  The link between affect, defined as the capacity for sentimental arousal on
the part of a message, and virality, defined as the probability that it be sent
along, is of significant theoretical and practical importance, e.g. for viral
marketing. A quantitative study of emailing of articles from the NY Times finds
a strong link between positive affect and virality, and, based on psychological
theories it is concluded that this relation is universally valid. The
conclusion appears to be in contrast with classic theory of diffusion in news
media emphasizing negative affect as promoting propagation. In this paper we
explore the apparent paradox in a quantitative analysis of information
diffusion on Twitter. Twitter is interesting in this context as it has been
shown to present both the characteristics social and news media. The basic
measure of virality in Twitter is the probability of retweet. Twitter is
different from email in that retweeting does not depend on pre-existing social
relations, but often occur among strangers, thus in this respect Twitter may be
more similar to traditional news media. We therefore hypothesize that negative
news content is more likely to be retweeted, while for non-news tweets positive
sentiments support virality. To test the hypothesis we analyze three corpora: A
complete sample of tweets about the COP15 climate summit, a random sample of
tweets, and a general text corpus including news. The latter allows us to train
a classifier that can distinguish tweets that carry news and non-news
information. We present evidence that negative sentiment enhances virality in
the news segment, but not in the non-news segment. We conclude that the
relation between affect and virality is more complex than expected based on the
findings of Berger and Milkman (2010), in short 'if you want to be cited: Sweet
talk your friends or serve bad news to the public'.
