Dataset Information

Promoting and countering misinformation during Australia's 2019-2020 bushfires: a case study of polarisation.

ABSTRACT: During Australia's unprecedented bushfires in 2019-2020, misinformation blaming arson surfaced on Twitter using #ArsonEmergency. The extent to which bots and trolls were responsible for disseminating and amplifying this misinformation has received media scrutiny and academic research. Here, we study Twitter communities spreading this misinformation during the newsworthy event, and investigate the role of online communities using a natural experiment approach-before and after reporting of bots promoting the hashtag was broadcast by the mainstream media. Few bots were found, but the most bot-like accounts were social bots, which present as genuine humans, and trolling behaviour was evident. Further, we distilled meaningful quantitative differences between two polarised communities in the Twitter discussion, resulting in the following insights. First, Supporters of the arson narrative promoted misinformation by engaging others directly with replies and mentions using hashtags and links to external sources. In response, Opposers retweeted fact-based articles and official information. Second, Supporters were embedded throughout their interaction networks, but Opposers obtained high centrality more efficiently despite their peripheral positions. By the last phase, Opposers and unaffiliated accounts appeared to coordinate, potentially reaching a broader audience. Finally, the introduction of the bot report changed the discussion dynamic: Opposers only responded immediately, while Supporters countered strongly for days, but new unaffiliated accounts drawn into the discussion shifted the dominant narrative from arson misinformation to factual and official information. This foiled Supporters' efforts, highlighting the value of exposing misinformation. We speculate that the communication strategies observed here could inform counter-strategies in other misinformation-related discussions.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13278-022-00892-x.

SUBMITTER: Weber D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9243896 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMisinformation and disinformation around vaccines has grown in recent years, exacerbated during the Covid-19 pandemic. Effective strategies for countering vaccine misinformation and disinformation are crucial for tackling vaccine hesitancy. We conducted a systematic review to identify and describe communications-based strategies used to prevent and ameliorate the effect of mis- and dis-information on people's attitudes and behaviours surrounding vaccination (objective 1) and examined their effectiveness (objective 2).MethodsWe searched CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and MedRxiv in March 2021. The search strategy was built around three themes(1) communications and media; (2) misinformation; and (3) vaccines. For trials addressing objective 2, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias in randomized trials tool (RoB2).ResultsOf 2000 identified records, 34 eligible studies addressed objective 1, 29 of which also addressed objective 2 (25 RCTs and 4 before-and-after studies). Nine 'intervention approaches' were identified; most focused on content of the intervention or message (debunking/correctional, informational, use of disease images or other 'scare tactics', use of humour, message intensity, inclusion of misinformation warnings, and communicating weight of evidence), while two focused on delivery of the intervention or message (timing and source). Some strategies, such as scare tactics, appear to be ineffective and may increase misinformation endorsement. Communicating with certainty, rather than acknowledging uncertainty around vaccine efficacy or risks, was also found to backfire. Promising approaches include communicating the weight-of-evidence and scientific consensus around vaccines and related myths, using humour and incorporating warnings about encountering misinformation. Trying to debunk misinformation, informational approaches, and communicating uncertainty had mixed results.ConclusionThis review identifies some promising communication strategies for addressing vaccine misinformation. Interventions should be further evaluated by measuring effects on vaccine uptake, rather than distal outcomes such as knowledge and attitudes, in quasi-experimental and real-life contexts.

Project description:IntroductionThe rise of social media users and the explosive growth in misinformation shared across social media platforms have become a serious threat to democratic discourse and public health. The mentioned implications have increased the demand for misinformation detection and intervention. To contribute to this challenge, we are presenting a systematic scoping review of psychological interventions countering misinformation in social media. The review was conducted to (i) identify and map evidence on psychological interventions countering misinformation, (ii) compare the viability of the interventions on social media, and (iii) provide guidelines for the development of effective interventions.MethodsA systematic search in three bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Scopus) and additional searches in Google Scholar and reference lists were conducted.Results3,561 records were identified, 75 of which met the eligibility criteria for the inclusion in the final review. The psychological interventions identified during the review can be classified into three categories distinguished by Kozyreva et al.: Boosting, Technocognition, and Nudging, and then into 15 types within these. Most of the studied interventions were not implemented and tested in a real social media environment but under strictly controlled settings or online crowdsourcing platforms. The presented feasibility assessment of implementation insights expressed qualitatively and with numerical scoring could guide the development of future interventions that can be successfully implemented on social media platforms.DiscussionThe review provides the basis for further research on psychological interventions counteracting misinformation. Future research on interventions should aim to combine effective Technocognition and Nudging in the user experience of online services.Systematic review registration[https://figshare.com/], identifier [https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14649432.v2].

