Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Jun Liu
 -- 1396 2022-05-31 23:21:56 |
2 format
Jason Zhu
 -39 word(s) 1357 2022-06-01 03:13:03 | |
3 format
Jason Zhu
 -17 word(s) 1340 2022-06-06 03:40:50 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Video Production Services to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Liu, J.; Zhang, M.; Ze, C.; Qi, X. Social Bots in Online Vaccine Discussions. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/23628 (accessed on 16 November 2024).
Liu J, Zhang M, Ze C, Qi X. Social Bots in Online Vaccine Discussions. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/23628. Accessed November 16, 2024.
Liu, Jun, Menghan Zhang, Chen Ze, Xue Qi. "Social Bots in Online Vaccine Discussions" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/23628 (accessed November 16, 2024).
Liu, J., Zhang, M., Ze, C., & Qi, X. (2022, May 31). Social Bots in Online Vaccine Discussions. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/23628
Liu, Jun, et al. "Social Bots in Online Vaccine Discussions." Encyclopedia. Web. 31 May, 2022.
Social Bots in Online Vaccine Discussions
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su14095566

During the COVID-19 pandemic, social media has become an emerging platform for the public to find information, share opinions, and seek coping strategies. Vaccination, one of the most effective public health interventions to control the COVID-19 pandemic, has become the focus of public online discussions. Several studies have demonstrated that social bots actively involved in topic discussions on social media and expressed their sentiments and emotions, which affected human users.

social bots sentimental engagement COVID-19

1. Introduction

Social media has become a major mode of global communication, characterized by its potential to reach large audiences and spread information rapidly [1][2]. In contrast to traditional media, content posted need not undergo editorial management nor scientific vetting, and users frequently maintain anonymity, which allow individuals to express their views directly [3][4]. This means that there are a multitude of emotional expressions, false information, and rumors on social media, which could deviate the public opinions from the track of reason [5]. Researchers thus argue that it is important to analyze sentiments on social media [6][7][8].
In face of health emergencies, social media has become an emerging platform for the public to share opinions, express attitudes, and seek coping strategies [9][10][11][12]. During the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), intensive global efforts toward physical distancing and isolation to curb the spread of COVID-19 may have intensified the use of social media for individuals to remain connected [13]. Researchers found that the public express their fears of infection and shock regarding the contagiousness of COVID-19 [14], along with their feelings about infection control strategies on social media [15][16][17]. However, established evidence has proven that social bots—automated accounts controlled and manipulated by computer algorithms [18]—often express sentiments in online discussions on social media [7][19], which might manipulate or even distort online public opinions [20][21].
The birth of COVID-19 vaccines has also sparked heated discussions and debates on social media [22]. Social media has long been a prominent sphere of vaccine debates [23]. With 217 million daily activities [24], Twitter is a convenient tool for discussing and debating public health topics, including vaccines and vaccination [2]. Both pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine information is prevalent on Twitter [2]. Social bots disseminate anti-vaccine messages by masquerading as legitimate users, eroding the public consensus on vaccination [25].
A study found that social bots have three high-intensity stages of intervention in the COVID-19 vaccines-related topics [22]. Yet, how social bots shape public sentiment and public opinion remains to be studied.
The first sub-objective is to analyze the sentiments of both social bots and human users on the discussion of COVID-19 vaccines in three stages. The semi-supervised deep learning model, i.e., the BERT-CNN sentiment analysis framework, was used for the sentiment analysis of tweets posted by social bots and humans. The second sub-objective is to perform a statistical analysis of whether there was a time-series correlation between the sentiments of social bots and humans.

2. Vaccine Discussions and Sentiments on Social Media

Vaccine discussions are widespread on social media. The discoursing trends of vaccines on social media are linked to real-world events [26]. Gunaratne et al. found that anti-vaccination discourses on Twitter soared in 2015, coinciding with the 2014–2015 measles outbreak. After the COVID-19 outbreak, social media became one of the main spheres for the debates and discussions related to COVID-19 and its vaccines [13]. Especially, discussions of COVID-19 vaccines are closely related to real-world events [22]. For example, as the Delta virus ravaged the world in June–July 2021, public discussion about vaccines on social media platforms mainly revolved around whether the COVID-19 vaccines could prevent the Delta variant [22].
People tend to express their sentiments in online vaccine discussions [13]. Generally speaking, one sentiment is to support vaccines and vaccination, and the other is against them. The topics of pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine have been developed on social media and have received the attention of researchers. Kang et al. examined current vaccine sentiments on social media by constructing and analyzing semantic networks of vaccine information from highly shared websites of Twitter users in the United States. The semantic network of positive vaccine sentiments demonstrates greater cohesiveness in discourse compared to the larger, less-connected network of negative vaccine sentiments [6]. Melton et al. analyzed the COVID-19 vaccine-related content and found that sentiments expressed in these social media communities are more positive but have had no meaningful change since December 2020 [27].
Misinformation [8], individual opinions [23], and health literacy [28] affect public sentiments of vaccination. The prevalence of negative vaccine sentiments is generally skeptical and distrustful of government organizations [6]. Public sentiments related to vaccination may be affected by technical factors. For example, the information delivered by a chatbot that answers people’s questions about COVID-19 vaccines positively affects attitudes and intentions toward COVID-19 vaccines [29].

