The Instagram Infodemic: Cobranding of Conspiracy Theories, Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Authority-Questioning Beliefs

Quinn, Emma; Fazel, Sajjad S; Peters, Cheryl

doi:10.1089/cyber.2020.0663

Cited by 53 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The characteristics of the information sources, such as the top domains and URLs, and the implied messages in the infodemic Twitter network support the claim that Twitter was a channel for the infodemic [ 28 ], as well as Instagram [ 29 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Within the social network world, COVID-19 is frequently presented in association with authority-questioning beliefs [ 29 ]. A widespread skepticism toward the official account of truth seems to be a shared element of distinct millennial groups and conspiracist groups with various political orientations, such as evangelical millennialism, the anti-vaccine movement, and New Age, left-wing and right-wing conspiracists [ 75 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Irrational Beliefs about COVID-19: A Scoping Review

Magarini

Pinelli

Sinisi

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the emergence of the recent Coronavirus Disease of 2019 (COVID-19) and its spread as a pandemic, there has been a parallel spread of false and misleading information, known as an infodemic. The COVID-19 infodemic has induced distrust in scientific communities, governments, institutions and the population, and a confidence crisis that has led to harmful health behaviours, also impacting on mental health. The aim of this study is to provide a scoping review of the scientific literature about COVID-19-related misinformation and conspiracy theories, focusing on the construction of a conceptual framework which is useful for the interpretation of the conspiracy theory phenomenon surrounding COVID-19, and its consequences. Particular socio-environmental conditions (i.e., low educational level, younger age), psychological processes and attitudes (such as low levels of epistemic trust, the avoidance of uncertainty, extraversion, collective narcissism, and a conspiracy-prone mindset), and contextual factors (e.g., high levels of self-perceived risk and anxiety) seem to underpin the adherence to beliefs that are not solely the domain of paranoids and extremists but a widespread phenomenon that has caused important health, social and political consequences.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Irrational Beliefs about COVID-19: A Scoping Review

Magarini

Pinelli

Sinisi

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interestingly, participants who reported television as a source of information about COVID-19 were less likely to have high COVID-19 stigma; no other source of information was associated with higher or lower stigma or with medical mistrust. The use of television over social media for information in South Africa, with the latter linked frequently to COVID-19 misinformation [40][41][42][43][44] which can in turn fuel stigma, may provide access to more unbiased, comprehensive information on the virus that may counteract stigma.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In South Africa, medical mistrust and conspiracy theories have been fueled by a long-standing history of racist policies and years of targeted government misinformation regarding the HIV epidemic [38,39]. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a preponderance of misinformation worldwide, often spread by social media [40][41][42][43][44], contributing to conspiracy theories [45,46] and creating risk for increased medical mistrust.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical Mistrust and Stigma Associated with COVID-19 Among People Living with HIV in South Africa

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We evaluated COVID-19 stigma and medical mistrust among people living with HIV in South Africa. We conducted telephone interviews with participants in a prospective study of a decentralized antiretroviral therapy program. Scales assessing medical mistrust, conspiracy beliefs, anticipated and internalized stigma, and stereotypes specific to COVID-19 were adapted primarily from the HIV literature, with higher scores indicating more stigma or mistrust. Among 303 participants, the median stigma summary score was 4 [interquartile range (IQR) 0–8; possible range 0–24] and 6 (IQR 2–9) for mistrust (possible range 0–28). A substantial proportion of participants agreed or strongly agreed with at least one item assessing stigma (54%) or mistrust (43%). Higher COVID-19 stigma was associated with female gender and antecedent HIV stigma, and lower stigma with reporting television as a source of information on COVID-19. Further efforts should focus on effects of stigma and mistrust on protective health behaviors and vaccine hesitancy.

show abstract

“…In this arena, researchers are committed to solving the most diverse problems caused by the new coronavirus. In addition to the research developed in the different sciences fields and the medical sphere, researchers from social, cognitive, computational, and information sciences have dedicated themselves to understanding informational problems associated with the social media dilemma and its potential of undermining the effort made by institutions that struggle to control the destructive effects of the virus on society (Marin 2020;Pennycook et al 2020;Quinn, Fazel, Peters 2020;Stephens 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retractions and post-retraction citations in the COVID-19 infodemic: is Academia spreading misinformation?

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The speed in producing information and the rush to publish scientific articles on COVID-19 in several knowledge areas have resulted in what is known as an infodemic also in the scientific field, potentially producing inaccurate information and sources of misinformation at scholarly communication. This has led to some articles being retracted or withdrawn due to unintentional errors or deliberate misconduct, but they continue to be cited. This article (i) gives an overview of the COVID-19 retracted articles and preprints, and (ii) analyses a set of post-retraction citations in the context of the COVID-19 infodemic. We analyzed 56 retracted articles and preprints by using the list available in the section on “retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers” in the Retraction Watch (RW) webpage. We found that 64.3% of these retractions were articles published in journals, 33.9% were uploaded in preprints servers, and 1.8% conference papers. We also analyzed 162 eligible articles out of 612 records identified by using the Google Scholar search engine. This research found that an article from The Lancet continued to be cited even after being retracted. In this case, we identified 214 post-retraction citations, of which 38% were negative (n=81), 32% were neutral (n=69), and 30% were positive citations (n=64)

show abstract

The Instagram Infodemic: Cobranding of Conspiracy Theories, Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Authority-Questioning Beliefs

Cited by 53 publications

References 10 publications

Irrational Beliefs about COVID-19: A Scoping Review

Irrational Beliefs about COVID-19: A Scoping Review

Medical Mistrust and Stigma Associated with COVID-19 Among People Living with HIV in South Africa

Retractions and post-retraction citations in the COVID-19 infodemic: is Academia spreading misinformation?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About