When the influencer says jump! How influencer signaling affects engagement with COVID-19 misinformation

Wasike, Ben

doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115497

Cited by 15 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Guided by this theory, Wagner and Skowronski (2019) designed an experiment where they exposed participants to a list of words to examine whether prior exposure to false information impaired recognition memory. And Wasike (2022) adopted it to examine how social media influencers impact people's engagement with COVID‐19 misinformation. Signal detection theory is a useful tool for identifying misinformation and biased responses.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Investigation of the Use of Theories in Misinformation Studies

Ogbadu‐Oladapo,

Chung,

et al. 2023

Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines social science and humanity theories that have been applied to studies dealing with misinformation. We identified 273 articles published from 2012 to 2023 from Web of Science, Scopus, and ScienceDirect. These articles are empirical studies that have applied one or more social science or humanity theories. Applying content analysis approach, we identified 124 theories that authors have used in their studies. These theories belong to different disciplines or fields, such as political science, psychology, communication, sociology, and economics. We discuss the top 11 theories and how they have been used to understand misinformation and its impacts. This study provides insights into understanding current misinformation studies and rich resources for information evaluation and information literacy education.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Investigation of the Use of Theories in Misinformation Studies

Ogbadu‐Oladapo,

Chung,

et al. 2023

Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The social media promotion of health products can often be based on personal anecdotes and opinions or, at worst, on pseudoscience or conspiracy theories. For example, studies now have identified the impact that influential social media has on health misinformation across various conditions [20][21][22][23], including most recently widespread COVID-19 misinformation [24,25] that has negatively affected people's health behaviors [26,27]. However, little is known about how health tests are promoted on social media, whether the information provided is accurate and balanced, and if there is transparency around conflicts of interest.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Media Promotion of Health Tests With Potential for Overdiagnosis or Overuse: Protocol for a Content Analysis

Nickel,

Heiss,

Shih

et al. 2024

JMIR Res Protoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In recent years, social media have emerged as important spaces for commercial marketing of health tests, which can be used for the screening and diagnosis of otherwise generally healthy people. However, little is known about how health tests are promoted on social media, whether the information provided is accurate and balanced, and if there is transparency around conflicts of interest. Objective This study aims to understand and quantify how social media is being used to discuss or promote health tests with the potential for overdiagnosis or overuse to generally healthy people. Methods Content analysis of social media posts on the anti-Mullerian hormone test, whole-body magnetic resonance imaging scan, multicancer early detection, testosterone test, and gut microbe test from influential international social media accounts on Instagram and TikTok. The 5 tests have been identified as having the following criteria: (1) there are evidence-based concerns about overdiagnosis or overuse, (2) there is evidence or concerns that the results of tests do not lead to improved health outcomes for generally healthy people and may cause harm or waste, and (3) the tests are being promoted on social media to generally healthy people. English language text-only posts, images, infographics, articles, recorded videos including reels, and audio-only posts are included. Posts from accounts with <1000 followers as well as stories, live videos, and non-English posts are excluded. Using keywords related to the test, the top posts were searched and screened until there were 100 eligible posts from each platform for each test (total of 1000 posts). Data from the caption, video, and on-screen text are being summarized and extracted into a Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation) spreadsheet and included in the analysis. The analysis will take a combined inductive approach when generating key themes and a deductive approach using a prespecified framework. Quantitative data will be analyzed in Stata SE (version 18.0; Stata Corp). Results Data on Instagram and TikTok have been searched and screened. Analysis has now commenced. The findings will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed international medical journals and will also be presented at national and international conferences in late 2024 and 2025. Conclusions This study will contribute to the limited evidence base on the nature of the relationship between social media and the problems of overdiagnosis and overuse of health care services. This understanding is essential to develop strategies to mitigate potential harm and plan solutions, with the aim of helping to protect members of the public from being marketed low-value tests, becoming patients unnecessarily, and taking resources away from genuine needs within the health system. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/56899

show abstract

“…Sivelä 2021; Singh et al 2022; The Lancet Infectious Diseases 2020; The Lancet Rheumatology 2021; Van Der Linden et al 2021; Yousuf et al 2021) and social scientific(Donovan 2020b;Herasimenka et al 2023;Jamison et al 2020;Koon et al 2021;Labbé et al 2022;Wasike 2022). …”

unclassified

Trust Us - We Are the (Covid-19 Misinformation) Experts: A critical scoping review of expert meanings of ‘misinformation’ in the Covid era

Chaufan,

Hemsing,

Heredia

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Since the WHO declared Covid-19 a pandemic, prominent social actors and institutions have warned about the threat of misinformation, i.e., false or misleading information, calling on the public to join in a global crusade against it. However, neither the premises underlying expert claims nor the standards that experts use to identify truth from falsehood have been appraised. Objectives: We conducted a critical scoping review of the medical and social scientific literature, examining what this literature means by misinformation. Methods: We followed the framework of Arksey and O’Malley for scoping reviews informed by the critical perspective of the “what is the problem represented to be” approach to policy analysis. Medical sources were identified from PubMed and from three medical journals - the British Medical Journal, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine – and social science sources were identified from the journal Social Science & Medicine and from within refereed publications of self-identified and socially recognized “misinformation experts”, using a specified combination of search terms (e.g., “covid-19”; “misinformation”). Data were charted independently by two researchers. The protocol was registered in Open Science Frame. Findings: Across the data, we found that verifiability relied largely on the claims of socially recognized epistemic authorities to the exclusion of independent evidentiary standards. Further, “epistemic authority” did not depend on subject matter expertise, but rather on a new type of “expertise” - in misinformation itself. Finally, policy solutions to the alleged threat that misinformation poses to democracy and human rights called for, paradoxically, suppressing information unverified, and debate unmanaged, by experts, in the name of protecting democracy and rights. Notably, we identified no pockets of resistance to these dominant meanings and uses. Conclusions: We assess the implications of our findings for democratic public policy, and for fundamental rights and freedoms. The study is part of a larger project examining geopolitics, medicalization, and social control in the Covid era.

show abstract

When the influencer says jump! How influencer signaling affects engagement with COVID-19 misinformation

Cited by 15 publications

References 69 publications

An Investigation of the Use of Theories in Misinformation Studies

An Investigation of the Use of Theories in Misinformation Studies

Social Media Promotion of Health Tests With Potential for Overdiagnosis or Overuse: Protocol for a Content Analysis

Trust Us - We Are the (Covid-19 Misinformation) Experts: A critical scoping review of expert meanings of ‘misinformation’ in the Covid era

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About