School of Communication, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
J Med Internet Res. 2023 Mar 23;25:e41882. doi: 10.2196/41882.
Vaccine hesitancy has been deemed one of the top 10 threats to global health. Antivaccine information on social media is a major barrier to addressing vaccine hesitancy. Understanding how vaccine proponents and opponents interact with each other on social media may help address vaccine hesitancy.
We aimed to examine conversations between vaccine proponents and opponents on Reddit to understand whether homophily in web-based conversations impedes opinion exchange, whether people are able to accommodate their languages to each other in web-based conversations, and whether engaging with opposing viewpoints stimulates higher levels of analytical thinking.
We analyzed large-scale conversational text data about human vaccines on Reddit from 2016 to 2018. Using deep neural network language models and computer-assisted conversational analyses, we obtained each Redditor's stance on vaccines, each post's stance on vaccines, each Redditor's language coordination score, and each post or comment's analytical thinking score. We then performed chi-square tests, 2-tailed t tests, and multilevel modeling to test 3 questions of interest.
The results show that both provaccine and antivaccine Redditors are more likely to selectively respond to Redditors who indicate similar views on vaccines (P<.001). When Redditors interact with others who hold opposing views on vaccines, both provaccine and antivaccine Redditors accommodate their language to out-group members (provaccine Redditors: P=.044; antivaccine Redditors: P=.047) and show no difference in analytical thinking compared with interacting with congruent views (P=.63), suggesting that Redditors do not engage in motivated reasoning. Antivaccine Redditors, on average, showed higher analytical thinking in their posts and comments than provaccine Redditors (P<.001).
This study shows that although vaccine proponents and opponents selectively communicate with their in-group members on Reddit, they accommodate their language and do not engage in motivated reasoning when communicating with out-group members. These findings may have implications for the design of provaccine campaigns on social media.
疫苗犹豫被认为是全球健康的十大威胁之一。社交媒体上的反疫苗信息是解决疫苗犹豫的主要障碍。了解疫苗支持者和反对者如何在社交媒体上相互交流,可能有助于解决疫苗犹豫问题。
我们旨在研究 Reddit 上疫苗支持者和反对者之间的对话,以了解网络对话中的同质性是否阻碍意见交流,人们是否能够在网络对话中相互调整语言,以及与相反观点接触是否会激发更高水平的分析思维。
我们分析了 2016 年至 2018 年 Reddit 上关于人类疫苗的大规模对话文本数据。使用深度神经网络语言模型和计算机辅助对话分析,我们获得了每个 Redditor 对疫苗的立场、每个帖子对疫苗的立场、每个 Redditor 的语言协调得分,以及每个帖子或评论的分析思维得分。然后,我们进行了卡方检验、双尾 t 检验和多层次建模,以检验 3 个感兴趣的问题。
结果表明,无论是赞成疫苗的还是反对疫苗的 Redditor,他们更有可能有选择地回复那些对疫苗持相似观点的 Redditor(P<.001)。当 Redditor 与对疫苗持相反观点的其他人互动时,赞成疫苗和反对疫苗的 Redditor 都会调整他们的语言以适应外群体成员(赞成疫苗的 Redditor:P=.044;反对疫苗的 Redditor:P=.047),并且与与自己一致的观点互动相比,他们在分析思维上没有差异(P=.63),这表明 Redditor 不会进行动机推理。平均而言,反对疫苗的 Redditor 在他们的帖子和评论中表现出更高的分析思维,而赞成疫苗的 Redditor 则不然(P<.001)。
本研究表明,尽管疫苗支持者和反对者在 Reddit 上有选择地与他们的同组成员交流,但当与外组成员交流时,他们会调整自己的语言,并且不会进行动机推理。这些发现可能对社交媒体上的疫苗宣传活动设计具有启示意义。