Attitudes toward COVID-19 Vaccination on Social Media: A Cross-Platform Analysis

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, social media content analysis allowed for tracking attitudes toward newly introduced vaccines. However, current evidence is limited to single social media platforms. Our objective was to compare arguments used by anti-vaxxers in the context of COVID-19 vaccines across Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok. We obtained the data set of 53,671 comments regarding COVID-19 vaccination published between August 2021 and February 2022. After that, we established categories of anti-vaccine content, manually classified comments, and compared the frequency of occurrence of the categories between social media platforms. We found that anti-vaxxers on social media use 14 categories of arguments against COVID-19 vaccines. The frequency of these categories varies across different social media platforms. The anti-vaxxers’ activity on Facebook and Twitter is similar, focusing mainly on distrust of government and allegations regarding vaccination safety and effectiveness. Anti-vaxxers on TikTok mainly focus on personal freedom, while Instagram users encouraging vaccination often face criticism suggesting that vaccination is a private matter that should not be shared. Due to the differences in vaccine sentiment among users of different social media platforms, future research and educational campaigns should consider these distinctions, focusing more on the platforms popular among adolescents (i.e., Instagram and TikTok).

Related collections

Most cited references 57

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

WordNet: a lexical database for English

George A. Miller (1995)

0 comments Cited 425 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Considering Emotion in COVID-19 Vaccine Communication: Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy and Fostering Vaccine Confidence

Wen-Ying Chou, Alexandra Budenz (2020)

Long-term control of the COVID-19 pandemic hinges in part on the development and uptake of a preventive vaccine. In addition to a segment of population that refuses vaccines, the novelty of the disease and concerns over safety and efficacy of the vaccine have a sizable proportion of the U.S. indicating reluctance to getting vaccinated against COVID-19. Among various efforts to address vaccine hesitancy and foster vaccine confidence, evidence-based communication strategies are critical. There are opportunities to consider the role of emotion in communication efforts. In this commentary, we highlight several ways negative as well as positive emotions may be considered and leveraged. Examples include attending to negative emotions such as fear and anxiety, raising awareness of emotional manipulations by anti-vaccine disinformation efforts, and activating positive emotions such as altruism and hope as part of vaccine education endeavors.

0 comments Cited 277 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Weaponized Health Communication: Twitter Bots and Russian Trolls Amplify the Vaccine Debate

Mark Dredze, Amelia M. Jamison, SiHua Qi … (2018)

Objectives. To understand how Twitter bots and trolls (“bots”) promote online health content. Methods. We compared bots’ to average users’ rates of vaccine-relevant messages, which we collected online from July 2014 through September 2017. We estimated the likelihood that users were bots, comparing proportions of polarized and antivaccine tweets across user types. We conducted a content analysis of a Twitter hashtag associated with Russian troll activity. Results. Compared with average users, Russian trolls (χ 2 (1) = 102.0; P < .001), sophisticated bots (χ 2 (1) = 28.6; P < .001), and “content polluters” (χ 2 (1) = 7.0; P < .001) tweeted about vaccination at higher rates. Whereas content polluters posted more antivaccine content (χ 2 (1) = 11.18; P < .001), Russian trolls amplified both sides. Unidentifiable accounts were more polarized (χ 2 (1) = 12.1; P < .001) and antivaccine (χ 2 (1) = 35.9; P < .001). Analysis of the Russian troll hashtag showed that its messages were more political and divisive. Conclusions. Whereas bots that spread malware and unsolicited content disseminated antivaccine messages, Russian trolls promoted discord. Accounts masquerading as legitimate users create false equivalency, eroding public consensus on vaccination. Public Health Implications. Directly confronting vaccine skeptics enables bots to legitimize the vaccine debate. More research is needed to determine how best to combat bot-driven content.