Project description:In 2019/2020, Australia experienced a severe bushfire event, with many tens of thousands of livestock killed or euthanized. Little systematic research has occurred to understand livestock bushfire injuries, risk factors for injury, or how to make decisions about management of bushfire-injured livestock. Addressing this research gap is important as there is an increasing bushfire incidence globally. This paper presents qualitative research findings about bushfire-injured and killed livestock in the south-east of Australia after the 2019/2020 Australian bushfires. We describe observed pathology, treatments used, and risk factors for injury, then use thematic analysis to understand decision making about managing fire-injured livestock. Livestock injured by the fires showed pathology predominantly associated with the common integument (feet, hooves and skin) and signs of acute respiratory damage. It could take several days for the full extent of burns to become apparent, leaving prognostic doubt. Treatment strategies included immediate euthanasia, salvage slaughter, retention for later culling, treatment and recovery on farm, hospitalization and intensive treatment, or no intervention. Risk factors reported for livestock injury included lack of warnings about an impending fire, the type and amount of vegetation around livestock and the weather conditions on the day the fire reached livestock. Moving stock to an area with little vegetation before fire arrived was seen as protective. Decision making regarding injured livestock appeared influenced by three main themes: (1) observations on the severity of pathology, clinical signs and level of prognostic doubt, (2) pre-existing beliefs about animal welfare (responsibility to minimize unnecessary suffering) and (3) assumptions about the future. The management of livestock was largely appropriate due to the rapid provision of veterinary expertise. However, it is likely that some injured livestock were euthanized due to conservative veterinary advice driven by a lack of opportunity to re-assess stock, with impacts on farmers. In future, resourcing regular revisits of injured livestock to manage risks of gradual progression of burn pathology may facilitate more accurate prognostic assessment, provided injured animals can receive appropriate pain relief. In addition, a more comprehensive burns classification system linked to prognosis that can be rapidly applied in the field may assist assessments.

Project description:BackgroundSuboptimal adolescent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates have been attributed to parental perceptions of the HPV vaccine. The internet has been cited as a setting where misinformation and controversy about HPV vaccination have been amplified.ObjectiveWe aimed to test message effectiveness in changing parents' attitudes and behavioral intentions toward HPV vaccination.MethodsWe conducted a web-based message-testing experiment with 6 control messages and 25 experimental messages and 5 from each of the 5 salient themes about HPV vaccination (theme 1: safety, side effects, risk, and ingredient concerns and long-term or major adverse events; theme 2: distrust of the health care system; theme 3: HPV vaccine effectiveness concerns; theme 4: connection to sexual activity; and theme 5: misinformation about HPV or HPV vaccine). Themes were identified from previous web-based focus group research with parents, and specific messages were developed by the study team using content from credible scientific sources. Through an iterative process of message development, the messages were crafted to be appropriate for presentation on a social media platform. Among the 1713 participants recruited via social media and crowdsourcing sites, 1043 eligible parents completed a pretest survey questionnaire. Participants were then randomly assigned to 1 of the 31 messages and asked to complete a posttest survey questionnaire that assessed attitudes toward the vaccine and perceived effectiveness of the viewed message. A subgroup of participants (189/995, 19%) with unvaccinated children aged 9 to 14 years was also assessed for their behavioral intention to vaccinate their children against HPV.ResultsParents in the experimental group had increased positive attitudes toward HPV vaccination compared with those in the control group (t969=3.03, P=.003), which was associated with increased intention to vaccinate among parents of unvaccinated children aged 9 to 14 years (r=1.14, P=.05). At the thematic level, we identified 4 themes (themes 2-5) that were relatively effective in increasing behavioral intentions by positively influencing attitudes toward the HPV vaccine (χ25=5.97, P=.31, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA]=0.014, comparative fit index [CFI]=0.91, standardized root mean square residual [SRMR]=0.031). On the message level, messages that provided scientific evidence from government-related sources (eg, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and corrected misinformation (eg, "vaccines like the HPV vaccine are simply a way for pharmaceutical companies to make money. That isn't true") were effective in forming positive perceptions toward the HPV vaccination messages.ConclusionsEvidence-based messages directly countering misinformation and promoting HPV vaccination in social media environments can positively influence parents' attitudes and behavioral intentions to vaccinate their children against HPV.

Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in 5,817,385 reported cases and 362,705 deaths worldwide through May, 30, 2020,† including 1,761,503 aggregated reported cases and 103,700 deaths in the United States.§ Previous analyses during February-early April 2020 indicated that age ?65 years and underlying health conditions were associated with a higher risk for severe outcomes, which were less common among children aged <18 years (1-3). This report describes demographic characteristics, underlying health conditions, symptoms, and outcomes among 1,320,488 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases individually reported to CDC during January 22-May 30, 2020. Cumulative incidence, 403.6 cases per 100,000 persons,¶ was similar among males (401.1) and females (406.0) and highest among persons aged ?80 years (902.0). Among 599,636 (45%) cases with known information, 33% of persons were Hispanic or Latino of any race (Hispanic), 22% were non-Hispanic black (black), and 1.3% were non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN). Among 287,320 (22%) cases with sufficient data on underlying health conditions, the most common were cardiovascular disease (32%), diabetes (30%), and chronic lung disease (18%). Overall, 184,673 (14%) patients were hospitalized, 29,837 (2%) were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU), and 71,116 (5%) died. Hospitalizations were six times higher among patients with a reported underlying condition (45.4%) than those without reported underlying conditions (7.6%). Deaths were 12 times higher among patients with reported underlying conditions (19.5%) compared with those without reported underlying conditions (1.6%). The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be severe, particularly in certain population groups. These preliminary findings underscore the need to build on current efforts to collect and analyze case data, especially among those with underlying health conditions. These data are used to monitor trends in COVID-19 illness, identify and respond to localized incidence increase, and inform policies and practices designed to reduce transmission in the United States.

Dataset Information

Promoting and countering misinformation during Australia's 2019-2020 bushfires: a case study of polarisation.

Supplementary information

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets