magnitude of the effects is notably smaller. The h_avg for self-rated mental health ranges from -1.294 in Model 1 to -0.421 in Model 2. These differences were statistically significant. Finally, the h_avg has no significance in these models when other neighborhood controls are added, as reported in Models 3, 6, and 9. The most consistent effect explaining the effects of these outcomes is age, which is significant for all the models.

To determine the applicability of our findings to lexicons derived from supervised machine learning, we conducted supplemental analyses, reconducting our models using the VADER [41] in place of the h_avg. These results, reported in Table 3, are largely consistent with the models reported in Table 2, with the VADER measure significantly predicting self-rated health and sleep in base models but losing significance in full models. The similarity of the VADER results to our reported results using the h_avg suggest the bias we identified with annotated lexicons is also applicable to at least some of the existing supervised machine learning methods.

Download:

Table 3. Multiple regression results for health outcomes—VADER.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219550.t003

The above results raise a few notable points. First, we find that the baseline measure of the h_avg has an unexpectedly positive association with poorer health outcomes. Put simply, neighborhood happiness as measured by Twitter activity in a neighborhood was associated with worse rather than better health as measured by self-rated poor mental health and poor sleep, though not by heart disease, which was unrelated to Twitter happiness. Second, this association between Twitter happiness and poor health significantly weakens in magnitude when spatial autocorrelation is estimated, and the remaining association loses all significance with the introduction of the controls. On the surface, these results demonstrate the limitation in the ability of sentiment measures to predict neighborhood outcomes independent of other neighborhood factors. However, a closer evaluation of these sentiment measures reveals more about how and why they were not successful predictors.

Context and sentiment

Lexicon-based sentiment analysis metrics like the Hedonometer suffer from a number of limitations (see Pang and Lee [60], for a survey). Many of these come down to an inability to properly take context into account. That could be the immediate linguistic context: for example, the phrase not happy would be assigned a moderately positive happiness score, while not unhappy would be judged strongly negative. The strictly additive combination of sentiment scores assumed by these methods cannot account for the semantics of natural language use.

More generally, lexicon-based methods deal poorly with polysemy, the situation in which a single word has multiple related meanings with potentially different sentiments attached. For example, the word animals is moderately positive, with an h_avg of 6.80, and it is in fact usually used in a positive sense:

baby animals and beautiful sunsets …this place is magical #newfriends #shouldhavebeenavet

It is easy, though, to find examples of the same word being used in a strongly negative sense:

I can't stand people who don't control their fucking children in public places. have them act like fucking animals in your home

Sentiment lexicons that are derived automatically from text typically average sentiment scores across all possible meanings of a word. It is hard to know exactly how the MTurkers who coded the labMT lexicon approached the problem, but they likely either (impressionistically) averaged across word senses or, alternatively, assigned each word an h score that reflects the word’s most salient sense.

These shortcomings (and others) make a system like the Hedonometer unsuitable for accurately assigning absolute happiness scores to small texts. However, they might not be a problem when the system is used to compare relative levels of happiness across large quantities of text distributed across space or time, as long as errors in sentiment are not correlated with any other dimensions of interest. For example, negative uses of animals may add noise to overall happiness measurements, but they do not pose a problem for trend analysis so long as the ratio of positive to negative uses of animals remains constant over time.

For the most part, the assumption that word sense probabilities are stationary has gone unexamined in the literature in large-scale social media analysis, though sporadic violations are occasionally noted. Dodds et al. [39] cite the example of an increase in negative sentiment on May 24, 2010. This was the date of the series finale of the TV drama Lost, an event that generated a lot of social media interest. The word lost is negative in most of its senses and has a fairly negative score (h_avg = 2.76), but on that date the neutral-to-positive ‘TV show’ sense of the word increased in relative frequency at the expense of the other senses. This shift in word-sense probabilities possibly led to a spurious spike in negative sentiment and certainly made it difficult to measure whether the end of Lost was actually met with a global drop in happiness.

In this analysis, we are considering variations in happiness over space rather than time, and there is good reason to suspect that word-sense probabilities are not (spatially) stationary. Like all large American cities, San Diego is both a multi-lingual and a multi-dialectal community. The tweets we collected represent usage in multiple varieties of African American English (AAE), Chicano English, and Standard American English (SAE), among other dialects. Words and word meanings vary across dialects, and the dialects in a tweeter’s linguistic repertoire depend in part on their location, class, and ethnicity.

To investigate the underlying causes that lead to variation in happiness measurements, Dodds and Danforth [40] introduced the word shift graph, a visualization that shows the words that contribute most to differences in happiness. A word can contribute to higher happiness in two ways: a word with a higher than average h_avg can occur more frequently than average, or a word with a lower than average h_avg can occur less frequently than average. Similarly, more frequent negative words and less frequent positive words contribute to a decrease in measured happiness. Specifically, the normalized per-word happiness shift δh_avg,i of a word w_i to the difference in happiness δh_avg between a comparison text T_comp and a reference text T_ref is: where and are the average happiness of T_comp and T_ref and and are the relative frequencies of w_i in T_comp and T_ref.

Word-shift graphs for census tract 83.12 (in La Jolla, a wealthy coastal community) and 30.03 (part of Encanto, a working class and more rural inland neighborhood) are given in Fig 4. For each word, the size of the bar indicates the magnitude of δh_avg,i and the direction indicates its sign. Words that are more or less frequent than average in the given tract are marked with ↑ or ↓ respectively, and words with h_avg greater or less than are marked with + or −.

