Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T10:54:00.150Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Multi-Platform Approach to Monitoring Negative Dominance for COVID-19 Vaccine-Related Information Online

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 May 2021

Paola Pascual-Ferrá ,
Neil Alperstein Open the ORCID record for Neil Alperstein [Opens in a new window]  and
Daniel J. Barnett
Paola Pascual-Ferrá
Affiliation:
Communication Department, Loyola University Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA
Neil Alperstein
Affiliation:
Communication Department, Loyola University Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA
Daniel J. Barnett*
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
*
Corresponding Author: Daniel J. Barnett, Email: dbarnet4@jhu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

The aim of this study was to test the appearance of negative dominance in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine-related information and activity online. We hypothesized that if negative dominance appeared, it would be a reflection of peaks in adverse events related to the vaccine, that negative content would attract more engagement on social media than other vaccine-related posts, and posts referencing adverse events related to COVID-19 vaccination would have a higher average toxicity score.

Methods:

We collected data using Google Trends for search behavior, CrowdTangle for social media data, and Media Cloud for media stories, and compared them against the dates of key adverse events related to COVID-19. We used Communalytic to analyze the toxicity of social media posts by platform and topic.

Results:

While our first hypothesis was partially supported, with peaks in search behavior for image and YouTube videos driven by adverse events, we did not find negative dominance in other types of searches or patterns of attention by news media or on social media.

Conclusion:

We did not find evidence in our data to prove the negative dominance of adverse events related to COVID-19 vaccination on social media. Future studies should corroborate these findings and, if consistent, focus on explaining why this may be the case.

