Giandomenico Di Domenico, Daniel Nunan, V. Pitardi
{"title":"Marketplaces of Misinformation: A Study of How Vaccine Misinformation Is Legitimized on Social Media","authors":"Giandomenico Di Domenico, Daniel Nunan, V. Pitardi","doi":"10.1177/07439156221103860","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Combating harmful misinformation about pharmaceuticals on social media is a growing challenge. The complexity of health information, the role of expert intermediaries in disseminating information, and the information dynamics of social media create an environment where harmful misinformation spreads rapidly. However, little is known about the origin of this misinformation. This article explores the processes through which health misinformation from online marketplaces is legitimized and spread. Specifically, across one content analysis and two experimental studies, the authors investigate the role of highly legitimized influencer content in spreading vaccine misinformation. By analyzing a data set of social media posts and the websites where this content originates, the authors identify the legitimation processes that spread and normalize discussions about vaccine hesitancy (Study 1). Study 2 shows that expert cues increase the perceived legitimacy of misinformation, particularly for individuals who generally have positive attitudes toward vaccines. Study 3 demonstrates the role of expert legitimacy in driving consumers’ sharing behavior on social media. This research addresses a gap in the understanding of how pharmaceutical misinformation originates and becomes legitimized. Given the importance of the effective communication of vaccine information, the authors present key challenges for policy makers.","PeriodicalId":51437,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Policy & Marketing","volume":"49 1","pages":"319 - 335"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Policy & Marketing","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07439156221103860","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13
Abstract
Combating harmful misinformation about pharmaceuticals on social media is a growing challenge. The complexity of health information, the role of expert intermediaries in disseminating information, and the information dynamics of social media create an environment where harmful misinformation spreads rapidly. However, little is known about the origin of this misinformation. This article explores the processes through which health misinformation from online marketplaces is legitimized and spread. Specifically, across one content analysis and two experimental studies, the authors investigate the role of highly legitimized influencer content in spreading vaccine misinformation. By analyzing a data set of social media posts and the websites where this content originates, the authors identify the legitimation processes that spread and normalize discussions about vaccine hesitancy (Study 1). Study 2 shows that expert cues increase the perceived legitimacy of misinformation, particularly for individuals who generally have positive attitudes toward vaccines. Study 3 demonstrates the role of expert legitimacy in driving consumers’ sharing behavior on social media. This research addresses a gap in the understanding of how pharmaceutical misinformation originates and becomes legitimized. Given the importance of the effective communication of vaccine information, the authors present key challenges for policy makers.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing welcomes manuscripts from diverse disciplines to offer a range of perspectives. We encourage submissions from individuals with varied backgrounds, such as marketing, communications, economics, consumer affairs, law, public policy, sociology, psychology, anthropology, or philosophy. The journal prioritizes well-documented, well-reasoned, balanced, and relevant manuscripts, regardless of the author's field of expertise.