Download:

Fig 4. Word shift graph.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219550.g004

In tract 83.12 we see an increased frequency of words reflecting the physical environment and the positive things people do there (beach, beautiful, great, sunset, perfect, thanks, ocean, nice, sea, congrats, sun, enjoying, vacation) and a reduced frequency of words denoting negative affects (hate, sad, mad, cry, mean, sick, hurt, tired, annoying).

The words with high δh_avg,i in tract 30.03 are not as straightforward to interpret. This list is not particular to tract 30.03. In fact, the 20 words most responsible for contributing to δh_avg across all census tracts, reflect many of the same terms:

shit, love, don’t, no, happy, me, nigga, lol, hate, not, like, bitch, can’t, ass, great, haha, damn, never, niggas, dont

Two words stand out immediately: nigga and niggas. The semantic and pragmatic status of these terms depends substantially on the identity of the speaker using them, their addressee, and the context of use. These terms are both rated as strongly unhappy in labMT, with h_avg of 3.32 and 2.96, and this is probably an accurate reflection of the linguistic experience of the raters. However, among speakers of AAE (and other dialects), these terms have undergone a kind of ‘semantic bleaching’ in which they have lost most of their original meaning and have come to be used in some cases, arguably, as a kind of pronoun [61–64]. Further, other research has shown a clear gendered difference in the use of these words, with men using them at a far greater rate than women [65]. The use of these terms is an indicator of the tweeter’s dialect (and, less directly, race and socio-economic status [66]), not of their level of positive emotion.

Several more of the top words (shit, bitch, ass, damn) are swear words. What counts as profanity varies across dialects. Swearing also serves many functions, and the expression of negative affect such as anger is certainly one of them [65]. Use of profanity can express solidarity and it can also serve an indexical function in the construction of a social identity [64,67,68].

In her study of profanity use among college students, Beers Fägersten [69] found that shit was the swearword used most often (by a wide margin) by African Americans in her sample, accounting for 44% of the total profanity use, and much more often than among White, Hispanic, or Asian-American students, for whom fuck was the most frequently used term. Even though fuck is normally seen as one of the most offensive profanities in American English [70], it received a fairly neutral rating of 4.14 in labMT, whereas shit was rated very negatively at 2.50. Again, this is probably an accurate representation of SAE as judged by the raters (on average), but it does not reflect usage in other dialects or contexts. In addition, Beers Fägersten [69] observed differences in the context of swearing between racial groups. The range of functions of profanity was the same across groups, but African American students were more likely than members of other ethnicities to use swearing in among friends and in humorous or emphatic way. Profanity use, as an indicator of mood, is not constant across dialects.

A third category of words on the list is made up of negation terms (don’t, no, not, can’t, never, dont). Grammatical differences between SAE and non-standard dialects may be influencing the frequencies of specific negative terms [71]. For example, forms like She don’t look 18 (≈ SAE She doesn’t look 18) may account for the over-representation of don’t and dont in some tracts. Similarly, the negative items no and never in some dialects correspond to a/any and ever in the standard dialect: being searched ain’t no joke ≈ being searched isn’t a joke; You ain’t never going to be happy ≈ you aren’t ever going to be happy. No (h_avg = 3.48) and never (h_avg = 3.48) are negatively rated in labMT while a, any, and ever have ratings very close to 5.

One possible objection that could be raised at this point is that the hedonometer was originally intended to be applied to aggregations of Twitter users over areas much larger than a census tract. Zooming out to larger geographies, however, does not eliminate these local inconsistencies. For example, Mitchell et al. [72] compare hedonometer scores across US states. If we look at the word shift graph for Mississippi, the state with the lowest h_avg score, we see that the most single influential word is gone. In this context, many of the uses of gone are as an AAE future tense marker, similar to gonna or going to in SAE [73,74]. It should be noted that Mississippi also has the highest share of Blacks than any other state in the United States. This use of gone has h_avg = 3.42), but it should probably be neutral (as gonna and going are). Other top words influencing Mississippi’s low h_avg are shit, ain’t, ass, damn, hell, bitch, and nobody, which are discussed above. We would argue that issues raised by dialect variation are exaggerated when looking at small areas and populations, but they exist and need to be accounted for at any scale.

This evidence suggests that word-sense does vary with dialect, and therefore also with neighborhood and demographic variables class, race, age, and gender. Furthermore, non-standard dialect forms are judged systematically as less happy than standard dialect usages. This raises a challenge for interpreting our results: when happiness is measured using word ratings calibrated to an SAE norm, what may actually be measured, in part, is race and class. This calls for more sophisticated hedonometric analysis techniques that can isolate the effects of emotion from dialect variation [66,75–77]. A simple approach would be to identify and remove from the lexicon terms that have a strong association with a particular demographic group. However, the hedonometer rating for all words is affected by dialect variation and racial, ethnic, and class bias to some degree. Even usage of social media varies based upon class, with lower income populations using platforms like Twitter for different reasons than upper income populations [66]. Removing the most obviously problematic words only makes the problem more difficult to detect. An alternative strategy would be to use the frequency of these words as an indirect indicator of ‘dialect’ among these demographic groups, using Bayesian approach to sort out the potential bias of each word [73].

The unexpected negative relationship between happiness and health requires further interpretation. An analogous anomalous finding occurred in Eichstaedt et al. [14], where they found that a LIWC index of positive relationship language correlated positively to mortality. They speculated that this might be due to proportionally higher use of positive relationship language in lower-SES census tracts. Other research, however, has tended to find that indicators of happiness and satisfaction in Twitter tend to correlate in expected ways to both socio-demographics and to healthy behavior, morbidity and mortality, even when controlling for such demographics [2,4–6]. Thus, our finding that spatial autocorrelation and neighborhood controls affect the relationship between Twitter happiness and health correlates indicates the importance of controlling for such factors when investigating the relationship between sentiment expressed on social media and health.

