Misinformation warnings: Twitter's soft moderation effects on COVID-19 vaccine belief echoes.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sharevski F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8675217 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The current study examined various types of misinformation related to the COVID-19 vaccines and their relationships to vaccine hesitancy and refusal. Study 1 asked a sample of full-time working professionals in the US (n = 505) about possible misinformation they were exposed to related to the COVID-19 vaccines. Study 2 utilized an online survey to examine U.S. college students' (n = 441) knowledge about COVID-19 vaccines, and its associations with vaccine hesitancy and behavioral intention to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Analysis of open-ended responses in Study 1 revealed that 57.6% reported being exposed to conspiratorial misinformation such as COVID-19 vaccines are harmful and dangerous. The results of a structural equation modeling analysis for Study 2 supported our hypotheses predicting a negative association between the knowledge level and vaccine hesitancy and between vaccine hesitancy and behavioral intention. Vaccine hesitancy mediated the relationship between the vaccine knowledge and behavioral intention. Findings across these studies suggest exposure to misinformation and believing it as true could increase vaccine hesitancy and reduce behavioral intention to get vaccinated.
| S-EPMC9366757 | biostudies-literature
Project description:What can be done to reduce misperceptions about COVID-19 vaccines? We present results from experiments conducted simultaneously on YouGov samples in 10 countries (N = 10 600), which reveal that factual corrections consistently reduce false beliefs about vaccines. With results from these 10 countries, we find that exposure to corrections increases belief accuracy by 0.16 on a 4-point scale, while exposure to misinformation decreases belief accuracy by 0.09 on the same scale. We are unable to find evidence that either misinformation or factual corrections affect intent to vaccinate or vaccine attitudes. Our findings on effect duration are less conclusive; when we recontacted participants two weeks later, we observed 39% of the initial accuracy increase, yet this result narrowly misses conventional thresholds of statistical significance (p = 0.06). Taken together, our results illustrate both the possibilities and limitations of factual corrections. Evidence from 10 highly diverse populations shows that exposure to factual information reduces belief in falsehoods about vaccines, but has minimal influence on subsequent behaviours and attitudes.
| S-EPMC10014243 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOnline misinformation proliferation during the COVID-19 pandemic has become a major public health concern.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess the prevalence of COVID-19 misinformation exposure and beliefs, associated factors including psychological distress with misinformation exposure, and the associations between COVID-19 knowledge and number of preventive behaviors.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted with 1049 South Korean adults in April 2020. Respondents were asked about receiving COVID-19 misinformation using 12 items identified by the World Health Organization. Logistic regression was used to compute adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for the association of receiving misinformation with sociodemographic characteristics, source of information, COVID-19 misinformation belief, and psychological distress, as well as the associations of COVID-19 misinformation belief with COVID-19 knowledge and the number of COVID-19 preventive behaviors among those who received the misinformation. All data were weighted according to the Korea census data in 2018.ResultsOverall, 67.78% (n=711) of respondents reported exposure to at least one COVID-19 misinformation item. Misinformation exposure was associated with younger age, higher education levels, and lower income. Sources of information associated with misinformation exposure were social networking services (aOR 1.67, 95% CI 1.20-2.32) and instant messaging (aOR 1.79, 1.27-2.51). Misinformation exposure was also associated with psychological distress including anxiety (aOR 1.80, 1.24-2.61), depressive (aOR 1.47, 1.09-2.00), and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms (aOR 1.97, 1.42-2.73), as well as misinformation belief (aOR 7.33, 5.17-10.38). Misinformation belief was associated with poorer COVID-19 knowledge (high: aOR 0.62, 0.45-0.84) and fewer preventive behaviors (≥7 behaviors: aOR 0.54, 0.39-0.74).ConclusionsCOVID-19 misinformation exposure was associated with misinformation belief, while misinformation belief was associated with fewer preventive behaviors. Given the potential of misinformation to undermine global efforts in COVID-19 disease control, up-to-date public health strategies are required to counter the proliferation of misinformation.
| S-EPMC7669362 | biostudies-literature
Project description:While affective polarization has been shown to have serious social consequences, there is little evidence regarding its effects on political attitudes and behavior such as policy preferences, voting, or political information accrual. This paper provides evidence that affective polarization impacts misinformation belief, arguing that citizens with higher levels of affective polarization are more likely to believe in-party-congruent misinformation and less likely to believe out-party-congruent misinformation. The argument is supported by data from the ANES 2020 Social Media Study and the ANES 2020 Time Series Study, which speaks to the generalizability of the relationship. Additionally, a survey experiment provides evidence that the relationship is causal. The results hold among Democrats and Republicans and are independent of the effects of partisan strength and ideological extremity. Furthermore, the relationship between affective polarization and misinformation belief is exacerbated by political sophistication rather than tempered by it, implying that education will not solve the issue. The results speak to the need for work on reducing affective polarization.
