The Role and Influence of Perceived Experts in an Anti-vaccine Misinformation Community

Overview

Journal medRxiv

Date 2023 Aug 7

PMID 37546922

Authors

Mallory J Harris

Ryan Murtfeldt

Shufan Wang

Erin A Mordecai

Jevin D West

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The role of perceived experts (i.e., medical professionals and biomedical scientists) as potential anti-vaccine influencers has not been characterized systematically. We describe the prevalence and importance of anti-vaccine perceived experts by constructing a coengagement network based on a Twitter data set containing over 4.2 million posts from April 2021. The coengagement network primarily broke into two large communities that differed in their stance toward COVID-19 vaccines, and misinformation was predominantly shared by the anti-vaccine community. Perceived experts had a sizable presence within the anti-vaccine community and shared academic sources at higher rates compared to others in that community. Perceived experts occupied important network positions as central anti-vaccine nodes and bridges between the anti- and pro-vaccine communities. Perceived experts received significantly more engagements than other individuals within the anti- and pro-vaccine communities and there was no significant difference in the influence boost for perceived experts between the two communities. Interventions designed to reduce the impact of perceived experts who spread anti-vaccine misinformation may be warranted.

References

Cascini F, Pantovic A, Al-Ajlouni Y, Failla G, Puleo V, Melnyk A . Social media and attitudes towards a COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review of the literature. EClinicalMedicine. 2022; 48:101454. PMC: 9120591. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101454. View

Acerbi A . A Cultural Evolution Approach to Digital Media. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016; 10:636. PMC: 5156828. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00636. View

Reiter P, Pennell M, Katz M . Acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine among adults in the United States: How many people would get vaccinated?. Vaccine. 2020; 38(42):6500-6507. PMC: 7440153. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.08.043. View

Bartos V, Bauer M, Cahlikova J, Chytilova J . Communicating doctors' consensus persistently increases COVID-19 vaccinations. Nature. 2022; 606(7914):542-549. PMC: 9200639. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-04805-y. View

Ahamed S, Shakil S, Lyu H, Zhang X, Luo J . Doctors vs. Nurses: Understanding the Great Divide in Vaccine Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers. Proc IEEE Int Conf Big Data. 2023; 2022:5865-5870. PMC: 10208360. DOI: 10.1109/bigdata55660.2022.10020853. View

Tavoschi L, Quattrone F, DAndrea E, Ducange P, Vabanesi M, Marcelloni F . Twitter as a sentinel tool to monitor public opinion on vaccination: an opinion mining analysis from September 2016 to August 2017 in Italy. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2020; 16(5):1062-1069. PMC: 7227677. DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2020.1714311. View

Hughes B, Miller-Idriss C, Piltch-Loeb R, Goldberg B, White K, Criezis M . Development of a Codebook of Online Anti-Vaccination Rhetoric to Manage COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(14). PMC: 8304769. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18147556. View

Smith T . Vaccine Rejection and Hesitancy: A Review and Call to Action. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017; 4(3):ofx146. PMC: 5597904. DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofx146. View

Nadarevic L, Reber R, Helmecke A, Kose D . Perceived truth of statements and simulated social media postings: an experimental investigation of source credibility, repeated exposure, and presentation format. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2020; 5(1):56. PMC: 7656226. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-020-00251-4. View

10.

Hagen L, Fox A, OLeary H, Dyson D, Walker K, Lengacher C . The Role of Influential Actors in Fostering the Polarized COVID-19 Vaccine Discourse on Twitter: Mixed Methods of Machine Learning and Inductive Coding. JMIR Infodemiology. 2022; 2(1):e34231. PMC: 9254747. DOI: 10.2196/34231. View

11.

Tangcharoensathien V, Calleja N, Nguyen T, Purnat T, DAgostino M, Garcia-Saiso S . Framework for Managing the COVID-19 Infodemic: Methods and Results of an Online, Crowdsourced WHO Technical Consultation. J Med Internet Res. 2020; 22(6):e19659. PMC: 7332158. DOI: 10.2196/19659. View

12.

Berl R, Samarasinghe A, Roberts S, Jordan F, Gavin M . Prestige and content biases together shape the cultural transmission of narratives. Evol Hum Sci. 2023; 3:e42. PMC: 10427335. DOI: 10.1017/ehs.2021.37. View

13.

Jones A, Omer S, Bednarczyk R, Halsey N, Moulton L, Salmon D . Parents' source of vaccine information and impact on vaccine attitudes, beliefs, and nonmedical exemptions. Adv Prev Med. 2012; 2012:932741. PMC: 3469070. DOI: 10.1155/2012/932741. View

14.

Beers A, Schafer J, Kennedy I, Wack M, Spiro E, Starbird K . Followback Clusters, Satellite Audiences, and Bridge Nodes: Coengagement Networks for the 2020 US Election. Proc Int AAAI Conf Weblogs Soc Media. 2024; 17:59-71. PMC: 11037522. DOI: 10.1609/icwsm.v17i1.22126. View

15.

Lucia V, Kelekar A, Afonso N . COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among medical students. J Public Health (Oxf). 2020; 43(3):445-449. PMC: 7799040. DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdaa230. View

16.

Loomba S, de Figueiredo A, Piatek S, de Graaf K, Larson H . Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nat Hum Behav. 2021; 5(3):337-348. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1. View

17.

Gesser-Edelsburg A, Diamant A, Hijazi R, Mesch G . Correcting misinformation by health organizations during measles outbreaks: A controlled experiment. PLoS One. 2018; 13(12):e0209505. PMC: 6300261. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209505. View

18.

Wood M . Propagating and Debunking Conspiracy Theories on Twitter During the 2015-2016 Zika Virus Outbreak. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2018; 21(8):485-490. PMC: 6094351. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2017.0669. View

19.

Muric G, Wu Y, Ferrara E . COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy on Social Media: Building a Public Twitter Data Set of Antivaccine Content, Vaccine Misinformation, and Conspiracies. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021; 7(11):e30642. PMC: 8694238. DOI: 10.2196/30642. View

20.

Smith S, Kao E, Mackin E, Shah D, Simek O, Rubin D . Automatic detection of influential actors in disinformation networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021; 118(4). PMC: 7848582. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2011216118. View