3. Sentiment Engagement of Social Bots in Online Vaccine Discussions

Since social bots under algorithmic control are able to send messages continuously and frequently [18], they could even guide or influence public sentiments in social media [30]. In the process of interacting with humans, bots in a social system affect the way humans perceive social norms and increase human exposure to polarized views. For example, increasing their exposure to harmful contents and inflammatory narratives by disseminating large amounts of contents polarizes humans’ sentiments and emotions [31]. With the intervention of social bots, the discussion around a specific topic can easily be separated from the event and become a battle between two extreme emotions, which affect the public’s emotions and attitudes [20].
Since 2010, social bots have been active in political elections, business events, health communication, and other fields, presenting a strong influence on public sentiments [32][33]. In health-related topics, social bots have been accused of spreading misinformation, promoting polarized opinions, and manipulating public sentiments [7]. For example, social bots can influence public attitudes about the efficiency of cannabis in dealing with mental and physical problems [21]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, social bots spread and amplify false medical information and conspiracy theories, which influence the public’s correct judgments and stimulate their negative emotions [34].
Social bots have been active in various vaccine topics and guiding public sentiments for a long time. The messages spread by some social bots were more divisive and political, and their disseminations of anti-vaccine contents weakened the public consensus on vaccination and shook public confidence in vaccination [25]. Egli’s research on anti-vaccine social bots suggests that bots can arouse people’s resistance to COVID-19 vaccines and promote the spread of conspiracy theories by spreading carefully fabricated vaccine rumors [35].

4. Social Media and Sentiment Analysis

Sentiment analysis is a computer process developed to categorize users’ opinions or sentiments expressed in source texts [36]. It involves categorizing subjective opinions from text, audio, and video sources to determine polarities (e.g., positivity, negativity, and neutrality), emotions (e.g., anger, sadness, and happiness), or states of mind toward target topics, themes, or aspects of interest [37]. Currently, automated sentiment analysis receives increasing attention from the academia [38] and has become one of the key techniques for processing large amounts of social media data [39]. In methodology, artificial intelligence (AI) techniques such as machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), and natural language processing (NLP) can extract topics and sentiments from largely unstructured social media data [37].
Researchers have used automated sentiment analysis to analyze the sentiments and emotions of social bots [7][40]. Yuan et al. combined sentiment analysis with supervised machine learning (SML) and community detection on social networks to unveil the communication patterns of pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine social bots on Twitter [40]. Linguistic inquiry and word count (or LIWC) was used to analyzed samples of social bots and individual accounts to investigate the different sentiment and emotion components in COVID-19 pandemic discussions on Twitter [7].
According to above references, social bots actively involved in topic discussions on social media can express their sentiments [7][20], which affect human users [35]. Social bots also participate in COVID-19 vaccine discussions on Twitter [22]. However, it is unclear on how the sentiments of social bots are expressed in online discussions about COVID-19 vaccines and whether their sentiments affect human users’ sentiments of COVID-19 vaccines. The work used semi-supervised deep learning to continue the sentiments analysis of tweets posted by social bots and human users. Then, the Granger causality test was used to analyze whether there was a time-series causality between the sentiments of social bots and humans.

References

  1. Betsch, C.; Brewer, N.T.; Brocard, P.; Davies, P.; Gaissmaier, W.; Haase, N.; Leask, J.; Renkewitz, F.; Renner, B.; Reyna, V.F.; et al. Opportunities and challenges of Web 2.0 for vaccination decisions. Vaccine 2012, 30, 3727–3733.
  2. Blankenship, E.B.; Goff, M.E.; Yin, J.; Tse, Z.T.H.; Fu, K.-W.; Liang, H.; Saroha, N.; Fung, I.C.H. Sentiment, Contents, and Retweets: A Study of Two Vaccine-Related Twitter Datasets. Perm. J. 2018, 22, 17–138.
  3. Meleo-Erwin, Z.; Basch, C.; MacLean, S.A.; Scheibner, C.; Cadorett, V. “To each his own”: Discussions of vaccine decision-making in top parenting blogs. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2017, 13, 1895–1901.
  4. Charles-Smith, L.E.; Reynolds, T.L.; Cameron, M.A.; Conway, M.; Lau, E.H.Y.; Olsen, J.M.; Pavlin, J.A.; Shigematsu, M.; Streichert, L.; Suda, K.J.; et al. Using Social Media for Actionable Disease Surveillance and Outbreak Management: A Systematic Literature Review. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0139701.
  5. Resnick, P.; Carton, S.; Park, S.; Shen, Y.; Zeffer, N.R. A system for analyzing the impact of rumors and corrections in social media. In Proceedings of the Computational Journalism Conference, New York, NY, USA, 24–25 October 2014; Volume 5.
  6. Kang, G.; Ewing-Nelson, S.R.; Mackey, L.; Schlitt, J.T.; Marathe, A.; Abbas, K.; Swarup, S. Semantic network analysis of vaccine sentiment in online social media. Vaccine 2017, 35, 3621–3638.
  7. Shi, W.; Liu, D.; Yang, J.; Zhang, J.; Wen, S.; Su, J. Social Bots’ Sentiment Engagement in Health Emergencies: A Topic-Based Analysis of the COVID-19 Pandemic Discussions on Twitter. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8701.
  8. Flores-Ruiz, D.; Elizondo-Salto, A.; de la O Barroso-González, M. Using Social Media in Tourist Sentiment Analysis: A Case Study of Andalusia during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3836.
  9. Tang, L.; Bie, B.; Zhi, D. Tweeting about measles during stages of an outbreak: A semantic network approach to the framing of an emerging infectious disease. Am. J. Infect. Control 2018, 46, 1375–1380.
  10. Lazard, A.J.; Scheinfeld, E.; Bernhardt, J.M.; Wilcox, G.B.; Suran, M. Detecting themes of public concern: A text mining analysis of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Ebola live Twitter chat. Am. J. Infect. Control 2015, 43, 1109–1111.
  11. Mollema, L.; Harmsen, I.A.; Broekhuizen, E.; Clijnk, R.; De Melker, H.; Paulussen, T.; Kok, G.; Ruiter, R.; Das, E. Disease Detection or Public Opinion Reflection? Content Analysis of Tweets, Other Social Media, and Online Newspapers during the Measles Outbreak in the Netherlands in 2013. J. Med. Internet Res. 2015, 17, e3863.
  12. Han, X.; Wang, J.; Zhang, M.; Wang, X. Using Social Media to Mine and Analyze Public Opinion Related to COVID-19 in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2788.
  13. Puri, N.; Coomes, E.A.; Haghbayan, H.; Gunaratne, K. Social media and vaccine hesitancy: New updates for the era of COVID-19 and globalized infectious diseases. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2020, 16, 2586–2593.
  14. Medford, R.J.; Saleh, S.N.; Sumarsono, A.; Perl, T.M.; Lehmann, C.U. An “Infodemic”: Leveraging High-Volume Twitter Data to Understand Early Public Sentiment for the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outbreak. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2020, 7, ofaa258.
  15. Barkur, G.; Vibha, G.B.K. Sentiment analysis of nationwide lockdown due to COVID 19 outbreak: Evidence from India. Asian J. Psychiatry 2020, 51, 102089.
  16. Pastor, C.K. Sentiment analysis of Filipinos and effects of extreme community quarantine due to coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic. SSRN Electron. J. 2020, 7, 91–95.
  17. Dubey, A.D.; Tripathi, S. Analysing the Sentiments towards Work-from-Home Experience during COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Innov. Manag. 2020, 8, 13–19.
  18. Ferrara, E.; Varol, O.; Davis, C.; Menczer, F.; Flammini, A. The rise of social bots. Commun. ACM 2016, 59, 96–104.
  19. Varol, O.; Ferrara, E.; Davis, C.; Menczer, F.; Flammini, A. Online human-bot interactions: Detection, estimation, and characterization. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Montreal, QC, Canada, 15–18 May 2017.
  20. Edwards, C.; Edwards, A.; Spence, P.R.; Shelton, A.K. Is that a bot running the social media feed? Testing the differences in perceptions of communication quality for a human agent and a bot agent on Twitter. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 33, 372–376.
