IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nature/v582y2020i7811d10.1038_s41586-020-2281-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The online competition between pro- and anti-vaccination views

Author

Listed:
  • Neil F. Johnson

    (George Washington University
    George Washington University)

  • Nicolas Velásquez

    (George Washington University)

  • Nicholas Johnson Restrepo

    (George Washington University)

  • Rhys Leahy

    (George Washington University)

  • Nicholas Gabriel

    (George Washington University)

  • Sara El Oud

    (George Washington University)

  • Minzhang Zheng

    (Michigan State University)

  • Pedro Manrique

    (Los Alamos National Laboratory)

  • Stefan Wuchty

    (University of Miami)

  • Yonatan Lupu

    (George Washington University)

Abstract

Distrust in scientific expertise1–14 is dangerous. Opposition to vaccination with a future vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, the causal agent of COVID-19, for example, could amplify outbreaks2–4, as happened for measles in 20195,6. Homemade remedies7,8 and falsehoods are being shared widely on the Internet, as well as dismissals of expert advice9–11. There is a lack of understanding about how this distrust evolves at the system level13,14. Here we provide a map of the contention surrounding vaccines that has emerged from the global pool of around three billion Facebook users. Its core reveals a multi-sided landscape of unprecedented intricacy that involves nearly 100 million individuals partitioned into highly dynamic, interconnected clusters across cities, countries, continents and languages. Although smaller in overall size, anti-vaccination clusters manage to become highly entangled with undecided clusters in the main online network, whereas pro-vaccination clusters are more peripheral. Our theoretical framework reproduces the recent explosive growth in anti-vaccination views, and predicts that these views will dominate in a decade. Insights provided by this framework can inform new policies and approaches to interrupt this shift to negative views. Our results challenge the conventional thinking about undecided individuals in issues of contention surrounding health, shed light on other issues of contention such as climate change11, and highlight the key role of network cluster dynamics in multi-species ecologies15.

Suggested Citation

  • Neil F. Johnson & Nicolas Velásquez & Nicholas Johnson Restrepo & Rhys Leahy & Nicholas Gabriel & Sara El Oud & Minzhang Zheng & Pedro Manrique & Stefan Wuchty & Yonatan Lupu, 2020. "The online competition between pro- and anti-vaccination views," Nature, Nature, vol. 582(7811), pages 230-233, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:582:y:2020:i:7811:d:10.1038_s41586-020-2281-1
    DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2281-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2281-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41586-020-2281-1?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daziano, Ricardo & Budziński, Wiktor, 2023. "Evolution of preferences for COVID-19 vaccine throughout the pandemic – The choice experiment approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 332(C).
    2. Buechel, Berno & Klößner, Stefan & Meng, Fanyuan & Nassar, Anis, 2023. "Misinformation due to asymmetric information sharing," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    3. Rotem Botvinik-Nezer & Matt Jones & Tor D. Wager, 2023. "A belief systems analysis of fraud beliefs following the 2020 US election," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(7), pages 1106-1119, July.
    4. Amelia S Knopf & Peter Krombach & Amy J Katz & Rebecca Baker & Gregory Zimet, 2021. "Measuring research mistrust in adolescents and adults: Validity and reliability of an adapted version of the Group-Based Medical Mistrust Scale," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-9, January.
    5. Matúš Medo & Manuel S. Mariani & Linyuan Lü, 2022. "The simple regularities in the dynamics of online news impact," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 629-646, May.
    6. Argyris, Young Anna & Kim, Yongsuk & Roscizewski, Alexa & Song, Won, 2021. "The mediating role of vaccine hesitancy between maternal engagement with anti- and pro-vaccine social media posts and adolescent HPV-vaccine uptake rates in the US: The perspective of loss aversion in," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    7. Josh Bullock & Justin E. Lane & F. LeRon Shults, 2022. "What causes COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy? Ignorance and the lack of bliss in the United Kingdom," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-7, December.
    8. Wang, Jianwei & Xu, Wenshu & Chen, Wei & Yu, Fengyuan & He, Jialu, 2021. "Information sharing can suppress the spread of epidemics: Voluntary vaccination game on two-layer networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 583(C).
    9. Shasha Teng & Nan Jiang & Kok Wei Khong, 2022. "Using big data to understand the online ecology of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    10. Matteo Bizzarri & Fabrizio Panebianco & Paolo Pin, 2020. "Epidemic dynamics with homophily, vaccination choices, and pseudoscience attitudes," Papers 2007.08523, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2021.
    11. Benjamin D. Horne & Natalie M. Rice & Catherine A. Luther & Damian J. Ruck & Joshua Borycz & Suzie L. Allard & Michael Fitzgerald & Oleg Manaev & Brandon C. Prins & Maureen Taylor & R. Alexander Bentl, 2023. "Generational effects of culture and digital media in former Soviet Republics," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    12. Kunihiro Miyazaki & Takayuki Uchiba & Kenji Tanaka & Kazutoshi Sasahara, 2022. "Aggressive behaviour of anti-vaxxers and their toxic replies in English and Japanese," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8, December.
    13. Salvatore Vilella & Mirko Lai & Daniela Paolotti & Giancarlo Ruffo, 2020. "Immigration as a Divisive Topic: Clusters and Content Diffusion in the Italian Twitter Debate," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-22, October.

    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:nat:nature:v:582:y:2020:i:7811:d:10.1038_s41586-020-2281-1. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    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.