PreprintCited by 13Misinformation and Its ImpactsCommunication and COVID-19 ImpactVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy

The COVID States Project #57: Social media news consumption and COVID-19 vaccination rates

Open access
Lazer, David, Green, Jon, Ognyanova, Katherine, Baum, Matthew, Lin, Jennifer, Druckman, James, Perlis, Roy, Santillana, Mauricio +1 more·2021

Abstract

Earlier this month, we witnessed a vigorous back and forth between the White House and Facebook regarding the role of the company in circulating health misinformation. On the White House side, the Surgeon General released an Advisory declaring misinformation a public health threat to the nation, highlighting, in part, the role of social media. This was followed the next day by a pointed statement by President Biden-- “They’re killing us!” Facebook responded with a blog entry, Moving Past the Finger Pointing, asserting that it was not responsible for the plateauing vaccination rates in the US. The company pointed to the fact that 85% of Facebook users in a large survey by Carnegie Mellon (supported by Facebook) reported being vaccinated or wanting to be vaccinated. This exchange begs an obvious question: who has it right? Answering this question is tricky; but at minimum, rebutting the President’s accusation would require more information than is provided in Facebook’s blog post. For one thing, it fails to compare Facebook users to non-users. It also does not provide information on vaccination rates among those Facebook users who actually get information regarding COVID-19 from Facebook. As most Americans use Facebook, the vaccination rates among users will inevitably be similar to those of the general population. But only a subset of those users go to Facebook specifically to get news and information about COVID-19. These are the people who the Biden administration worries are at risk of exposure to vaccine misinformation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.31219/osf.io/uvqbs

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • People who got their news primarily from Facebook were even more vaccine hesitant than those who got their news primarily from Fox News.

    “Facebook were even more vaccine hesitant than those who got their news primarily from Fox News (Lazer et al. 2021).”

    From Social Media and Morality. (2024) · cites this paper as Lazer et al. 2021

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lazer, D., Green, J., Ognyanova, K., Baum, M., Lin, J., Druckman, J., Perlis, R., Santillana, M., & Uslu, A.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Northeastern University (US)
Published
2021-07-27
OpenAlex
W4250728453
Cited by
13
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (2029292)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Keywords
COVID-19 vaccination rates, social media news consumption, health misinformation, Facebook, vaccine hesitancy, platform liability, COVID-19 information sources

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