The Validity of Sentiment Analysis: Comparing Manual Annotation, Crowd-Coding, Dictionary Approaches, and Machine Learning Algorithms

Sentiment is central to many studies of communication science, from negativity and polarization in political communication to analyzing product reviews and social media comments in other sub-fields. This study provides an exhaustive comparison of sentiment analysis methods, using a validation set of...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Communication methods and measures 2021-04, Vol.15 (2), p.121-140
Hauptverfasser: van Atteveldt, Wouter, van der Velden, Mariken A. C. G., Boukes, Mark
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Sentiment is central to many studies of communication science, from negativity and polarization in political communication to analyzing product reviews and social media comments in other sub-fields. This study provides an exhaustive comparison of sentiment analysis methods, using a validation set of Dutch economic headlines to compare the performance of manual annotation, crowd coding, numerous dictionaries and machine learning using both traditional and deep learning algorithms. The three main conclusions of this article are that: (1) The best performance is still attained with trained human or crowd coding; (2) None of the used dictionaries come close to acceptable levels of validity; and (3) machine learning, especially deep learning, substantially outperforms dictionary-based methods but falls short of human performance. From these findings, we stress the importance of always validating automatic text analysis methods before usage. Moreover, we provide a recommended step-by-step approach for (automated) text analysis projects to ensure both efficiency and validity.
ISSN:1931-2458
1931-2466
DOI:10.1080/19312458.2020.1869198