The Impact of Perceived Experts on Vaccine Misinformation

Vaccine refusal is a serious issue for public health, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many people have declined to get vaccinated, and this choice has led to a significant number of preventable deaths. In the United States alone, it is believed that around 232,000 COVID-19 deaths during a 15-month period could have been avoided if those individuals had received the vaccine.

One of the reasons people refuse vaccines is Misinformation. This misinformation often spreads via Social Media, which has become a key source for both accurate and misleading information about vaccines. The internet can help connect people with credible information, but it can also mislead them, making it important to analyze social media to better understand public attitudes towards vaccination.

#The Role of Social Media

Social media platforms allow people to share their thoughts and opinions quickly. Some users, known as influencers, have a large following and can spread information to many people. This can be both good and bad. Influencers can share correct information that encourages vaccination, but they can also spread misinformation that leads to vaccine reluctance.

Researchers have suggested that by monitoring social media activity, we can gauge public sentiment on vaccines and identify specific patterns in how people make decisions regarding vaccinations. Influencers can then be targeted in efforts to share accurate information or fight against harmful falsehoods.

#Trust and Credibility

When searching for information, people often consider who is providing the information. This is where the concept of prestige bias comes into play. Prestige bias is when individuals trust information more if it comes from someone with higher status, such as a medical professional or a scientist. Credentials like degrees can make someone seem more trustworthy. However, not all individuals who present themselves as experts truly have the necessary knowledge.

In this discussion, we will focus on perceived experts, individuals or organizations that appear knowledgeable about medicine on social media, despite the fact that their credentials may not always be reliable. Some of these perceived experts may be spreading misinformation against vaccines.

#The Influence of Perceived Experts

Medical professionals and organizations are usually trusted sources of information about vaccines. They can effectively convince others to get vaccinated and correct mistaken beliefs. However, there are also perceived experts who do not support vaccination and instead promote false claims about vaccines.

For instance, one well-known individual, Andrew Wakefield, claimed that vaccines cause autism, significantly impacting public belief in vaccines. Additionally, perceived experts appeared in various Anti-Vaccine documentaries and were involved in the spread of misinformation on social media. Some of these influencers, labeled as the "Disinformation Dozen," were responsible for a large amount of anti-vaccine content online and often held medical credentials.

Despite previous studies identifying some anti-vaccine influencers, there has been little investigation into how many perceived experts are opposed to vaccines or how influential they really are in the online conversation about vaccination.

#Understanding the Online Environment

Social media users share all kinds of information, including both scientific research and false claims. Anti-vaccine documentaries often use appealing visuals and emphasize the authority of perceived experts featured in them. While vaccine opponents may reject scientific consensus, many still engage with peer-reviewed studies but may do so in misleading ways.

Low-quality sources filled with misinformation circulate widely within anti-vaccine communities and contribute to hesitancy toward vaccines. This study aims to examine how perceived experts within the anti-vaccine community share misinformation in comparison to other users.

#Assessing Perceived Expert Influence

After analyzing the types of information shared by perceived experts, it is also essential to evaluate how far-reaching their influence is. We can look at various measures of centrality to understand how important a user is within a network. Some centrality metrics include:

• Degree Centrality: The total number of direct connections a user has.
• Betweenness Centrality: How often a user lies on the shortest path between two other users.
• Eigenvector Centrality: Takes into account the importance of a user's connections.

By analyzing social media data, we can understand whether perceived experts hold significant positions in spreading information about vaccines and whether their reach is broader than that of other users.

#The Anti-Vaccine Community on Twitter

In our analysis, more than 7,700 accounts were examined, resulting in thousands of tweets related to COVID-19 vaccines. A significant portion of these accounts belonged to individual users who communicated primarily in English. Among these users, we found that 13.1% were perceived experts.

In both the anti-vaccine and Pro-Vaccine communities, perceived experts play an important role in shaping discussions. However, they make up a larger share of the pro-vaccine community compared to the anti-vaccine community. The two communities were linked by certain bridging users, some of whom were perceived experts.

#How Perceived Experts Share Information

The analysis revealed clear differences in the types of links shared within the anti-vaccine and pro-vaccine communities. Perceived experts in the anti-vaccine community frequently shared low-quality sources, while they also shared academic research findings at higher rates than other users.

Specifically, perceived experts in the anti-vaccine community often shared unreliable sources. In contrast, users in the pro-vaccine community shared very few links from low-quality sources. This suggests that perceived experts in the anti-vaccine community contribute notably to the spread of misinformation.

#Central Roles of Perceived Experts

Even though perceived experts are a small percentage of the overall user base, they are often crucial figures in the network. They hold key positions based on centrality metrics, which show that they substantially influence discussions. These perceived experts are more likely to appear among the most connected users in the anti-vaccine community, serving as vital bridges between opposing viewpoints.

In the coengagement network of users tweeting about COVID-19 vaccines, perceived experts made up a notable share of those connecting pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine communities. This positioning gives them a unique ability to sway public opinion both ways.

#Engagement Levels of Perceived Experts

Using matching techniques, it was shown that perceived experts generally received higher engagement on their posts compared to non-experts. In the anti-vaccine community, perceived experts garnered 20% more retweets and 37% more likes compared to expected values. On the other hand, in the pro-vaccine community, perceived experts also showed higher engagement levels overall.

#Influence of Perceived Experts on Public Opinion

The findings suggest that perceived experts play a significant role in the anti-vaccine conversation. They share a mix of credible sources and misinformation, demonstrating how misinformation can be presented in a way that seems scientific. These perceived experts are prominent figures within the anti-vaccine community, and their influence extends beyond just retweets and likes.

These results support the notion that perceived experts are not only key contributors to vaccine conversations, but they may also amplify misinformation. Given their connections and the engagement they receive, it is crucial to consider how these perceived experts can affect public opinion.

#Implications for Public Health Communication

The findings highlight the importance of recognizing the role of perceived experts in vaccine discussions. Educational efforts aimed at increasing the public's trust in reliable sources should be developed. This includes teaching people how to critically assess the credibility of sources, especially in the context of perceived experts who spread low-quality information.

While the study focuses on social media, it also suggests that there might be broader implications for how to counter vaccine misinformation found in various settings. It emphasizes the need for effective communication strategies that share accurate information while addressing the concerns of those who are skeptical about vaccines.

#Conclusion

The analysis reveals that there is a sizable group of perceived experts who contribute to the spread of misinformation about vaccines, particularly in anti-vaccine communities. By understanding their influence, public health initiatives can be better crafted to address misconceptions and ultimately encourage vaccine uptake. Educational efforts should aim at verifying sources and providing clear messages that help the public discern credible information from falsehoods. This approach is essential to ensure that vaccine hesitancy is effectively addressed and that accurate health information remains accessible.

Overall, the presence of perceived experts in social media emphasizes the need for ongoing vigilance and strategic efforts to combat misinformation in the context of public health, especially when it comes to vaccines.