| S-EPMC9848725 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVaccinations play a critical role in mitigating the impact of COVID-19 and other diseases. Past research has linked misinformation to increased hesitancy and lower vaccination rates. Gaps remain in our knowledge about the main drivers of vaccine misinformation on social media and effective ways to intervene.ObjectiveOur longitudinal study had two primary objectives: (1) to investigate the patterns of prevalence and contagion of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on Twitter in 2021, and (2) to identify the main spreaders of vaccine misinformation. Given our initial results, we further considered the likely drivers of misinformation and its spread, providing insights for potential interventions.MethodsWe collected almost 300 million English-language tweets related to COVID-19 vaccines using a list of over 80 relevant keywords over a period of 12 months. We then extracted and labeled news articles at the source level based on third-party lists of low-credibility and mainstream news sources, and measured the prevalence of different kinds of information. We also considered suspicious YouTube videos shared on Twitter. We focused our analysis of vaccine misinformation spreaders on verified and automated Twitter accounts.ResultsOur findings showed a relatively low prevalence of low-credibility information compared to the entirety of mainstream news. However, the most popular low-credibility sources had reshare volumes comparable to those of many mainstream sources, and had larger volumes than those of authoritative sources such as the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization. Throughout the year, we observed an increasing trend in the prevalence of low-credibility news about vaccines. We also observed a considerable amount of suspicious YouTube videos shared on Twitter. Tweets by a small group of approximately 800 "superspreaders" verified by Twitter accounted for approximately 35% of all reshares of misinformation on an average day, with the top superspreader (@RobertKennedyJr) responsible for over 13% of retweets. Finally, low-credibility news and suspicious YouTube videos were more likely to be shared by automated accounts.ConclusionsThe wide spread of misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines on Twitter during 2021 shows that there was an audience for this type of content. Our findings are also consistent with the hypothesis that superspreaders are driven by financial incentives that allow them to profit from health misinformation. Despite high-profile cases of deplatformed misinformation superspreaders, our results show that in 2021, a few individuals still played an outsized role in the spread of low-credibility vaccine content. As a result, social media moderation efforts would be better served by focusing on reducing the online visibility of repeat spreaders of harmful content, especially during public health crises.
| S-EPMC9970010 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTrust in science meaningfully contributes to our understanding of people's belief in misinformation and their intentions to take actions to prevent COVID-19. However, no experimental research has sought to intervene on this variable to develop a scalable response to the COVID-19 infodemic.ObjectiveOur study examined whether brief exposure to an infographic about the scientific process might increase trust in science and thereby affect belief in misinformation and intention to take preventive actions for COVID-19.MethodsThis two-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial aimed to recruit a US representative sample of 1000 adults by age, race/ethnicity, and gender using the Prolific platform. Participants were randomly assigned to view either an intervention infographic about the scientific process or a control infographic. The intervention infographic was designed through a separate pilot study. Primary outcomes were trust in science, COVID-19 narrative belief profile, and COVID-19 preventive behavioral intentions. We also collected 12 covariates and incorporated them into all analyses. All outcomes were collected using web-based assessment.ResultsFrom January 22, 2021 to January 24, 2021, 1017 participants completed the study. The intervention slightly improved trust in science (difference-in-difference 0.03, SE 0.01, t1000=2.16, P=.031). No direct intervention effect was observed on belief profile membership, but there was some evidence of an indirect intervention effect mediated by trust in science (adjusted odds ratio 1.06, SE 0.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.12, z=2.01, P=.045) on membership in the "scientific" profile compared with the others. No direct nor indirect effects on preventive behaviors were observed.ConclusionsBriefly viewing an infographic about science appeared to cause a small aggregate increase in trust in science, which may have, in turn, reduced the believability of COVID-19 misinformation. The effect sizes were small but commensurate with our 60-second, highly scalable intervention approach. Researchers should study the potential for truthful messaging about how science works to serve as misinformation inoculation and test how best to do so.Trial registrationNCT04557241; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04557241.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/24383.
| S-EPMC8519341 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo describe COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and track trends over time in traditional news media.DesignRetrospective cohort study of a large database of online articles, July 2020-June 2021.SettingEnglish-language articles from 100 news outlets with the greatest reach.Main outcome measuresNumbers and percentages of articles containing COVID-19 vaccine misinformation over the study period. Further analysis by misinformation themes and whether articles included primary misinformation, fact-checking or simply referred to misinformation.Results41 718 (3.2% of all COVID-19 vaccine articles) contained at least one of the vaccine misinformation themes based on the Boolean string developed for this study. The volume of such articles increased beginning in November 2020, but their percentage of all articles remained essentially stable after October 2020. 56.2% contained at least one mention of a safety theme, followed by development, production, and distribution (26.6%), and conspiracies (15.1%). Of 500 articles through January 2021 randomly selected from those identified by the Boolean string, 223 were not relevant, and 277 included either fact-checking (175 articles), refers to misinformation (87 articles) or primary misinformation (15 articles). In eight study weeks, the reach of these 277 articles (defined as visitors to the sites containing the articles) exceeded 250 million people. Fact-checking accounted for 69.6% of all reach for these articles and the number of such articles increased after November 2020. Overall, approximately 0.1% (95% CI 0.05% to 0.16%) of all articles on COVID-19 vaccines in our sample contained primary misinformation.ConclusionsCOVID-19 vaccine misinformation in traditional news media is uncommon but has the capacity to reach large numbers of readers and affect the vaccine conversation. Recent increases in fact-checking may counteract some of the misinformation currently circulating.
