The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Viral suspicions: Vaccine hesitancy in the Web 2.0.
Abstract
A huge and diverse amount of information is available online. In 4 studies, we provided complementary evidence about the psychosocial processes involved in online information gathering about vaccinations and the associated relation with trust in their safety. Study 1 investigated the relation between Italian Google inquiries and vaccine coverage for 0- to 2-year-old Italian children from 2000 and 2015, showing a correlation that turned negative over time. In Study 2, participants randomly assigned to a message providing a dual perspective (false balance condition) endorsed more conspiracy beliefs, which, in turn, reduced trust in vaccines compared with provaccine, antivaccine, and control messages. In Study 3, participants actively selected Google outputs that were in line with their opinion, and this confirmatory bias was particularly strong among participants distrusting vaccination. This association was disrupted by the exposure to provaccine messages, but only if antivaccine alternatives were absent. In Study 4, exposure to online comments questioning the human papilloma virus vaccination influenced attitudes toward the vaccination in a sample of not-yet-vaccinated young women. Practical implications for the way that media cover vaccination topics and for interventions addressing vaccine hesitancy are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“During the COVID-19 pandemic, digital media use was reported to be negatively associated with trust in vaccines85,86.”
From A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy (2022) · cites this paper as [86]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy
Lorenz-Spreen, P., Oswald, L., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2022) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-022-01460-1 · Cited by 348
Metadata
- Authors
- Salvador Casara, B. G., Suitner, C., & Bettinsoli, M. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied
- Published
- 2019-09
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 354-371
- ISSN
- 1076-898X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2192
- OpenAlex
- W2919110378
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 10.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- AIR-Campus
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Keywords
- vaccine hesitancy, online information seeking, Google search queries, vaccination coverage, conspiracy beliefs, false balance, confirmation bias, HPV vaccination, young women, psychosocial processes
- MeSH terms
- Vaccination Refusal, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Italy, Male, Mass Media, Vaccination, Vaccines, Internet, Consumer Health Information, Health Communication
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Viral suspicions: Vaccine hesitancy in the Web 2.0. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/xap0000211
- The paper
- Salvador Casara, B. G., Suitner, C., & Bettinsoli, M. L. (2019). Viral suspicions: Vaccine hesitancy in the Web 2.0. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000211