Startseite Monitoring Public Interest and Sentiment on Basic Income: Using Google and Twitter Data in the U.S.
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Monitoring Public Interest and Sentiment on Basic Income: Using Google and Twitter Data in the U.S.

  • Soomi Lee ORCID logo EMAIL logo und Taeyong Park
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 1. März 2024

Abstract

This study uses data from Google Trends and Twitter to analyze how public interest and sentiment towards Universal Basic Income (UBI) changed across all 50 states and Washington D.C. between 2018 and 2021. We specifically selected this time period as it includes both Andrew Yang’s UBI campaign during the Democratic primaries in 2019 and the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 when UBI gained attention due to the federal government’s unconditional cash payment to almost all citizens. To overcome the limitations of sporadic opinion polls, we built on a recent development of the rescaling method to generate longitudinal Google Trends and conducted Twitter sentiment analysis. We observed a modest rise in public interest in UBI during Andrew Yang’s campaign, especially in blue states, and a significant increase across all states at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although it quickly waned, the level of public attention became elevated compared to the pre-pandemic level. Contrary to previous studies, our analysis also reveals that overall sentiment became less positive after the peak interest during the pandemic, as more people engaged in online discussions.


Corresponding author: Soomi Lee, University of La Verne, La Verne, CA, USA, E-mail:

Acknowledgment

This publication was made possible by the generous support of the Qatar Foundation through Carnegie Mellon University Qatar’s Seed Research program. The statements made herein are solely the responsibility of the authors.

Appendix

A. Longitudinal Construction of Public Interest in UBI Across the U.S.: Full Results for Figure 4

State Peak month 2018 average 2019 average 2020 average 2021 average
Alabama March 2020 9.9 14.57 33.86 22.64
Alaska March 2020 15.69 18.76 16.59 36.64
Arizona March 2020 26.98 25.7 12.92 14.78
Arkansas March 2020 12.96 31.08 18.65 11.14
California March 2020 21.01 21.01 43.24 20.92
Colorado March 2020 24.63 12.41 12.89 32.51
Connecticut April 2020 28.69 22.69 18.9 20.49
Delaware December 2020 19.73 30.34 20.19 9.67
Washington D.C. March 2020 12.33 17.64 29.43 17.44
Florida March 2020 23.99 12.17 12.02 20.98
Georgia March 2020 30.86 27.07 9.8 14.18
Hawaii March 2020 14.36 42.13 24.48 5.03
Idaho February 2020 10.7 13.52 29.91 11.41
Illinois March 2020 17.02 14.47 11.6 41.66
Indiana March 2020 24.3 17.75 14.76 10.28
Iowa January 2020 4.96 28.86 35.41 12.35
Kansas March 2020 20.83 10.62 35.93 17.96
Kentucky April 2020 31.33 10.63 21.01 24.42
Louisiana March 2020 44.5 20.73 12.61 12.31
Maine March 2020 24.17 30.67 24.46 11.77
Maryland March 2020 18.57 10.82 33.73 16.42
Massachusetts March 2020 26.78 9.74 17.64 24.57
Michigan April 2020 37.82 14.27 12.06 11.68
Minnesota March 2020 16.47 27.64 14.54 14.46
Mississippi August 2018 11.34 12.8 31.47 20.68
Missouri February 2020 29.62 24.76 15.36 37.66
Montana February 2020 34.68 28.95 17.38 17.01
Nebraska February 2020 13.19 30.62 29.82 30.55
Nevada March 2020 14.55 19.33 36.91 16.29
New Hampshire March 2020 22.24 13.77 17.58 45.03
New Jersey March 2020 24.33 26.4 9.69 21.92
New Mexico March 2020 15.03 33.09 21.08 13.44
New York March 2020 37.98 18.72 29.03 25.35
North Carolina March 2020 66.52 19.23 15.2 35.72
North Dakota December 2020 65.24 29.88 5.55 16.16
Ohio March 2020 28.16 43.33 25.57 54.37
Oklahoma April 2020 12.85 16.57 36.79 76.33
Oregon March 2020 18.34 11.59 20.61 83.38
Pennsylvania March 2020 29.08 20.98 14.68 62.44
Rhode Island March 2020 13.86 28.24 20.85 11.1
South Carolina February 2020 8.87 14.92 31.57 21.62
South Dakota February 2020 17.89 13.71 12.43 23.04
Tennessee March 2020 25.13 30.56 13.99 11.52
Texas March 2020 13.82 38.08 15.27 13.06
Utah April 2020 15.38 17.07 28.77 20.41
Vermont January 2020 35.38 8.63 12.53 29.26
Virginia March 2020 57.79 14.67 26.12 12.08
Washington April 2020 13.84 12.24 34.09 22.23
West Virginia March 2020 14.57 12.24 51.62 13.11
Wisconsin March 2020 22.77 19.41 22.37 22.46
Wyoming February 2020 39.89 19.52 14.46 6.46

B. Distribution of Twitter Users in the U.S. by Age in Comparison with the Entire Population: Detailed Information for Subsection 3.3. Data Representativeness.

