This visually appealing infographic was designed by Paris to spread awareness about how misinformation on social media has contributed to vaccine hesitancy.
Note to Reader
The COVID pandemic changed the nature of our social interactions dramatically. Many of us became increasingly reliant on social media to maintain friendships during times of isolation. With increased screen time and a desire for connection, people have turned to social media to express their attitudes and opinions about the pandemic. Conversations about vaccinations and fake news have become more divisive than ever before, and in some extreme cases, have jeopardized relationships. In recent months, I became interested in researching a question that has become very relevant in many of our lives today. Has the widespread use of social media and the increasing spread of fake news contributed to vaccine hesitancy during the COVID pandemic? While COVID has exposed the digital divide, social media and fake news contribute to the increasing spread of fake news and contributed to vaccine hesitancy as the increased number of interactions in the digital world allow people to feel connected during times of isolation, and social media has made it easier than ever for consumers to access information.
To begin my creative research project, understanding and defining fake news in the context of social media was extremely important. As defined in Fake News: Understanding Media and Misinformation in the Digital Age, fake news can be best understood as, “purposefully crafted, sensational, emotionally charged, misleading or totally fabricated information that mimics the form of mainstream news” (Zimdars & McLeod, 2020). The spread of fake news is driven by advancements in technology and an increase in social media usage. According to research, fake news spreads faster than real news on the internet (Vosoughi, Roy & Aral, 2018).
When it comes to the psychology of fake news, there are a variety of aspects that might contribute to one’s belief. First, there is a lack of critical thinking and attention, rather than deliberate misinformation (Pennycook & Rand, 2021). This may help account for the disconnect between what people think and what they post on social media (Pennycook & Rand, 2021). Social media has become more accessible than ever before, and further factors that contribute to the susceptibility to fake news may be influenced by delusionality, religious fanaticism, and overconfidence, which prevents individuals from slowing down and participating in critical reasoning (Pennycook & Rand, 2021). Familiarity and comfort may be used as a heuristic in the justification of these beliefs (Pennycook & Rand, 2021). Lastly, when analyzing news, the source is a crucial factor to consider. Participants are more likely to trust the information provided by people they regard as trustworthy, which is known as confirmation bias (Pennycook & Rand, 2021). In a research study, participants were asked if they would share a set of headlines, they assessed true headlines as considerably more accurate than false headlines (Pennycook & Rand, 2021). However, when participants were asked whether they would share the headlines, truthfulness did not influence their sharing intentions (Pennycook & Rand, 2021). Many participants reportedly prepared to share material that they may have classified as false as a result (Pennycook & Rand, 2021).
Regarding demographics, age and being older have been linked to a greater vulnerability to fake news (Roozenbeek et al., 2020). Furthermore, studies have identified a number of major motivators as predictors of misinformation, such as a lack of trust in science, journalists and the mainstream media, as well as government and the impact of political ideology (Roozenbeek et al., 2020). To stop the virus from spreading, social and behavioral science insights are key, especially when it comes to misleading people about the vital information surrounding the pandemic. Not only is misinformation harmful, but that belief in it can also help predict health behaviors and attitudes toward vaccines overall (Roozenbeek et al., 2020). With 62 million views globally, a recent analysis of the top coronavirus YouTube videos revealed that over 25% of the top videos contained false information (Roozenbeek et al., 2020).
It has been stated that self-reported minority status and belief in fake news are linked. (Roozenbeek et al., 2020). According to a study conducted to determine the proportion of participants from various nations who are most susceptible to fake news, 22 percent of respondents in each country are more vulnerable to misinformation (Singh et al., 2022). Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia had the highest levels of trust in misinformation (Singh et al., 2022). In contrast, the people of Sweden and Finland appear to be the least receptive to fake news (Singh et al., 2022). COVID-related fake news was more likely to be encountered and believed in less developed regions, according to the results, and misinformation was shown to be more prevalent in countries with lower GDP per capita (Singh et al., 2022).
Vaccine hesitancy has been identified as one of the top ten public health threats by the World Health Organization (Igoe, 2019). The degree to which people are susceptible to misinformation has a negative correlation with their acceptance of the COVID vaccination (Igoe, 2019). Not only do public figures use their platform to speak about topics on which they are not experts, but social media influencers also share and spread misinformation through their social media platforms (Honora et al., 2022). Given the ever-increasing accessibility to social media, this has become a prevalent problem during the pandemic. The vast majority of Americans agree with vaccinations, but they do not speak up. This leaves influencers with large platforms to fill in the gaps with misinformation (Igoe, 2019). Celebrities, like influencers, have a sizeable social media following. So much so, that their influence may outweigh that of other public figures. Some celebrities have not been afraid to share their thoughts on the COVID
pandemic and their opposition to vaccines, further polarizing an already contentious issue.
According to studies, information overload contributes to vaccine skepticism and lowers vaccination intentions (Wilson, 2020). The endorsement of misinformation and untrustworthy information by celebrities has also contributed to vaccination apprehension (Wilson, 2020). These attitudes overall have direct consequences on the success rate of vaccine programs.
There is an international aspect that adds to the spread of misinformation and vaccine hesitancy in addition to the transmission of misinformation through social media. According to research, Russian bots in collaboration with broadcast networks have pushed anti-vaccine propaganda throughout Western social media (Wilson & Wiysonge, 2020). These claims might be part of a larger effort to hinder public health in both developed and developing countries (Wilson & Wiysonge, 2020). While unravelling the international scope of vaccine hesitancy and the link between social media, it is also important to comprehend the prevalence of COVID’s exacerbated digital divide. Almost half of the world’s population does not have internet access, and less than one in every five people in the least developed countries are connected (Clark-Ginsberg & Petrun Sayers, 2020). Due to certain histories, vulnerable communities may mistrust authorities, leading some to disregard officials’ guidelines. The digital divide is especially troublesome during the pandemic, as seen by the World Health Organization’s definition of the pandemic as an “infodemic,” characterized by an excess of both true and false information that makes locating reliable sources extremely difficult (Clark-Ginsberg & Petrun Sayers, 2020). One of the most difficult tasks is connecting with vulnerable communities to give updates and information on precautionary measures (Clark-Ginsberg & Petrun Sayers, 2020).
Often, discussions about generations inevitably turn into stereotyping. Such discourse would be less concerning if genuine research of generational differences, as seen throughout the allocation of blame for the ongoing COVID pandemic, were not present. The lack of a consistent response, dismissal of early warnings, leaders’ promotion of scientific fallacies, and the disproportionate economic cost of mitigation measures all contributed to young people’s limited behavior changes (Gharzai et al., 2020). COVID information overload on social media’s detrimental impacts on users’ mental health and an investigation into the dark side of Generation Z’s social media use during lockdowns (Liu et al., 2021). Involving all generations in the pandemic response will encourage intergenerational collaborative efforts and strengthen our collective response to COVID and the future of pandemics.
To answer my research question about whether the widespread use of social media and the spread of fake news contributed to vaccine hesitancy during the COVID pandemic, I conducted extensive research on the subject, examining various aspects to gain a better understanding of an audience that may be affected by this topic. While defining fake news, examining various demographics and international perspectives, the psychology of fake news, and who is more susceptible across generations, there is sufficient research to support a relationship between the two. While COVID has highlighted the digital divide, social media, and fake news also play a role in vaccine hesitancy. The increased number of interactions in the digital world allows people to feel connected during times of isolation, and social media has made it easier for consumers to access information than ever before. Misinformation can affect users, which can be used to manipulate them for political or other purposes. Although the future of social media is unknown, it is important to be skeptical of information, especially on social media, and to take it with a grain of salt. Preventing the negative aspects of social media is not only in the hand but also at the expense of consumers, highlighting the double-edged sword.
References
Clark-Ginsberg, A., & Petrun Sayers, E. L. (2020). Communication missteps during COVID-19 hurt those already most at risk. Wiley Online Library. Retrieved 2022, from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-5973.12304
Gharzai, L. A., Beeler, W. H., & Jagsi, R. (2020, April 21). Playing Into Stereotypes: Engaging Millennials and Generation Z in the COVID-19 Pandemic Response. Advances in Radiation Oncology. Retrieved 2022, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452109420300841
Honora, A., Wang, K.-Y., & Chih, W.-H. (2022, January 4). How does information overload about covid-19 vaccines influence individuals’ vaccination intentions? the roles of cyberchondria, perceived risk, and vaccine skepticism. Computers in Human Behavior. Retrieved April 10, 2022, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563221004994
Igoe, K. J. (2019, July 10). Establishing the truth: Vaccines, social media, and the spread of misinformation. Executive and Continuing Professional Education. Retrieved 2022, from https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ecpe/vaccines-social-media-spread-misinformation
Liu, H., Liu, W., Yoganathan, V., & Osburg, V.-S. (2021, January 14). COVID-19 information overload and generation Z’s social media discontinuance intention during the pandemic lockdown. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Retrieved 2022, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162521000329
Nair, A. T., Nayar, K. R., Koya, S. F., Abraham, M., Lordson, J., Grace, C., Sreekumar, S., Chembon, P., Swarnam, K., Pillai, A. M., & Pandey, A. K. (2021, August 11). Social Media, vaccine hesitancy and trust deficit in immunization programs: A qualitative enquiry in Malappuram district of Kerala, India – Health Research Policy and Systems. Health Research Policy and Systems. Retrieved 2022, from https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-021-00698-x
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021, March 15). The psychology of fake news. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved 2022, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136466132100051
Roozenbeek, J., Schneider, C. R., Dryhurst, S., Kerr, J., Freeman, A. L. J., Recchia, G., Bles, A. M. van der, & Linden, S. van der. (2020, October 14). Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. Royal Society Open Science. Retrieved 2022, from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.201199
Singh, K., Lima, G., Cha, M., Cha, C., & Kulshrestha, J. (2022). Misinformation, believability, and vaccine acceptance over 40 countries: Takeaways from the initial phase of the COVID-19 infodemic. ProQuest. Retrieved 2022, from https://www.proquest.com/docview/2627115788?pq-origsite=summon&https://www.proquest.com/coronavirus/advanced
Wilson, S. L., & Wiysonge, C. (2020, October 1). Social Media and vaccine hesitancy. BMJ Global Health. Retrieved 2022, from https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/10/e004206
Written by Douglas Broom, S. W. (2020). Coronavirus has exposed the digital divide like never before. World Economic Forum. Retrieved 2022, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic-digital-divide-internet-data-broadband-mobbile/
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science. Retrieved 2022, from https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aap9559
Zimdars, & McLeod, Kembrew. (2020). Fake news: understanding media and misinformation in the digital age. The MIT Press.