Conclusion

The goal of this paper was to evaluate the usefulness of Twitter-based measures of sentiment to predict health outcomes. While the sentiment identified in Twitter has been linked with county-based health outcomes, existing studies are limited in several key ways. Past studies have not examined the relationship of sentiments expressed via Twitter to health outcomes at the neighborhood level, nor have they accounted for the possible spatial autocorrelation that may impact, or explain away, this relationship. This study sought to address these limitations by leveraging Twitter data from San Diego, CA to measure emotional sentiment in neighborhoods to determine whether sentiment in a neighborhood relates to select health outcomes for that neighborhood. To measure sentiment, we drew on the hedonometer, a human coded system that rates words on a happiness scale of 1 to 9, ranging from least to most positive. We found that the average hedonometer score for census tracts (h_avg) has no predictive power on measuring health outcomes when accounting for neighborhood-level effects in San Diego. Further, in post analysis discussion we note the deep bias that exists within the construction of the hedonometer estimates along the lines of race and class.

These findings do not necessarily imply that the aggregate emotional sentiment of a place cannot be linked with aggregate health outcomes. This study used a comparably smaller geography to make its analysis compared to other Twitter-based studies [2,25,39], which resulted in fewer geographic observations and fewer tweets per observation, which limits the generalizability of this study. Nonetheless, this study demonstrates that how these measures are constructed must be addressed to ensure their validity. More care needs to be taken to understand the underlying racial/ethnic and class formations that uniquely shape sentiment and language. The existing measures do not adequately account for the unique ways different racial/ethnic groups and social classes express emotions. Future work in this area should do more specific coding by race, conducting quality assessment checks with specific racial and ethnic groups. Further, to understand the full scope of how Twitter sentiment matters for local health, more should be done to unpack the intervening factors that turn emotions into health outcomes. One can be happy, for example, but still partake in poor health behaviors that lead to poor health. How do forces like efficacy, the drive one has to involve themselves in proactive health habits, work with emotions to lead to health outcomes?

In closing, sentiment expressed through social media sources offer health care professionals and policymakers exciting new ways to determine health and well-being within and across cities. Highly nuanced data, however, requires highly nuanced preparation.