Keywords

COVID-19health communicationnegative dominancerisk communicationsocial mediatoxicityvaccine
Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 16 , Issue 6 , December 2022 , pp. 2471 - 2479
Copyright
© Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Covello, VT, Peters, RG, Wojtecki, JG, Hyde, RC. Risk communication, the West Nile virus epidemic, and bioterrorism: responding to the communication challenges posed by the intentional or unintentional release of a pathogen in an urban setting. J Urban Health. 2001;78(2):382-391. doi: 10.1093/jurban/78.2.382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozin, P, Royzman, EB. Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2001;5(4):296-320. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2.Google Scholar
Higgins-Dunn, N, Lovelace, B Jr CDC will monitor for Bell’s palsy among Pfizer vaccine recipients, but sees no causal relationship. CNBC.com. December 11, 2020. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/11/cdc-monitors-for-bells-palsy-among-pfizer-vaccine-recipients-sees-no-causal-relationship.html. Accessed January 21, 2021.Google Scholar
Smith-Schoenwalder, C. FDA recommends watching vaccine recipients for Bell’s palsy. US News. December 15, 2020. https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-12-15/fda-recommends-watching-vaccine-recipients-for-bells-palsy. Accessed January 21, 2021.Google Scholar
Fierger, J, Caldwell, T. Third Alaskan health care worker has allergic reaction to COVID-19 vaccine. CNN.com. Updated December 18, 2020. https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/18/health/alaska-third-allergic-reaction-vaccine/index.html. Accessed January 21, 2021.Google Scholar
Wu, KJ. Boston doctor reports serious allergic reaction after getting Moderna’s COVID vaccine. The New York Times. December 25, 2020. Updated December 31, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/25/health/Covid-moderna-vaccine-allergies.html. Accessed January 21, 2021.Google Scholar
Kupferschmidt, K. New coronavirus variants could cause more reinfections, require updated vaccines. Science. January 15, 2021. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/new-coronavirus-variants-could-cause-more-reinfections-require-updated-vaccines. Accessed January 21, 2021.Google Scholar
Kelsey, A. Operation Warp Speed adviser concerned about vaccine skepticism “exacerbated” by “political context.” ABCNews.com. November 22, 2020. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/operation-warp-speed-adviser-concerned-vaccine-skepticism-exacerbated/story?id=74336972. Accessed January 21, 2021.Google Scholar
Larson, HJ, Smith, DMD, Paterson, P, et al. Measuring vaccine confidence: analysis of data obtained by a media surveillance system used to analyse public concerns about vaccines. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13(7):606-613. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70108-7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Odone, A, Tramutola, V, Morgado, M, Signorelli, C. Immunization and media coverage in Italy: an eleven-year analysis (2007-17). Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2018;14(10):2533-2536. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2018.1486156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tran, BX, Boggiano, VL, Nguyen, LH. Media representation of vaccine side effects and its impact on utilization of vaccination services in Vietnam. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:1717-1728. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S171362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, MJ, Ellenberg, SS, Bell, LM, Rubin, DM. Media coverage of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism controversy and its relationship to MMR immunization rates in the United States. Pediatrics. 2008;121(4):836-e843. doi: 10.1542/peds.2007-1760.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carrieri, V, Madio, L, Principe, F. Vaccine hesitancy and (fake) news: quasi-experimental evidence from Italy. Health Econ. 2019;28:1377-1382. doi: 10.1002/hec.3937.Google ScholarPubMed
Catalan-Matamoros, D, Elías, C. Vaccine hesitancy in the age of coronavirus and fake news: analysis of journalistic sources in the Spanish quality press. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:8136. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17218136.Google ScholarPubMed
Hansen, PR, Schmidtblaicher, M. A dynamic model of vaccine compliance: how fake news undermined the Danish HPV vaccine program. J Bus Econ Stat. 2021;39(1):259-271. doi: 10.1080/07350015.2019.1623045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvador Casara, BG, Suitner, C, Bettinsoli, ML. Viral suspicions: vaccine hesitancy in the web 2.0. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2019;25(3):354-371. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Puri, N, Coomes, EA, Haghbayan, H, Gunaratne, K. Social media and vaccine hesitancy: new updates for the era of COVID-19 and globalized infectious diseases. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2020;16(11):2586-2593. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2020.1780846.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aquino, F, Donzelli, G, De Franco, E, et al. The web and public confidence in MMR vaccination in Italy. Vaccine. 2017;35(35):4494-4498. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.07.029.Google ScholarPubMed
Dunn, AG, Surian, D, Leask, J, et al. Mapping information exposure on social media to explain differences in HPV vaccine coverage in the United States. Vaccine. 2017;35(23):3033-3040. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.04.060.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mo Jang, S, Mckeevera, BW, Mckeevera, R, Kyoung Kima, J. From social media to mainstream news: the information flow of the vaccine-autism controversy in the US, Canada, and the UK. Health Commun. 2019;34(1):110-117. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2017.1384433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz, JB, Bell, RA. Understanding vaccination resistance: vaccine search term selection bias and the valence of retrieved information. Vaccine. 2014;32:5776-5780. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.08.042.Google ScholarPubMed
Ferrara, E, Yang, Z. Quantifying the effect of sentiment on information diffusion on social media. PeerJ Comput. 2015;1:e26. doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.26.Google Scholar
