4.4 Article

A sentiment analysis of who participates, how and why, at social media sport websites How differently men and women write about football

Journal

ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW
Volume 40, Issue 6, Pages 814-833

Publisher

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/OIR-02-2016-0050

Keywords

Social media; Facebook; Sentiment analysis; Football online consumption; Gender perspectives

Funding

  1. research project Managing Trust and Coordinating Interactions in Smart Networks of People, Machines and Organizations - Croatian Science Foundation [UIP-11-2013-8813]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose - Due to an immense rise of social media in recent years, the purpose of this paper is to investigate who, how and why participates in creating content at football websites. Specifically, it provides a sentiment analysis of user comments from gender perspective, i.e. how differently men and women write about football. The analysis is based on user comments published on Facebook pages of the top five 2015-2016 Premier League football clubs during the 1st and the 19th week of the season. Design/methodology/approach - This analysis uses a data collection via social media website and a sentiment analysis of the collected data. Findings - Results show certain unexpected similarities in social media activities between male and female football fans. A comparison of the user comments from Facebook pages of the top five 2015-2016 Premier League football clubs revealed that men and women similarly express hard emotions such as anger or fear, while there is a significant difference in expressing soft emotions such as joy or sadness. Originality/value - This paper provides an original insight into qualitative content analysis of male and female comments published at social media websites of the top five Premier League football clubs during the 1st and the 19th week of the 2015-2016 season.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available