References

1. Spitzberg B. Toward a model of meme diffusion (M3 D). Commun Theory. 2014;24: 311–339.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
2. Yang C, Srinivasan P. Life Satisfaction and the Pursuit of Happiness on Twitter Du W-B, editor. PLOS ONE. 2016;11: e0150881. pmid:26982323
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Christakis NA, Fowler JH. Social contagion theory: examining dynamic social networks and human behavior. Stat Med. 2013;32: 556–577. pmid:22711416
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Nguyen QC, Meng H, Li D, Kath S, McCullough M, Paul D, et al. Social media indicators of the food environment and state health outcomes. Public Health. 2017;148: 120–128. pmid:28478354
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Nguyen QC, Kath S, Meng H-W, Li D, Smith KR, VanDerslice JA, et al. Leveraging geotagged Twitter data to examine neighborhood happiness, diet, and physical activity. Appl Geogr. 2016;73: 77–88. pmid:28533568
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Nguyen QC, Li D, Meng H-W, Kath S, Nsoesie E, Li F, et al. Building a National Neighborhood Dataset From Geotagged Twitter Data for Indicators of Happiness, Diet, and Physical Activity. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2016;2: e158. pmid:27751984
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Rosenquist JN, Fowler JH, Christakis NA. Social network determinants of depression. Mol Psychiatry. 2011;16: 273–281. pmid:20231839
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Mednick SC, Christakis NA, Fowler JH. The Spread of Sleep Loss Influences Drug Use in Adolescent Social Networks. Hashimoto K, editor. PLoS ONE. 2010;5: e9775. pmid:20333306
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. McIver DJ, Hawkins JB, Chunara R, Chatterjee AK, Bhandari A, Fitzgerald TP, et al. Characterizing Sleep Issues Using Twitter. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17: e140. pmid:26054530
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Ford MT, Jebb AT, Tay L, Diener E. Internet Searches for Affect-Related Terms: An Indicator of Subjective Well-Being and Predictor of Health Outcomes across US States and Metro Areas. Appl Psychol Health Well-Being. 2018;10: 3–29. pmid:29457369
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Du J, Zhang Y, Luo J, Jia Y, Wei Q, Tao C, et al. Extracting psychiatric stressors for suicide from social media using deep learning. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018;18. pmid:30066665
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Jashinsky J, Burton SH, Hanson CL, West J, Giraud-Carrier C, Barnes MD, et al. Tracking Suicide Risk Factors Through Twitter in the US. Crisis. 2014;35: 51–59. pmid:24121153
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Ueda M, Mori K, Matsubayashi T, Sawada Y. Tweeting celebrity suicides: Users’ reaction to prominent suicide deaths on Twitter and subsequent increases in actual suicides. Soc Sci Med. 2017;189: 158–166. pmid:28705550
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Eichstaedt JC, Schwartz HA, Kern ML, Park G, Labarthe DR, Merchant RM, et al. Psychological language on Twitter predicts county-level heart disease mortality. Psychol Sci. 2015;26: 159–169. pmid:25605707
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Lindquist KA, Satpute AB, Gendron M. Does Language Do More Than Communicate Emotion? Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2015;24: 99–108. pmid:25983400
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Johnson BT, Cromley E, Marrouch N. Spatiotemporal meta-analysis: reviewing health psychology phenomena over space and time. Health Psychol Rev. 2017;11: 280–291. pmid:28625102
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Barrington WE, Stafford M, Hamer M, Beresford SAA, Koepsell T, Steptoe A. Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation, perceived neighborhood factors, and cortisol responses to induced stress among healthy adults. Health Place. 2014;27: 120–126. pmid:24603009
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Boardman JD. Stress and physical health: the role of neighborhoods as mediating and moderating mechanisms. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58: 2473–2483. pmid:15081198
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Hernández D, Phillips D, Siegel E. Exploring the Housing and Household Energy Pathways to Stress: A Mixed Methods Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13: 916. pmid:27649222
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Hill TD, Ross CE, Angel RJ. Neighborhood disorder, psychophysiological distress, and health. J Health Soc Behav. 2005;46: 170–186. pmid:16028456
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Matthews SA, Yang T-C. Exploring the Role of the Built and Social Neighborhood Environment in Moderating Stress and Health. Ann Behav Med. 2010;39: 170–183. pmid:20300905
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Ross CE, Mirowsky J. Neighborhood disorder, subjective alienation, and distress. J Health Soc Behav. 2009;50: 49–64. pmid:19413134
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. South EC, Kondo MC, Cheney RA, Branas CC. Neighborhood blight, stress, and health: a walking trial of urban greening and ambulatory heart rate. Am J Public Health Ajph. 2015;
- View Article
- Google Scholar
24. Rich-Edwards JW, Kleinman K, Michels KB, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, Rexrode KM, et al. Longitudinal study of birth weight and adult body mass index in predicting risk of coronary heart disease and stroke in women. BMJ. 2005;330: 1115. pmid:15857857
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Gore RJ, Diallo S, Padilla J. You Are What You Tweet: Connecting the Geographic Variation in America’s Obesity Rate to Twitter Content. Meyre D, editor. PLOS ONE. 2015;10: e0133505. pmid:26332588
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Carter B, Rees P, Hale L, Bhattacharjee D, Paradkar MS. Association Between Portable Screen-Based Media Device Access or Use and Sleep Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170: 1202. pmid:27802500
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. McLaughlin CL. Improving research methods for the study of geography and mental health: Utilization of social networking data and the ESRI GeoEvent Processor. Sch Psychol Int. 2017;38: 398–407.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
28. Guntuku SC, Yaden DB, Kern ML, Ungar LH, Eichstaedt JC. Detecting depression and mental illness on social media: an integrative review. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2017;18: 43–49.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. Acevedo-Garcia D. Residential segregation and the epidemiology of infectious diseases. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51: 1143–1161. pmid:11037206
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Acevedo-Garcia D. Zip code-level risk factors for tuberculosis: neighborhood environment and residential segregation in New Jersey, 1985–1992. Am J Public Health. 2001;91: 734–741. pmid:11344881
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Yang T-C, Matthews SA. The role of social and built environments in predicting self-rated stress: A multilevel analysis in Philadelphia. Health Place. 2010;16: 803–810. pmid:20434389
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Anselin L. Spatial Externalities, Spatial Multipliers, And Spatial Econometrics. Int Reg Sci Rev. 2003;26: 153–166.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
33. Mowery D, Smith H, Cheney T, Stoddard G, Coppersmith G, Bryan C, et al. Understanding Depressive Symptoms and Psychosocial Stressors on Twitter: A Corpus-Based Study. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19: e48. pmid:28246066
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Seabrook EM, Kern ML, Fulcher BD, Rickard NS. Predicting Depression From Language-Based Emotion Dynamics: Longitudinal Analysis of Facebook and Twitter Status Updates. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20: e168. pmid:29739736
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Yang W, Mu L. GIS analysis of depression among Twitter users. Appl Geogr. 2015;60: 217–223.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