Twitter users in the U.S. (as of 2018) U.S. population (as of 2021)
Age Proportion Age Proportion
2–24 0.16 0–24 0.30
25–34 0.21 25–34 0.14
35–44 0.19 35–44 0.13
45–54 0.16 45–54 0.12
55–64 0.21 55–64 0.13
65+ 0.07 65+ 0.17
Total 1.00 Total 1.00

References

Barros, Joana M., Melia Ruth, Kady Francis, John Bogue, Mary O’Sullivan, Karen Young, Rebecca A. Bernert, Dietrich Rebholz-Schuhmann, and Jim Duggan. 2019. “The Validity of Google Trends Search Volumes for Behavioral Forecasting of National Suicide Rates in Ireland.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16 (17): 3201. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16173201.Suche in Google Scholar

Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Burivalova, Z., R. A. Butler, and D. S. Wilcove. 2018. “Analyzing Google Search Data to Debunk Myths About the Public’s Interest in Conservation.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 16 (9): 509–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1962.Suche in Google Scholar

Cebrián, Eduardo, and Josep Domenech. 2022. “Is Google Trends a Quality Data Source?” Applied Economics Letters: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2021.2023088.Suche in Google Scholar

Downs, Anthony. 1972. “Up and Down with Ecology – the Issue-Attention Cycle.” Public Interest 28: 38–50.Suche in Google Scholar

Gallup. 2018. “Optimism and Anxiety: Views on the Impact of Artificial Intelligence and Higher Education’s Response.” https://news.gallup.com/reports/226475/gallup-northeastern-university-artificial-intelligence-report-2018.aspx?thank-you-report-form=1 (accessed February 10, 2024).Suche in Google Scholar

Ginsberg, Jeremy, Matthew H. Mohebbi, Rajan S. Patel, Lynnette Brammer, Mark S. Smolinski, and Larry Brilliant. 2009. “Detecting Influenza Epidemics Using Search Engine Query Data.” Nature 457 (7232): 1012–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07634.Suche in Google Scholar

Hoynes, Hilary, and Jesse Rothstein. 2019. “Universal Basic Income in the United States and Advanced Countries.” Annual Review of Economics 11: 929–58.10.1146/annurev-economics-080218-030237Suche in Google Scholar

Hutto, C.J., and Eric Gilbert. 2014. “VADER: A Parsimonious Rule-Based Model for Sentiment Analysis of Social Media Text.” In Eighth International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM-14). Ann Arbor, MI.10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14550Suche in Google Scholar

Lee, Kurtis. 2022. “Guaranteed Income Programs Spread, City by City.” New York Times. Sept. 10, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/10/business/economy/guaranteed-income.html (accessed February 10, 2024).Suche in Google Scholar

Nettle, Daniel, Elliott Johnson, Matthew Johnson, and Rebecca Saxe. 2021. “Why Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Increased Support for Universal Basic Income?” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 8: 79. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00760-7.Suche in Google Scholar

NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll. 2019. “How Survey Was Conducted.” http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/UPDATED_NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_1912131159.pdf (accessed February 10, 2024).Suche in Google Scholar

Patel, Salil B., and Joel Kariel. 2021. “Universal Basic Income and COVID-19 Pandemic.” BMJ 372: 193. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n193.Suche in Google Scholar

Preis, Tobias, Daniel Reith, and H. Eugene Stanley. 2010. “Complex Dynamics of Our Economic Life on Different Scales: Insights from Search Engine Query Data.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical & Engineering Sciences 368 (1933): 5707–19. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0284.Suche in Google Scholar

Reilly, Shauna, Sean Richey, and J. Benjamin Taylor. 2012. “Using Google Search Data for State Politics Research: An Empirical Validity Test Using Roll-Off Data.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 12 (2): 146–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532440012438889.Suche in Google Scholar

Ripberger, Joseph T. 2011. “Capturing Curiosity: Using Internet Search Trends to Measure Public Attentiveness.” Policy Studies Journal 39 (2): 239–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00406.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Rovetta, Alessandro. 2021. “Reliability of Google Trends: Analysis of the Limits and Potential of Web Infoveillance During COVID-19 Pandemic and for Future Research.” Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 6: 670226. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2021.670226.Suche in Google Scholar

Sakir, M., and T. Park. 2023. “pytrends_longitudinal.” Python Package Index – PyPI. Python Software Foundation. https://pypi.org/project/pytrends-longitudinal/ (accessed February 10, 2024).Suche in Google Scholar

Schöne, J. P., B. Parkinson, and A. Goldenberg. 2021. “Negativity Spreads More Than Positivity on Twitter After Both Positive and Negative Political Situations.” Affective Science 2 (4): 379–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-021-00057-7.Suche in Google Scholar

Schulte, Gabriela. 2020. “Poll: Majority of Voters Now Say They Government Should Have a Universal Basic Income Program.” https://thehill.com (accessed August 14, 2021).Suche in Google Scholar

Stephens-Davidowitz, Seth. 2014. “The Cost of Racial Animus on a Black Candidate: Evidence Using Google Search Data.” Journal of Public Economics 118: 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.04.010.Suche in Google Scholar

Tran, Ulrich S., Rita Andel, Thomas Niederkrotenthaler, Benedikt Till, Vladeta Ajdacic-Gross, and Martin Voracek. 2017. “Low Validity of Google Trends for Behavioral Forecasting of National Suicide Rates.” PLoS One 12 (8): e0183149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183149.Suche in Google Scholar

Tsugawa, Sho, and Hiroyuki Ohsaki. 2015. “Negative Messages Spread Rapidly and Widely on Social Media.” In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Online Social Networks, 151–60.10.1145/2817946.2817962Suche in Google Scholar

Yeo, Jungwon, and Claire Connolly Knox. 2019. “Public Attention to a Local Disaster Versus Competing Focusing Events: Google Trends Analysis Following the 2016 Louisiana Flood.” Social Science Quarterly 100 (7): 2542–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12666.Suche in Google Scholar

Received: 2023-01-04
Accepted: 2024-02-05
Published Online: 2024-03-01

© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Heruntergeladen am 26.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/bis-2023-0002/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen