IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0239826.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing covariation among vaccine hesitancy and broader beliefs within Twitter and survey data

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah A Nowak
  • Christine Chen
  • Andrew M Parker
  • Courtney A Gidengil
  • Luke J Matthews

Abstract

Over the past decade, the percentage of adults in the United States who use some form of social media has roughly doubled, increasing from 36 percent in early 2009 to 72 percent in 2019. There has been a corresponding increase in research aimed at understanding opinions and beliefs that are expressed online. However, the generalizability of findings from social media research is a subject of ongoing debate. Social media platforms are conduits of both information and misinformation about vaccines and vaccine hesitancy. Our research objective was to examine whether we can draw similar conclusions from Twitter and national survey data about the relationship between vaccine hesitancy and a broader set of beliefs. In 2018 we conducted a nationally representative survey of parents in the United States informed by a literature review to ask their views on a range of topics, including vaccine side effects, conspiracy theories, and understanding of science. We developed a set of keyword-based queries corresponding to each of the belief items from the survey and pulled matching tweets from 2017. We performed the data pull of the most recent full year of data in 2018. Our primary measures of belief covariation were the loadings and scores of the first principal components obtained using principal component analysis (PCA) from the two sources. We found that, after using manually coded weblinks in tweets to infer stance, there was good qualitative agreement between the first principal component loadings and scores using survey and Twitter data. This held true after we took the additional processing step of resampling the Twitter data based on the number of topics that an individual tweeted about, as a means of correcting for differential representation for elicited (survey) vs. volunteered (Twitter) beliefs. Overall, the results show that analyses using Twitter data may be generalizable in certain contexts, such as assessing belief covariation.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah A Nowak & Christine Chen & Andrew M Parker & Courtney A Gidengil & Luke J Matthews, 2020. "Comparing covariation among vaccine hesitancy and broader beliefs within Twitter and survey data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-16, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0239826
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239826
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239826
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239826&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0239826?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
    ---><---

    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:plo:pone00:0239826. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.