IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/srbeha/v40y2023i3p595-610.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Simulating the influence of Facebook fan pages on individual attitudes toward vaccination using agent‐based modelling

Author

Listed:
  • Muhammad Al Atiqi
  • Shuang Chang
  • Hiroshi Deguchi

Abstract

The anti‐vaccination movement is dangerous because of its influence on vaccine hesitancy. Nowadays, social media platforms become significant sources of anti‐vaccination information; therefore, combating their proliferation needs to be addressed by the relevant authorities. Previous studies suggested two policies to mitigate the negative influence of anti‐vaccination information online: attaching caution banners from healthcare authorities and engaging in censorship of anti‐vaccine supporting information providers. However, these recommendations were obtained without considering how the users form their sentiments. In this paper, we explore the influence of the existing network of vaccination‐related Facebook pages on an individual user's vaccination sentiment using agent‐based modelling (ABM). We use the ABM implementation of the Zaller model to convert the user's information consumption to their vaccination sentiment. Our simulation results show that the application of the two policies leads to improved sentiment on vaccination, reinforcing existing suggestions obtained by different methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Muhammad Al Atiqi & Shuang Chang & Hiroshi Deguchi, 2023. "Simulating the influence of Facebook fan pages on individual attitudes toward vaccination using agent‐based modelling," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 595-610, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:40:y:2023:i:3:p:595-610
    DOI: 10.1002/sres.2889
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2889
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sres.2889?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rainer Hegselmann & Ulrich Krause, 2002. "Opinion Dynamics and Bounded Confidence Models, Analysis and Simulation," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 5(3), pages 1-2.
    2. Kazutoshi Sasahara & Wen Chen & Hao Peng & Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia & Alessandro Flammini & Filippo Menczer, 2021. "Social influence and unfollowing accelerate the emergence of echo chambers," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 381-402, May.
    3. Martin Hohnisch & Sabine Pittnauer & Dietrich Stauffer, 2008. "A percolation-based model explaining delayed takeoff in new-product diffusion," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 17(5), pages 1001-1017, October.
    4. Jan-Philipp Fränken & Toby Pilditch, 2021. "Cascades Across Networks Are Sufficient for the Formation of Echo Chambers: An Agent-Based Model," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 24(3), pages 1-1.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ni, Xuelian & Xiong, Fei & Pan, Shirui & Chen, Hongshu & Wu, Jia & Wang, Liang, 2023. "How heterogeneous social influence acts on human decision-making in online social networks," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    2. Wu, Yue & Li, Linjiao & Yu, Qiannan & Gan, Jiaxin & Zhang, Yi, 2023. "Strategies for reducing polarization in social networks," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    3. Pérez-Martínez, H. & Bauzá Mingueza, F. & Soriano-Paños, D. & Gómez-Gardeñes, J. & Floría, L.M., 2023. "Polarized opinion states in static networks driven by limited information horizons," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 175(P1).
    4. Tan, Eugene & Stemler, Thomas & Small, Michael, 2024. "Cognitive dissonance and introversion effects on opinion dynamics and echo chamber formation," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 654(C).
    5. Elmar Kiesling & Markus Günther & Christian Stummer & Lea Wakolbinger, 2012. "Agent-based simulation of innovation diffusion: a review," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 20(2), pages 183-230, June.
    6. Byrka, Katarzyna & Jȩdrzejewski, Arkadiusz & Sznajd-Weron, Katarzyna & Weron, Rafał, 2016. "Difficulty is critical: The importance of social factors in modeling diffusion of green products and practices," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 723-735.
    7. Breschi, Valentina & Ravazzi, Chiara & Strada, Silvia & Dabbene, Fabrizio & Tanelli, Mara, 2023. "Driving electric vehicles’ mass adoption: An architecture for the design of human-centric policies to meet climate and societal goals," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    8. Ugo Bolletta & Paolo Pin, 2024. "Dynamic opinion updating with endogenous networks," Papers 2405.01341, arXiv.org.
    9. Kozitsin, Ivan V., 2024. "Optimal control in opinion dynamics models: diversity of influence mechanisms and complex influence hierarchies," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    10. Deffuant, Guillaume & Huet, Sylvie, 2007. "Propagation effects of filtering incongruent information," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(8), pages 816-825, August.
    11. Buechel, Berno & Hellmann, Tim & Klößner, Stefan, 2015. "Opinion dynamics and wisdom under conformity," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 240-257.
    12. Biondo, A.E. & Pluchino, A. & Rapisarda, A., 2018. "Modeling surveys effects in political competitions," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 503(C), pages 714-726.
    13. Giacomo Vaccario & Mario V. Tomasello & Claudio J. Tessone & Frank Schweitzer, 2018. "Quantifying knowledge exchange in R&D networks: a data-driven model," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 461-493, August.
    14. Fernandes, Marcos R., 2023. "Confirmation bias in social networks," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 59-76.
    15. Rusinowska, Agnieszka & Taalaibekova, Akylai, 2019. "Opinion formation and targeting when persuaders have extreme and centrist opinions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 9-27.
    16. Shang, Lihui & Zhao, Mingming & Ai, Jun & Su, Zhan, 2021. "Opinion evolution in the Sznajd model on interdependent chains," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 565(C).
    17. D’Orazio, Paola & Valente, Marco, 2019. "The role of finance in environmental innovation diffusion: An evolutionary modeling approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 417-439.
    18. Han, Wenchen & Gao, Shun & Huang, Changwei & Yang, Junzhong, 2022. "Non-consensus states in circular opinion model with repulsive interaction," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 585(C).
    19. Maria Letizia Bertotti & Marco Menale, 2024. "Opinion dynamics models describing the emergence of polarization phenomena," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 2591-2612, December.
    20. Fabio Bagagiolo & Dario Bauso & Raffaele Pesenti, 2016. "Mean-Field Game Modeling the Bandwagon Effect with Activation Costs," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 6(4), pages 456-476, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:40:y:2023:i:3:p:595-610. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/1092-7026 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.