ArticlePloS one2018
The Why We Retweet scale.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nutrients and Foods Recommended for Blood Pressure Control on Twitter in Japan: Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Knowledge, attitudes and practices towards COVID-19 among healthcare workers: A cross-sectional survey from Kiambu County, Kenya.PloS one · 2024Article
- Public discourse and debate about vaccines in the midst of the covid-19 pandemic: A qualitative content analysis of Twitter.Vaccine · 2023Article
- Sampling Twitter users for social science research: evidence from a systematic review of the literature.Quality & quantity · 2023Article
- Examining Tweet Content and Engagement of Users With Tweets About Hikikomori in Japanese: Mixed Methods Study of Social Withdrawal.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Information sharing practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: A case study about face masks.PloS one · 2022Article
- Emotional framing in online environmental activism: Pairing a Twitter study with an offline experiment.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Understanding social engagements: A comparative analysis of user and text features in Twitter.Social network analysis and mining · 2022Article
- The predictive utility of word familiarity for online engagements and funding.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Article
- Follow-Up Investigation on the Promotional Practices of Electric Scooter Companies: Content Analysis of Posts on Instagram and Twitter.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2020Article
- Examining Public Communication About Kidney Cancer on Twitter.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTwitter offers a platform for rapid diffusion of information and its users' attitudes and behaviors. Insights about information propagation via retweets (the message forwarding function) offer observable explanations of ways in which modern human interactions get organized in the form of online networks, and contextualized in the form of public health, policy decisions, disaster management, and civic participation. This study conceptualized and validated the Why We Retweet Scale to contextualize retweeting behavior.
objectiveTwitter users were identified using clustering algorithms that consider a users' position in their network and invited for an online survey. Participants (N = 1433) responded to 19 questions about why they retweet. Exploratory factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted on a scale development sample (70% of original sample), which informed the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on a scale testing sample (30% of the original sample). Varimax rotation was used to obtain a rotated factor solution, which resulted in interpretable factors. Demographic differences among scale factors were analyzed using one-way ANOVA or independent samples t-tests.
resultsThe final model (χ221 = 28, RMSEA = .03 [90% CI, 0.00-0.06], CFA = .99, TLI = 0.99) represented a parsimonious solution with 4 factors, measured by 2-3 items each, creating a final scale consisting of 9 items. Factor labels and definitions were: (1) Show approval, "Show support to the tweeter"; (2) Argue, "To argue against a tweet that I disagree with"; (3) Gain attention, "Add followers or gain attention"; and (4) Entertain, "Create humor/amusement". Demographic differences were also reported.
conclusionsThe Why We Retweet Scale offers a useful conceptualization and assessment of motivations for retweeting. In the future, communication strategists might consider the factors associated with information propagation when designing campaign messages to maximize message reach and engagement on Twitter.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.