Social media behavior is associated with vaccine hesitancy
Open accessAbstract
Understanding how vaccine hesitancy relates to online behavior is crucial for addressing current and future disease outbreaks. We combined survey data measuring attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine with Twitter data in two studies (N1 = 464 Twitter users, N2 = 1,600 Twitter users) with preregistered hypotheses to examine how real-world social media behavior is associated with vaccine hesitancy in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK). In Study 1, we found that following the accounts of US Republican politicians or hyper-partisan/low-quality news sites were associated with lower confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine—even when controlling for key demographics such as self-reported political ideology and education. US right-wing influencers (e.g. Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson) had followers with the lowest confidence in the vaccine. Network analysis revealed that participants who were low and high in vaccine confidence separated into two distinct communities (or “echo chambers”), and centrality in the more right-wing community was associated with vaccine hesitancy in the US, but not in the UK. In Study 2, we found that one's likelihood of not getting the vaccine was associated with retweeting and favoriting low-quality news websites on Twitter. Altogether, we show that vaccine hesitancy is associated with following, sharing, and interacting with low-quality information online, as well as centrality within a conservative-leaning online community in the US. These results illustrate the potential challenges of encouraging vaccine uptake in a polarized social media environment.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Pro-vaccine individuals in the United States tended to follow liberal politicians on Twitter, whereas anti-vaccine individuals were more likely to follow conservative politicians and influencers.
“Pro-vaccine individuals in the United States tended to follow liberal politicians on Twitter (such as Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton), whereas anti-vaccine individuals were more likely to follow conservative politicians and influencers (such as Candace Owens or Tucker Carlson).”
From Social Media and Morality. (2024) · cites this paper as Rathje et al. 2022
Americans with anti-vaccine and pro-vaccine attitudes clustered into distinct echo chambers on Twitter.
“Americans with anti-vaccine and pro-vaccine attitudes clustered into distinct echo chambers on Twitter (Rathje et al. 2022).”
From Social Media and Morality. (2024) · cites this paper as Rathje et al. 2022
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants
MacDonald, N. E. (2015) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.036 · Cited by 5,573 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic and preventing future disease outbreaks requires understanding and overcoming vaccine hesitancy (1, 2).”
BackgroundUsing social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response
Bavel, J. J. V., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., Crockett, M. J., Crum, A. J., Douglas, K. M., Druckman, J. N., et al. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z · Cited by 4,964 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic and preventing future disease outbreaks requires understanding and overcoming vaccine hesitancy (1, 2).”
BackgroundSelf-citationEvaluating Effect Size in Psychological Research: Sense and Nonsense
Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2515245919847202 · Cited by 3,295 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…effect sizes we found were small-to-medium (e.g. r = 0.23 for the correlation between quality of news shared and likelihood of getting the vaccine) (48,49),though other effect sizes were large, such as the difference in vaccine confidence between participants in the liberal community (community A)…”
BackgroundInfluentialZarocostas, J. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30461-x · Cited by 2,344 · see citing works
The echo chamber effect on social media
Cinelli, M., De Francisci Morales, G., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starnini, M. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2023301118 · Cited by 2,092 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Social media also tends to reflect “echo chambers” in which people are selectively exposed to like-minded opinions (3, 23) and form social ties with likeminded others (24).”
BackgroundMeasuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA
Loomba, S., de Figueiredo, A., Piatek, S. J., de Graaf, K., & Larson, H. J. (2021) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1 · Cited by 1,800 · cited 1× · see citing works
“For instance, endorsement of COVID-19 misinformation is associated with reduced intentions to get vaccinated for COVID-19 (9, 10, 11), and exposure to COVID-19 misinformation can lead to a causal reduction in intentions to receive the vaccine (12).”
BackgroundValente, T. W. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1217330 · Cited by 1,271 · see citing works
Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1806781116 · Cited by 947 · cited 14× · see citing works
“A total of 1030 hyper-partisan websites were shared in the full sample,and people shared about 0.77 (SD = 5.34) hyper-partisan news URLs on their Twitter timeline on average.”