| S-EPMC9160593 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSince its emergence in December 2019, COVID-19 has caused millions of deaths worldwide. While vaccines are largely available in most places, including the United States (U.S.), vaccine uptake is lower than is desirable from a public health perspective.ObjectiveThe objective of this paper is to examine belief in vaccine myths, including what individual and place characteristics underpin such beliefs, and uptake of vaccines - as well as the role of belief in myths in obtaining the COVID-19 vaccine.MethodsWe use weighted survey data from an online panel of 529 Utah adult residents.ResultsSixty-nine percent of our sample was fully vaccinated at the time of taking the survey. We find that belief in vaccine myths varies among Utahns, with the highest percentage seeing the vaccines as unsafe because of their rapid development. Those who are older, are more religious (including members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), have less formal education, and are more conservative were more likely to have medium and/or higher levels of belief in vaccine myths. We find that belief in vaccine myths is associated with lower COVID-19 vaccine uptake, even when controlling for other factors.ConclusionUnderstanding what drives vaccination uptake, including the role of belief in emerging vaccine myths, is important for public health measures in this and future outbreaks.
| S-EPMC10500446 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the last two years, the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been a scientific and social challenge worldwide. Vaccines have been the most effective intervention for reducing virus transmission and disease severity. However, virus genetic variants are still circulating among vaccinated individuals with different symptomatology disease cases. Understanding the protective or disease associated mechanisms in vaccinated individuals is relevant to advance in vaccine development and implementation. To address this objective, serum protein profiles were characterized by quantitative proteomics and data analysis algorithms in four cohorts of vaccinated individuals uninfected and SARS-CoV-2 infected with asymptomatic, nonsevere and severe disease symptomatology. The results showed that immunoglobulins were the most overrepresented proteins in infected cohorts when compared to PCR-negative individuals. The immunoglobulin profile varied between different infected cohorts and correlated with protective or disease associated capacity. Overrepresented immunoglobulins in PCR-positive individuals correlated with protective response against SARS-CoV-2, other viruses, and thrombosis in asymptomatic cases. In nonsevere cases, correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 and HBV together with risk of myasthenia gravis and allergy and autoantibodies were observed. Patients with severe symptoms presented risk for allergy, chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, and autoantibodies. The analysis of underrepresented immunoglobulins in PCR-positive compared to PCR-negative individuals identified vaccine-induced protective epitopes in various coronavirus proteins including the Spike receptor-binding domain RBD. Non-immunoglobulin proteins were associated with COVID-19 symptoms and biological processes. These results evidence host-associated differences in response to vaccination and the possibility of improving vaccine efficacy against SARS-CoV-2.
2022-10-14 | PXD031969 | Pride
Project description:COVID-19 vaccine misinformation is a global threat, and digital and social media support its spread. Addressing Spanish-language vaccine misinformation is critical. In 2021, we began a project to increase vaccine confidence and uptake in the United States by assessing and opposing Spanish-language COVID-19 vaccine misinformation circulating in the United States. Analysts identified trending Spanish-language vaccine misinformation each week, and trained journalists provided communications guidance for addressing the misinformation, which we delivered to community organizations via a weekly newsletter. We identified thematic and geographic trends and highlighted lessons learned to inform future efforts to monitor Spanish-language vaccine misinformation. We collected publicly available Spanish- and English-language COVID-19 vaccine misinformation across various media sources (eg, Twitter, Facebook, news, blogs). Analysts identified top trending vaccine misinformation in the Spanish query and compared it with vaccine misinformation in the English query. Analysts examined misinformation to identify its geographic source and dominant conversation themes. From September 2021 through March 2022, analysts flagged 109 pieces of trending Spanish-language COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. Through this work, we found that Spanish-language vaccine misinformation is easily identifiable. Linguistic networks are not distinct, and vaccine misinformation often circulates across English and Spanish queries. Several websites have outsized influence in promoting Spanish-language vaccine misinformation, suggesting that it may be important to focus on a handful of hyperinfluential accounts and websites. Efforts to address Spanish-language vaccine misinformation must incorporate collaboration with local communities and emphasize community building and empowerment. Ultimately, addressing Spanish-language vaccine misinformation is not an issue of data access and knowledge of how to monitor it; it is an issue of prioritization.
| S-EPMC10140774 | biostudies-literature