Opinion leaders and crisis communication during the COVID-19 pandemic: A study of theme evolution and emotional impact on Twitter

Abstract

This study uses Twitter data from the early stages of the pandemic to analyze the evolution of topics during different time periods and attempts to investigate the content and emotional impact of opinion leaders on public opinion evolution under different themes, in order to understand their role in shaping public discourse and emotions. Divide the life cycle into three stages; NLTK emotional analysis and dynamic topic models (DTMs) are employed to extract and analyze topic words. The results showed that there were significant differences between opinion leaders and followers in terms of hot topics and their evolution trends: (1) In terms of hot topics, opinion leaders have always been paying attention to measures and methods aimed at the public, while followers usually have persist in seeking information and dissatisfaction. (2) In terms of identifying and evolving hot topics, opinion leaders have shifted from the impact of the epidemic on individuals and resources to government responses and policies, while followers are more inclined to express people's growing concerns and dissatisfaction with crisis management. The content of opinion leaders has a significant relationship with evolving public opinion, highlighting the importance of understanding their role in crisis communication. Opinion leaders are also categorized into five types, each with different audience sizes, contents, emotions, and network structures, and they impact public opinion differently. This study identifies and analyzes the characteristics and impact mechanisms of opinion leaders in crisis communication. It hopes to contribute to understanding crisis communication dynamics in the digital era and provide insights into effective communication strategies during crises.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.