BackgroundInfluentialInoculating Against Fake News About COVID-19
van der Linden, S., Roozenbeek, J., & Compton, J. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566790 · Cited by 632 · cited 1× · see citing works
“and vaccine opinions, following the method of Multiple Regression Quadratic Assignment Procedure with Double Semi Partialing (62).”
MethodSelf-citationMisinformation: susceptibility, spread, and interventions to immunize the public
van der Linden, S. (2022) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-022-01713-6 · Cited by 570 · see citing works
Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media
Rathje, S., Van Bavel, J. J., & van der Linden, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2024292118 · Cited by 560 · see citing works
Self-citationPsychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media
Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S., Goldberg, B., Rathje, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abo6254 · Cited by 472 · see citing works
Self-citationDebunking in a world of tribes
Zollo, F., Bessi, A., Del Vicario, M., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Shekhtman, L., Havlin, S., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181821 · Cited by 345 · see citing works
How social media shapes polarization
Van Bavel, J. J., Rathje, S., Harris, E., Robertson, C., & Sternisko, A. (2021) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2021.07.013 · Cited by 192 · see citing works
Self-citationShared partisanship dramatically increases social tie formation in a Twitter field experiment
Mosleh, M., Martel, C., Eckles, D., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2022761118 · Cited by 123 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Social media also tends to reflect “echo chambers” in which people are selectively exposed to like-minded opinions (3, 23) and form social ties with likeminded others (24).”
BackgroundResultHow Can Psychological Science Help Counter the Spread of Fake News?
van der Linden, S., Roozenbeek, J., Maertens, R., Basol, M., Kácha, O., Rathje, S., & Traberg, C. S. (2021) · The Spanish Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1017/sjp.2021.23 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 27
- [4]Johnson NF, et al. 2020. The online competition between pro-and anti-vaccination views. Nature. 582: 230– 233. 32499650
- [9]Romer D, Jamieson KH. 2020. Conspiracy theories as barriers to controlling the spread of COVID-19 in the US. Soc Sci Med. 263: 113356. 32967786 PMC7502362
- [10]Pierri M. et al. 2022. Online misinformation is linked to early COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and refusal. Scientific Reports. 12(5966): 1– 7. 35474313 PMC9043199
- [11]Roozenbeek J, et al. 2020. Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. R Soc Open Sci. 7: 201199. 33204475 PMC7657933
- [13]Lazer D, et al. 2021. The COVID States Project #57: social media news consumption and COVID-19 vaccination rates. 10.31219/osf.io/uvqbs. · DOI · Paper page
- [14]Fridman A, Gershon R, Gneezy A. 2021. COVID-19 and vaccine hesitancy: a longitudinal study. PLoS One. 16: e0250123. 33861765 PMC8051771
- [16]Gollwitzer A, et al. 2020. Partisan differences in physical distancing are linked to health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat Hum Behav. 4: 1– 12. 33139897
- [17]Pink S, Chu J, Druckman J, Rand D, Willer R. 2021. Elite party cues increase vaccination intentions among republicans. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 118: e2106559118. 34312254 PMC8364165
- [18]Pavlovic. et al. 2022. Predicting attitudinal and behavioral responses to COVID-19 pandemic using machine learning. PNAS Nexus. 1(3): 1– 15. PMC9381137 35990802
- [19]Freeman D, et al. 2020. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK: the Oxford coronavirus explanations, attitudes, and narratives survey (Oceans) II. Psychol Med. 1– 15. PMC7804077 33305716
- [20]Van Bavel JJ, et al. 2022. National identity predicts public health support during a global pandemic. Nat Commun. 13: 1– 14. 35082277 PMC8792004
- [21]Pennycook G, McPhetres J, Bago B, Rand DG. 2021. Beliefs about COVID-19 in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States: a novel test of political polarization and motivated reasoning. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 48: (5): 750– 765. PMC9066691 34180276
- [22]Cohen GL. 2003. Party over policy: the dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. J Pers Soc Psychol. 85: 808. 14599246
- [23]Barberá P, Jost JT, Nagler J, Tucker JA, Bonneau R. 2015. Tweeting from left to right: is online political communication more than an echo chamber?. Psychol Sci. 26: 1531– 1542. 26297377
- [27]Brown JR, Enos RD. 2021. The measurement of partisan sorting for 180 million voters. Nat Hum Behav. 5: 1– 11. 33686203
- [30]Mosleh M, Pennycook G, Arechar AA, Rand DG. 2021. Cognitive reflection correlates with behavior on Twitter. Nat Commun. 12: 1– 10. 33568667 PMC7875970
- [33]Guess A, Nagler J, Tucker J. 2019. Less than you think: prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Sci Adv. 5: eaau4586. 30662946 PMC6326755
- [35]Bhadani S, et al. 2022. Political audience diversity and news reliability in algorithmic ranking. Nat Hum Behav. 6: 1– 11. 35115677
- [36]Raghavan UN, Albert R, Kumara S. 2007. Near linear time algorithm to detect community structures in large-scale networks. Phys Rev E. 76: 036106. 17930305
- [39]Brandes U, et al. 2007. On modularity clustering. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng. 20: 172– 188.