36. Baker DA, Algorta GP. The Relationship Between Online Social Networking and Depression: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies. Cyberpsychology Behav Soc Netw. 2016;19: 638–648. pmid:27732062
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Lee BA, Campbell KE. Common ground? Urban neighborhoods as survey respondents see them. Soc Sci Q. 1997; 922–936.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
38. Tsou M-H, Jung C-T, Allen C, Yang J-A, Han SY, Spitzberg BH, et al. Building a Real-Time Geo-Targeted Event Observation (Geo) Viewer for Disaster Management and Situation Awareness. In: Peterson MP, editor. Advances in Cartography and GIScience. Springer International Publishing; 2017. pp. 85–98.
39. Dodds PS, Harris KD, Kloumann IM, Bliss CA, Danforth CM. Temporal Patterns of Happiness and Information in a Global Social Network: Hedonometrics and Twitter. Bollen J, editor. PLoS ONE. 2011;6: e26752. pmid:22163266
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Dodds PS, Danforth CM. Measuring the Happiness of Large-Scale Written Expression: Songs, Blogs, and Presidents. J Happiness Stud. 2010;11: 441–456.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
41. Hutto CJ, Gilbert E. VADER: A Parsimonious Rule-based Model for Sentiment Analysis of Social Media Text. Ann Arbor, MI; 2014. p. 10.
42. Center for Disease Control. 500 Cities: Local Data for Better Health [Internet]. Atlanta, GA; 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/500cities/
43. Zhang X, Holt JB, Yun S, Lu H, Greenlund KJ, Croft JB. Validation of Multilevel Regression and Poststratification Methodology for Small Area Estimation of Health Indicators From the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;182: 127–137. pmid:25957312
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Wang Y, Holt JB, Zhang X, Lu H, Shah SN, Dooley DP, et al. Comparison of Methods for Estimating Prevalence of Chronic Diseases and Health Behaviors for Small Geographic Areas: Boston Validation Study, 2013. Prev Chronic Dis. 2017;14. pmid:29049020
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45. Gibbons JR, Yang T-C. Self-Rated Health and Residential Segregation: How Does Race/Ethnicity Matter? J Urban Health. 2014;91: 648–660. pmid:24515933
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
46. Dunteman GH. Principal Components Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc; 1989.
47. Cervero R, Kockelman K. Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transp Res Part Transp Environ. 1997;2: 199–219.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
48. Barrington-Leigh C, Millard-Ball A. A century of sprawl in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112: 8244–8249. pmid:26080422
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. Marshall W, Garrick N. Effect of Street Network Design on Walking and Biking. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board. 2010;2198: 103–115.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
50. Wheeler S. Built Landscapes of Metropolitan Regions: An International Typology. J Am Plann Assoc. 2015;81: 167–190.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
51. Anselin L. Local indicators of spatial association—LISA. Geogr Anal. 1995;27: 93–115.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
52. Anselin L. Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1988.
53. Anselin L, Bera A. Spatial Dependence in Linear Regression Models with an Introduction to Spatial Econometrics. Handbook of Applied Economic Statistics. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.; 1998. pp. 237–290.
54. Baller RD, Anselin L, Messner SF, Deane G. Structural covariates of US county homicide rates: Incorporating spatial effects. Criminology. 2001;39: 561.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
55. Baltagi BH, Song SH, Jung BC, Koh W. Testing for serial correlation, spatial autocorrelation and random effects using panel data. J Econom. 2007;140: 5–51.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
56. Kelejian HH, Prucha IR. Specification and estimation of spatial autoregressive models with autoregressive and heteroskedastic disturbances. J Econom. 2010;157: 53–67. pmid:20577573
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
57. Robinson WS. Ecological Correlations and the Behavior of Individuals. Am Sociol Rev. 1950;15: 351.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
58. Vogel M. The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem in Person-Context Research. J Res Crime Delinquency. 2016;53: 112–135.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
59. Clogg C, Petkova E, Haritou A. Statistical Methods for Comparing Regression Coefficients Between Models. Am J Sociol. 1995;100: 1261–1293.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
60. Pang B, Lee L. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Found Trends Inf Retr. 2008;2: 1–135.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
61. Spears AK. African-American language use: Ideology and so-called obscenity. In: Mufwene SS, Bailey G, Baugh J, Rickford JR, editors. African-American English: Structure, history, and use. Routledge; 1998. pp. 226–250.
62. Jones T, Hall C. Grammatical Reanalysis and the multiple N-words in African American English. Am Speech. 2019; 1–29.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
63. Smith HL. Has nigga been reappropriated as a term of endearment? (A qualitative and quantitative analysis). Am Speech. 2019; 1–45.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
64. Jones T. Toward a Description of African American Vernacular English Dialect Regions Using “Black Twitter.” Am Speech. 2015;90: 403–440.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
65. Wang W, Chen L, Thirunarayan K, Sheth AP. Cursing in English on twitter. Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing—CSCW ‘14. Baltimore, Maryland, USA: ACM Press; 2014. pp. 415–425.
66. Preoţiuc-Pietro D, Volkova S, Lampos V, Bachrach Y, Aletras N. Studying User Income through Language, Behaviour and Affect in Social Media. PLOS ONE. 2015;10: e0138717. pmid:26394145
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
67. Jay T, Janschewitz K. The pragmatics of swearing. J Politeness Res Lang Behav Cult. 2008;4: 267–288.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
68. Christie C. The relevance of taboo language: An analysis of the indexical values of swearwords. J Pragmat. 2013;58: 152–169.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
69. Beers Fägersten KA. A Descriptive Analysis of the Social Functions of Swearing in American English. University of Florida. 2000.
70. Jay T. Cursing in America [Internet]. John Benjamins; 1992. https://benjamins.com/catalog/z.57
71. Green LJ. African American English: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge University Press; 2002.
72. Mitchell L, Frank MR, Harris KD, Dodds PS, Danforth CM. The Geography of Happiness: Connecting Twitter Sentiment and Expression, Demographics, and Objective Characteristics of Place. Sánchez A, editor. PLoS ONE. 2013;8: e64417. pmid:23734200
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
73. Blodgett SL, Wei J, O’Connor B. Twitter Universal Dependency Parsing for African-American and Mainstream American English. Proc 56th Annu Meet Assoc Comput Linguist. 2018;1: 1415–1425.
74. Green LJ. African American English [Internet]. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
75. Hovy D. Demographic Factors Improve Classification Performance. Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 2015.
76. Blodgett SL, Green L, O’Connor B. Demographic dialectal variation in social media: A case study of African-American English. Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2016.
77. Yang Y, Eisenstein J. Overcoming Language Variation in Sentiment Analysis with Social Attention. Trans Assoc Comput Linguist. 2017;5: 295–307.
- View Article
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Spitzberg B. Toward a model of meme diffusion (M3 D). Commun Theory. 2014;24: 311–339.
View Article
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Yang C, Srinivasan P. Life Satisfaction and the Pursuit of Happiness on Twitter Du W-B, editor. PLOS ONE. 2016;11: e0150881. pmid:26982323
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[5] View Article

[6] PubMed/NCBI

[7] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Christakis NA, Fowler JH. Social contagion theory: examining dynamic social networks and human behavior. Stat Med. 2013;32: 556–577. pmid:22711416
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[9] View Article

[10] PubMed/NCBI

[11] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Nguyen QC, Meng H, Li D, Kath S, McCullough M, Paul D, et al. Social media indicators of the food environment and state health outcomes. Public Health. 2017;148: 120–128. pmid:28478354
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[13] View Article

[14] PubMed/NCBI

[15] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Nguyen QC, Kath S, Meng H-W, Li D, Smith KR, VanDerslice JA, et al. Leveraging geotagged Twitter data to examine neighborhood happiness, diet, and physical activity. Appl Geogr. 2016;73: 77–88. pmid:28533568
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[17] View Article

[18] PubMed/NCBI

[19] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Nguyen QC, Li D, Meng H-W, Kath S, Nsoesie E, Li F, et al. Building a National Neighborhood Dataset From Geotagged Twitter Data for Indicators of Happiness, Diet, and Physical Activity. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2016;2: e158. pmid:27751984
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[21] View Article

[22] PubMed/NCBI

[23] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Rosenquist JN, Fowler JH, Christakis NA. Social network determinants of depression. Mol Psychiatry. 2011;16: 273–281. pmid:20231839
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[25] View Article

[26] PubMed/NCBI

[27] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Mednick SC, Christakis NA, Fowler JH. The Spread of Sleep Loss Influences Drug Use in Adolescent Social Networks. Hashimoto K, editor. PLoS ONE. 2010;5: e9775. pmid:20333306
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[29] View Article

[30] PubMed/NCBI

[31] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. McIver DJ, Hawkins JB, Chunara R, Chatterjee AK, Bhandari A, Fitzgerald TP, et al. Characterizing Sleep Issues Using Twitter. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17: e140. pmid:26054530
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[33] View Article

[34] PubMed/NCBI

[35] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Ford MT, Jebb AT, Tay L, Diener E. Internet Searches for Affect-Related Terms: An Indicator of Subjective Well-Being and Predictor of Health Outcomes across US States and Metro Areas. Appl Psychol Health Well-Being. 2018;10: 3–29. pmid:29457369
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[37] View Article

[38] PubMed/NCBI

[39] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Du J, Zhang Y, Luo J, Jia Y, Wei Q, Tao C, et al. Extracting psychiatric stressors for suicide from social media using deep learning. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018;18. pmid:30066665
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[41] View Article

[42] PubMed/NCBI

[43] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Jashinsky J, Burton SH, Hanson CL, West J, Giraud-Carrier C, Barnes MD, et al. Tracking Suicide Risk Factors Through Twitter in the US. Crisis. 2014;35: 51–59. pmid:24121153
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[45] View Article

[46] PubMed/NCBI

[47] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Ueda M, Mori K, Matsubayashi T, Sawada Y. Tweeting celebrity suicides: Users’ reaction to prominent suicide deaths on Twitter and subsequent increases in actual suicides. Soc Sci Med. 2017;189: 158–166. pmid:28705550
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[49] View Article

[50] PubMed/NCBI

[51] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Eichstaedt JC, Schwartz HA, Kern ML, Park G, Labarthe DR, Merchant RM, et al. Psychological language on Twitter predicts county-level heart disease mortality. Psychol Sci. 2015;26: 159–169. pmid:25605707
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[53] View Article

[54] PubMed/NCBI

[55] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Lindquist KA, Satpute AB, Gendron M. Does Language Do More Than Communicate Emotion? Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2015;24: 99–108. pmid:25983400
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[57] View Article

[58] PubMed/NCBI

[59] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Johnson BT, Cromley E, Marrouch N. Spatiotemporal meta-analysis: reviewing health psychology phenomena over space and time. Health Psychol Rev. 2017;11: 280–291. pmid:28625102
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[61] View Article

[62] PubMed/NCBI

[63] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Barrington WE, Stafford M, Hamer M, Beresford SAA, Koepsell T, Steptoe A. Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation, perceived neighborhood factors, and cortisol responses to induced stress among healthy adults. Health Place. 2014;27: 120–126. pmid:24603009
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[65] View Article

[66] PubMed/NCBI

[67] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Boardman JD. Stress and physical health: the role of neighborhoods as mediating and moderating mechanisms. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58: 2473–2483. pmid:15081198
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[69] View Article

[70] PubMed/NCBI

[71] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Hernández D, Phillips D, Siegel E. Exploring the Housing and Household Energy Pathways to Stress: A Mixed Methods Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13: 916. pmid:27649222
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[73] View Article

[74] PubMed/NCBI

[75] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Hill TD, Ross CE, Angel RJ. Neighborhood disorder, psychophysiological distress, and health. J Health Soc Behav. 2005;46: 170–186. pmid:16028456
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] PubMed/NCBI

[79] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Matthews SA, Yang T-C. Exploring the Role of the Built and Social Neighborhood Environment in Moderating Stress and Health. Ann Behav Med. 2010;39: 170–183. pmid:20300905
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[81] View Article

[82] PubMed/NCBI

[83] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Ross CE, Mirowsky J. Neighborhood disorder, subjective alienation, and distress. J Health Soc Behav. 2009;50: 49–64. pmid:19413134
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[85] View Article

[86] PubMed/NCBI

[87] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. South EC, Kondo MC, Cheney RA, Branas CC. Neighborhood blight, stress, and health: a walking trial of urban greening and ambulatory heart rate. Am J Public Health Ajph. 2015;
View Article
Google Scholar

[89] View Article

[90] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Rich-Edwards JW, Kleinman K, Michels KB, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, Rexrode KM, et al. Longitudinal study of birth weight and adult body mass index in predicting risk of coronary heart disease and stroke in women. BMJ. 2005;330: 1115. pmid:15857857
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[92] View Article

[93] PubMed/NCBI

[94] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Gore RJ, Diallo S, Padilla J. You Are What You Tweet: Connecting the Geographic Variation in America’s Obesity Rate to Twitter Content. Meyre D, editor. PLOS ONE. 2015;10: e0133505. pmid:26332588
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[96] View Article

[97] PubMed/NCBI

[98] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Carter B, Rees P, Hale L, Bhattacharjee D, Paradkar MS. Association Between Portable Screen-Based Media Device Access or Use and Sleep Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170: 1202. pmid:27802500
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[100] View Article

[101] PubMed/NCBI

[102] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. McLaughlin CL. Improving research methods for the study of geography and mental health: Utilization of social networking data and the ESRI GeoEvent Processor. Sch Psychol Int. 2017;38: 398–407.
View Article
Google Scholar

[104] View Article

[105] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Guntuku SC, Yaden DB, Kern ML, Ungar LH, Eichstaedt JC. Detecting depression and mental illness on social media: an integrative review. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2017;18: 43–49.
View Article
Google Scholar

[107] View Article

[108] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Acevedo-Garcia D. Residential segregation and the epidemiology of infectious diseases. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51: 1143–1161. pmid:11037206
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[110] View Article

[111] PubMed/NCBI

[112] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Acevedo-Garcia D. Zip code-level risk factors for tuberculosis: neighborhood environment and residential segregation in New Jersey, 1985–1992. Am J Public Health. 2001;91: 734–741. pmid:11344881
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[114] View Article

[115] PubMed/NCBI

[116] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Yang T-C, Matthews SA. The role of social and built environments in predicting self-rated stress: A multilevel analysis in Philadelphia. Health Place. 2010;16: 803–810. pmid:20434389
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[118] View Article

[119] PubMed/NCBI

[120] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Anselin L. Spatial Externalities, Spatial Multipliers, And Spatial Econometrics. Int Reg Sci Rev. 2003;26: 153–166.
View Article
Google Scholar

[122] View Article

[123] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Mowery D, Smith H, Cheney T, Stoddard G, Coppersmith G, Bryan C, et al. Understanding Depressive Symptoms and Psychosocial Stressors on Twitter: A Corpus-Based Study. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19: e48. pmid:28246066
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[125] View Article

[126] PubMed/NCBI

[127] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Seabrook EM, Kern ML, Fulcher BD, Rickard NS. Predicting Depression From Language-Based Emotion Dynamics: Longitudinal Analysis of Facebook and Twitter Status Updates. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20: e168. pmid:29739736
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[129] View Article

[130] PubMed/NCBI

[131] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Yang W, Mu L. GIS analysis of depression among Twitter users. Appl Geogr. 2015;60: 217–223.
View Article
Google Scholar

[133] View Article

[134] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Baker DA, Algorta GP. The Relationship Between Online Social Networking and Depression: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies. Cyberpsychology Behav Soc Netw. 2016;19: 638–648. pmid:27732062
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[136] View Article

[137] PubMed/NCBI

[138] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Lee BA, Campbell KE. Common ground? Urban neighborhoods as survey respondents see them. Soc Sci Q. 1997; 922–936.
View Article
Google Scholar

[140] View Article

[141] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Tsou M-H, Jung C-T, Allen C, Yang J-A, Han SY, Spitzberg BH, et al. Building a Real-Time Geo-Targeted Event Observation (Geo) Viewer for Disaster Management and Situation Awareness. In: Peterson MP, editor. Advances in Cartography and GIScience. Springer International Publishing; 2017. pp. 85–98.

[ref39] 39. Dodds PS, Harris KD, Kloumann IM, Bliss CA, Danforth CM. Temporal Patterns of Happiness and Information in a Global Social Network: Hedonometrics and Twitter. Bollen J, editor. PLoS ONE. 2011;6: e26752. pmid:22163266
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[144] View Article

[145] PubMed/NCBI

[146] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Dodds PS, Danforth CM. Measuring the Happiness of Large-Scale Written Expression: Songs, Blogs, and Presidents. J Happiness Stud. 2010;11: 441–456.
View Article
Google Scholar

[148] View Article

[149] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Hutto CJ, Gilbert E. VADER: A Parsimonious Rule-based Model for Sentiment Analysis of Social Media Text. Ann Arbor, MI; 2014. p. 10.

[ref42] 42. Center for Disease Control. 500 Cities: Local Data for Better Health [Internet]. Atlanta, GA; 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/500cities/

[ref43] 43. Zhang X, Holt JB, Yun S, Lu H, Greenlund KJ, Croft JB. Validation of Multilevel Regression and Poststratification Methodology for Small Area Estimation of Health Indicators From the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;182: 127–137. pmid:25957312
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[153] View Article

[154] PubMed/NCBI

[155] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Wang Y, Holt JB, Zhang X, Lu H, Shah SN, Dooley DP, et al. Comparison of Methods for Estimating Prevalence of Chronic Diseases and Health Behaviors for Small Geographic Areas: Boston Validation Study, 2013. Prev Chronic Dis. 2017;14. pmid:29049020
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[157] View Article

[158] PubMed/NCBI

[159] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Gibbons JR, Yang T-C. Self-Rated Health and Residential Segregation: How Does Race/Ethnicity Matter? J Urban Health. 2014;91: 648–660. pmid:24515933
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[161] View Article

[162] PubMed/NCBI

[163] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Dunteman GH. Principal Components Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc; 1989.

[ref47] 47. Cervero R, Kockelman K. Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transp Res Part Transp Environ. 1997;2: 199–219.
View Article
Google Scholar

[166] View Article

[167] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Barrington-Leigh C, Millard-Ball A. A century of sprawl in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112: 8244–8249. pmid:26080422
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[169] View Article

[170] PubMed/NCBI

[171] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Marshall W, Garrick N. Effect of Street Network Design on Walking and Biking. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board. 2010;2198: 103–115.
View Article
Google Scholar

[173] View Article

[174] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Wheeler S. Built Landscapes of Metropolitan Regions: An International Typology. J Am Plann Assoc. 2015;81: 167–190.
View Article
Google Scholar

[176] View Article

[177] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Anselin L. Local indicators of spatial association—LISA. Geogr Anal. 1995;27: 93–115.
View Article
Google Scholar

[179] View Article

[180] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Anselin L. Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1988.

