Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35194384›Full record

ArticleMultimedia tools and applications2022

A systematic literature review of how and whether social media data can complement traditional survey data to study public opinion.

Maud Reveilhac, Stephanie Steinmetz, Davide Morselli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Multimedia tools and applications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Maud ReveilhacLausanne University (Switzerland), Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Institute of Social Sciences, Life Course and Social Inequality Research Centre, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-9769-6830
Stephanie SteinmetzLausanne University (Switzerland), Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Institute of Social Sciences, Life Course and Social Inequality Research Centre, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7136-6622
Davide MorselliLausanne University (Switzerland), Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Institute of Social Sciences, Life Course and Social Inequality Research Centre, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3231-7769

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this article, we review existing research on the complementarity of social media data and survey data for the study of public opinion. We start by situating our review in the extensive literature (N = 187) about the uses, challenges, and frameworks related to the use of social media for studying public opinion. Based on 187 relevant articles (141 empirical and 46 theoretical) - we identify within the 141 empircal ones six main research approaches concerning the complementarity of both data sources. Results show that the biggest share of the research has focused on how social media can be used to confirm survey findings, especially for election predictions. The main contribution of our review is to detail and classify other growing complementarity approaches, such as comparing both data sources on a given phenomenon, using survey measures as a proxy in social media research, enriching surveys with SMD, recruiting individuals on social media to conduct a second survey phase, and generating new insight on "old" or "under-investigated" topics or theories using SMD. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages associated with each of these approaches in relation to four main research purposes, namely the improvement of validity, sustainability, reliability, and interpretability. We conclude by discussing some limitations of our study and highlighting future paths for research.

Indexed as

Data complementarityPublic opinionSocial mediaSurvey data

Identifiers

PMID35194384
PMCPMC8853237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.