- [40]Newman ME. 2003. Mixing patterns in networks. Phys Rev E. 67: 026126. 12636767
- [45]Aral S, Muchnik L, Sundararajan A. 2009. Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 106: 21544– 21549. 20007780 PMC2799846
- [54]Flores A, et al. 2022. Politicians polarize and experts depolarize public support for COVID-19 management policies across countries. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 119: e2117543119. 35042779 PMC8784107
- [55]Larsen B, et al. 2022. Using Donald Trump's COVID-19 vaccine endorsement to give public health a shot in the arm: a large-scale Ad experiment. National Bureau of Economic Research, doi: 10.3386/w29896. · DOI
- [59]Chu J, Pink SL, Willer R. 2021. Religious identity cues increase vaccination intentions and trust in medical experts among American Christians. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 118: e210648111. PMC8670469 34795017
- [60]Guess AM, et al. 2020. A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 117: 15536– 15545. 32571950 PMC7355018
- [64]Maertens R, et al. 2021. The misinformation susceptibility test (MIST): a psychometrically validated measure of news veracity discernment. PsyArXiv. 10.31234/osf.io/gk68h. PMC10991074 37382812 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Using natural language processing to analyse text data in behavioural science
Feuerriegel, S., Maarouf, A., Bär, D., Geissler, D., Schweisthal, J., Pröllochs, N., Robertson, C. E., Rathje, S., Hartmann, J., Mohammad, S. M., et al. (2025) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-024-00392-z · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Self-citationVan Bavel, J. J., Robertson, C. E., del Rosario, K., Rasmussen, J., & Rathje, S. (2024) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-022123-110258 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Self-citationPeople think that social media platforms do (but should not) amplify divisive content
Rathje, S., Robertson, C., Brady, W. J., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2024) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916231190392 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Self-citationPartisan Bias in Political Judgment
Ditto, P. H., Celniker, J. B., Siddiqi, S. S., Güngör, M., & Relihan, D. P. (2025) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-030424-122723 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Mimic Human Collective Behaviour
He, J., Wallis, F., Gvirtz, A., & Rathje, S. (2024) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3096289/v2 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Self-citationPerceived medical disinformation and public trust: commentary on grimes and greenhalgh (2024)
Baigrie, B., & Mercuri, M. (2025) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.14202 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Rathje, S., He, J. K., Roozenbeek, J., Van Bavel, J. J., & van der Linden, S.
- Affiliations
- New York University (US)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Department of Psychology & Center for Neural Science, New York University , New York, NY 10003 , USA
- Corresponding author
- Rathje, Steve
- Venue
- PNAS Nexus
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2022-09-01
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- pgac207-pgac207
- ISSN
- 2752-6542 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9802475
- OpenAlex
- W4297453923
- Cited by
- 100
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 16.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PNAS Nexus (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Apollo (cc-by)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/V011960/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
- Keywords
- vaccine hesitancy, social media behavior, Twitter, political polarization, echo chambers, retweets, political ideology, vaccine uptake, network centrality
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
