Russian Twitter accounts and the partisan polarization of vaccine discourse, 2015-2017
Open accessAbstract
Objectives. To understand how Twitter accounts operated by the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) discussed vaccines to increase the credibility of their manufactured personas. Methods. We analyzed 2.82 million tweets published by 2689 IRA accounts between 2015 and 2017. Combining unsupervised machine learning and network analysis to identify “thematic personas” (i.e., accounts that consistently share the same topics), we analyzed the ways in which each discussed vaccines. Results. We found differences in volume and valence of vaccine-related tweets among 9 thematic personas. Pro-Trump personas were more likely to express antivaccine sentiment. Anti-Trump personas expressed support for vaccination. Others offered a balanced valence, talked about vaccines neutrally, or did not tweet about vaccines. Conclusions. IRA-operated accounts discussed vaccines in manners consistent with fabricated US identities. Public Health Implications. IRA accounts discussed vaccines online in ways that evoked political identities. This could exacerbate recently emerging partisan gaps relating to vaccine misinformation, as differently valenced messages were targeted at different segments of the US public. These sophisticated targeting efforts, if repeated and increased in reach, could reduce vaccination rates and magnify health disparities.
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?
Prior research has revealed that trolls are often found in the centroids of clusters of polarized topics, driving the partisan discourse on both ends.
“Prior research has revealed that when exploring the clusters of polarized topics, trolls are often found in the centroids of these clusters, driving the partisan discourse on both ends (37, 38, 55).”
From Troll and divide: the language of online polarization (2022) · cites this paper as [55]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 16 · Cited by 111
- Authors
- Walter, D., Ophir, Y., & Jamieson, K. H.
- Affiliations
- Georgia State University (US)
- Venue
- American Journal of Public Health
- Publisher
- American Public Health Association
- Published
- 2020-05
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 718-724
- ISSN
- 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
- 1541-0048
- PMC
- PMC7144436
- OpenAlex
- W3012188200
- Cited by
- 111
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 11
- FWCI
- 25.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- Twitter accounts, vaccine discourse, partisan polarization, vaccine misinformation, political targeting, Trump supporters, disinformation, social media influence
- MeSH terms
- Communication, Humans, Public Health, Russia, Vaccination, Social Media
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