Karafillakis, E, Martin, S, Simas, C, et al. Methods for social media monitoring related to vaccination: systematic scoping review. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021;7(2):e17149. doi: 10.2196/17149. PMID: 33555267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perspective. Key concepts. 2021. https://support.perspectiveapi.com/s/about-the-api-key-concepts. Accessed January 22, 2021.Google Scholar
Gruzd, A, Mai, P, Vahedi, Z. Studying anti-social behaviour on Reddit with Communalytic. Advance. 2020;epub. doi: 10.31124/advance.12453749.v1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almerekhi, H, Kwak, H, Salminen, J, Jansen, BJ. Are these comments triggering? Predicting triggers of toxicity in online discussions. Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020 of the Association for Computing Machinery. 2020;3033-3040. New York, NY. doi: 10.1145/3366423.3380074. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6657&context=sis_research. Accessed January 22, 2021.Google Scholar
Mall, R, Nagpal, M, Salminen, J, et al. Four types of toxic people: characterizing online users’ toxicity over time. Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. 2020;1-11. doi: 10.1145/3419249.3420142.   http://www.bernardjjansen.com/uploads/2/4/1/8/24188166/3419249.3420142.pdf. Accessed January 22, 2021.Google Scholar
Salminen, J, Sengün, S, Corporan, J, et al. Topic-driven toxicity: exploring the relationship between online toxicity and news topics. PLoS One. 2020;15(2):e0228723. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228723.Google ScholarPubMed
Salminen, J, Hopf, M, Chowdhury, SA, et al. Developing an online hate classifier for multiple social media platforms. Hum Cent Comput Inf Sci. 2020;10(1):1-34. doi: 10.1186/s13673-019-0205-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Google Trends. Google, Mountainview, California, United States. http://trends.google.com. Accessed January 22, 2021.Google Scholar
CrowdTangle Team. Facebook, Menlo Park, California, United States. http://crowdtangle.com. Accessed January 22, 2021.Google Scholar
Media Cloud. http://meadiacloud.org. Accessed January 22, 2021.Google Scholar
Gruzd, A, Mai, P. Communalytic: an online community analyzer for studying anti-social behaviour. Communalytic.com. https://Communalytic.com. Accessed January 22, 2021.Google Scholar
Gruzd, A, Mai, P, Vahedi, Z. Studying anti-social behaviour on Reddit with Communalytic [pre-print]. https://advance.sagepub.com/articles/Studying_Anti-Social_Behaviour_on_Reddit_with_Communalytic/12453749. Accessed March 12, 2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahhal, N. Four trial volunteers who got Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine developed Bell’s palsy – but FDA denies that the temporary facial paralysis was caused by the shot. Daily Mail. December 8, 2020. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9030943/Four-volunteers-got-Pfizers-vaccine-developed-Bells-palsy.html. Accessed January 22, 2021.Google Scholar
Funke, D. Fact-check: did a Tennessee nurse develop Bell’s palsy after getting the coronavirus vaccine? Austin American-Statesman. December 31, 2020. https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/2020/12/31/did-nurse-develop-bells-palsy-after-getting-covid-19-vaccine/4095565001/. Accessed January 22, 2021.Google Scholar
Inside Edition. Nurse faints while speaking to reporters after getting vaccine [Video]. YouTube.com. Posted December 18, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9agUz5cQCk. Accessed January 22, 2021.Google Scholar
Reuters Staff. Fact check: nurse who fainted after COVID-19 vaccine did not die. Reuters.com. January 1, 2021. Updated January 4, 2021. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-nurse-covid-vaccine-dead/fact-check-nurse-who-fainted-after-covid-19-vaccine-did-not-die-idUSKBN29629G. Accessed January 22, 2021.Google Scholar
Shu, C, Shieber, J. Facebook, Reddit, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube issue joint statement on misinformation. Techcrunch.com. March 16, 2020. https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/16/facebook-reddit-google-linkedin-microsoft-twitter-and-youtube-issue-joint-statement-on-misinformation/?guccounter=1. Accessed January 22, 2021.Google Scholar
Hatmaker, T. “Free speech” social network Parler tops app store rankings following Biden’s election win. Techcrunch.com. November 9, 2020. https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/09/parler-app-store-facebook/. Accessed March 12, 2021.Google Scholar
Parler, Bomey N., MeWe, Gab gain momentum as conservative social media alternatives in post-Trump age. USA Today. November 11, 2020. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/11/11/parler-mewe-gab-social-media-trump-election-facebook-twitter/6232351002/. Accessed March 12, 2021.Google Scholar
Jigsaw. What do perspectives scores mean? Medium.com. September 22, 2017. https://medium.com/jigsaw/what-do-perspectives-scores-mean-113b37788a5d. Accessed March 26, 2021.Google Scholar
Perspective. Best practices & risks. Perspectiveapi.com. 2021. https://support.perspectiveapi.com/s/about-the-api-best-practices-risks. Accessed March 12, 2021.Google Scholar
Awal, MR, Cao, R, Mitrovic, S, Lee, RK. On analyzing anti-social behaviors amid COVID-19 pandemic. arXiv.org. 2020;epub. https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.10712. Accessed March 12, 2021.Google Scholar
Perspective. Research. Perspectiveapi.com. 2021. https://www.perspectiveapi.com/research/. Accessed March 12, 2021.Google Scholar
Perspective. Methods. Perspectiveapi.com. 2021. https://support.perspectiveapi.com/s/about-the-api-methods. Accessed March 12, 2021.Google Scholar
Perspective. ML practicum: fairness in Perspective API. Perspectiveapi.com. 2021. https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/practica/fairness-indicators. Accessed March 12, 2021.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. Using Google Trends data for research? Here are 6 questions to ask. Medium.com. April 27, 2017. https://medium.com/@pewresearch/using-google-trends-data-for-research-here-are-6-questions-to-ask-a7097f5fb526. Accessed March 12, 2021.Google Scholar
Olteanu, A, Castillo, C, Diaz, F, Kiciman, E. Social data: biases, methodological pitfalls, and ethical boundaries. Front Big Data. 2019;2(1):259-271. doi: 10.3389/fdata.2019.00013.Google ScholarPubMed