  21. Allem, J.-P.; Escobedo, P.; Dharmapuri, L. Cannabis Surveillance with Twitter Data: Emerging Topics and Social Bots. Am. J. Public Health 2020, 110, 357–362.
  22. Zhang, M.; Qi, X.; Chen, Z.; Liu, J. Social Bots’s Involvement in the COVID-19 Vaccine Discussions on Twitter. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1651.
  23. Benis, A.; Seidmann, A.; Ashkenazi, S. Reasons for Taking the COVID-19 Vaccine by US Social Media Users. Vaccines 2021, 9, 315.
  24. Omnicore Agency. Twitter by the Numbers: Stats, Demographics & Fun Facts. Available online: https://www.omnicoreagency.com/twitter-statistics/ (accessed on 22 February 2022).
  25. Broniatowski, D.A.; Jamison, A.M.; Qi, S.; Alkulaib, L.; Chen, T.; Benton, A.; Quinn, S.C.; Dredze, M. Weaponized Health Communication: Twitter Bots and Russian Trolls Amplify the Vaccine Debate. Am. J. Public Health 2018, 108, 1378–1384.
  26. Gunaratne, K.; Coomes, E.A.; Haghbayan, H. Temporal trends in anti-vaccine discourse on Twitter. Vaccine 2019, 37, 4867–4871.
  27. Melton, C.A.; Olusanya, O.A.; Ammar, N.; Shaban-Nejad, A. Public sentiment analysis and topic modeling regarding COVID-19 vaccines on the Reddit social media platform: A call to action for strengthening vaccine confidence. J. Infect. Public Health 2021, 14, 1505–1512.
  28. Montagni, I.; Ouazzani-Touhami, K.; Mebarki, A.; Texier, N.; Schück, S.; Tzourio, C. The CONFINS group Acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine is associated with ability to detect fake news and health literacy. J. Public Health 2021, 43, 695–702.
  29. Altay, S.; Hacquin, A.-S.; Chevallier, C.; Mercier, H. Information delivered by a chatbot has a positive impact on COVID-19 vaccines attitudes and intentions. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 2021, 1–11.
  30. Stieglitz, S.; Brachten, F.; Ross, B.; Jung, A.K. Do social bots dream of electric sheep? A categorization of social media bot ac-counts. In Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Hobart, TAS, Australia, 4–6 December 2017.
  31. Stella, M.; Ferrara, E.; De Domenico, M. Bots increase exposure to negative and inflammatory content in online social systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 12435–12440.
  32. Mustafaraj, E.; Metaxas, P. From Obscurity to Prominence in Minutes: Political Speech and Real-Time Search. In Proceedings of the WebSci10: Extending the Frontiers of Society On-Line, Southampton, UK, 26–27 April 2010.
  33. Ratkiewicz, J.; Conover, M.; Meiss, M.; Gonçalves, B.; Flammini, A.; Menczer, F. Detecting and tracking political abuse in social media. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Barcelona, Spain, 17–21 July 2011; Volume 5, pp. 297–304.
  34. Kim, A. Nearly Half of the Twitter Accounts Discussing ‘Reopening America’ May Be Bots, Researchers Say. CNN. 22 May 2020. Available online: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/22/tech/twitter-bots-trnd/index.html (accessed on 10 September 2020).
  35. Egli, A.; Rosati, P.; Lynn, T.; Sinclair, G. Bad Robot: A Preliminary Exploration of the Prevalence of Automated Software Programmes and Social Bots in the COVID-19# Antivaxx Discourse on Twitter. In Proceedings of the The International Conference on Digital Society, Nice, France, 18–22 July 2021; pp. 18–22.
  36. Tiwari, S.; Verma, A.; Garg, P.; Bansal, D. Social Media Sentiment Analysis on Twitter Datasets. In Proceedings of the 2020 6th International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Systems (ICACCS), Tamil Nadu, India, 6–7 March 2020; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 925–927.
  37. Hussain, A.; Tahir, A.; Hussain, Z.; Sheikh, Z.; Gogate, M.; Dashtipour, K.; Ali, A.; Sheikh, A. Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Analysis of Public Attitudes on Facebook and Twitter Toward COVID-19 Vaccines in the United Kingdom and the United States: Observational Study. J. Med Internet Res. 2021, 23, e26627.
  38. Chen, H.; Zimbra, D. AI and Opinion Mining. IEEE Intell. Syst. 2010, 25, 74–80.
  39. Dhaoui, C.; Webster, C.M.; Tan, L.P. Social media sentiment analysis: Lexicon versus machine learning. J. Consum. Mark. 2017, 34, 480–488.
  40. Yuan, X.; Schuchard, R.J.; Crooks, A.T. Examining Emergent Communities and Social Bots within the Polarized Online Vaccination Debate in Twitter. Soc. Media Soc. 2019, 5, 1–12.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Behavioral Sciences
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Jun Liu
,
Menghan Zhang
,
Chen Ze
,
xue qi
View Times: 512
Revisions: 3 times (View History)
Update Date: 07 Jun 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    ScholarVision Creations
    Feedback