[ref53] 53. Anselin L, Bera A. Spatial Dependence in Linear Regression Models with an Introduction to Spatial Econometrics. Handbook of Applied Economic Statistics. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.; 1998. pp. 237–290.

[ref54] 54. Baller RD, Anselin L, Messner SF, Deane G. Structural covariates of US county homicide rates: Incorporating spatial effects. Criminology. 2001;39: 561.
View Article
Google Scholar

[184] View Article

[185] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Baltagi BH, Song SH, Jung BC, Koh W. Testing for serial correlation, spatial autocorrelation and random effects using panel data. J Econom. 2007;140: 5–51.
View Article
Google Scholar

[187] View Article

[188] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Kelejian HH, Prucha IR. Specification and estimation of spatial autoregressive models with autoregressive and heteroskedastic disturbances. J Econom. 2010;157: 53–67. pmid:20577573
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[190] View Article

[191] PubMed/NCBI

[192] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Robinson WS. Ecological Correlations and the Behavior of Individuals. Am Sociol Rev. 1950;15: 351.
View Article
Google Scholar

[194] View Article

[195] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Vogel M. The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem in Person-Context Research. J Res Crime Delinquency. 2016;53: 112–135.
View Article
Google Scholar

[197] View Article

[198] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. Clogg C, Petkova E, Haritou A. Statistical Methods for Comparing Regression Coefficients Between Models. Am J Sociol. 1995;100: 1261–1293.
View Article
Google Scholar

[200] View Article

[201] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Pang B, Lee L. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Found Trends Inf Retr. 2008;2: 1–135.
View Article
Google Scholar

[203] View Article

[204] Google Scholar

[ref61] 61. Spears AK. African-American language use: Ideology and so-called obscenity. In: Mufwene SS, Bailey G, Baugh J, Rickford JR, editors. African-American English: Structure, history, and use. Routledge; 1998. pp. 226–250.

[ref62] 62. Jones T, Hall C. Grammatical Reanalysis and the multiple N-words in African American English. Am Speech. 2019; 1–29.
View Article
Google Scholar

[207] View Article

[208] Google Scholar

[ref63] 63. Smith HL. Has nigga been reappropriated as a term of endearment? (A qualitative and quantitative analysis). Am Speech. 2019; 1–45.
View Article
Google Scholar

[210] View Article

[211] Google Scholar

[ref64] 64. Jones T. Toward a Description of African American Vernacular English Dialect Regions Using “Black Twitter.” Am Speech. 2015;90: 403–440.
View Article
Google Scholar

[213] View Article

[214] Google Scholar

[ref65] 65. Wang W, Chen L, Thirunarayan K, Sheth AP. Cursing in English on twitter. Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing—CSCW ‘14. Baltimore, Maryland, USA: ACM Press; 2014. pp. 415–425.

[ref66] 66. Preoţiuc-Pietro D, Volkova S, Lampos V, Bachrach Y, Aletras N. Studying User Income through Language, Behaviour and Affect in Social Media. PLOS ONE. 2015;10: e0138717. pmid:26394145
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[217] View Article

[218] PubMed/NCBI

[219] Google Scholar

[ref67] 67. Jay T, Janschewitz K. The pragmatics of swearing. J Politeness Res Lang Behav Cult. 2008;4: 267–288.
View Article
Google Scholar

[221] View Article

[222] Google Scholar

[ref68] 68. Christie C. The relevance of taboo language: An analysis of the indexical values of swearwords. J Pragmat. 2013;58: 152–169.
View Article
Google Scholar

[224] View Article

[225] Google Scholar

[ref69] 69. Beers Fägersten KA. A Descriptive Analysis of the Social Functions of Swearing in American English. University of Florida. 2000.

[ref70] 70. Jay T. Cursing in America [Internet]. John Benjamins; 1992. https://benjamins.com/catalog/z.57

[ref71] 71. Green LJ. African American English: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge University Press; 2002.

[ref72] 72. Mitchell L, Frank MR, Harris KD, Dodds PS, Danforth CM. The Geography of Happiness: Connecting Twitter Sentiment and Expression, Demographics, and Objective Characteristics of Place. Sánchez A, editor. PLoS ONE. 2013;8: e64417. pmid:23734200
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[230] View Article

[231] PubMed/NCBI

[232] Google Scholar

[ref73] 73. Blodgett SL, Wei J, O’Connor B. Twitter Universal Dependency Parsing for African-American and Mainstream American English. Proc 56th Annu Meet Assoc Comput Linguist. 2018;1: 1415–1425.

[ref74] 74. Green LJ. African American English [Internet]. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2002.

[ref75] 75. Hovy D. Demographic Factors Improve Classification Performance. Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 2015.

[ref76] 76. Blodgett SL, Green L, O’Connor B. Demographic dialectal variation in social media: A case study of African-American English. Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2016.

[ref77] 77. Yang Y, Eisenstein J. Overcoming Language Variation in Sentiment Analysis with Social Attention. Trans Assoc Comput Linguist. 2017;5: 295–307.
View Article
Google Scholar

[238] View Article

[239] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Data and methods

Study location

Measuring neighborhood sentiment

Measuring health outcomes

Demographic measures

Measuring the built environment.

Analytical approach

Results

Context and sentiment

Conclusion

References