Marketplaces of Misinformation: A Study of How Vaccine Misinformation Is Legitimized on Social Media

Abstract

Combating harmful misinformation about pharmaceuticals spread through 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 paper explores the processes through which health misinformation from online marketplaces is legitimized and spread. Specifically, across one content analysis and two experimental studies, we investigate the role of highly legitimized 'influencer' content in spreading vaccine misinformation. By analyzing a dataset of social media posts and the websites where this content originates, we identify the legitimation processes that spread and normalize discussions around 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 paper addresses a gap in our 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.

Implications of source, content, and style cues in curbing health misinformation and fake news

“…This study of 400 online health news articles and public relations news releases content analysis and online experiment shows that the author source was most significant in predicting the truthfulness perception of a health news article than content cues and style cues, confirming the past literature of the primacy of source credibility and importance of perceived expert legitimacy (Di Domenico et al. , 2022).…”

“…’s (2021) experiment demonstrated the primary role of source credibility in the acceptance and sharing of misinformation content. To illustrate the mechanism of how books about vaccine misinformation are accepted and spread on social media, Di Domenico et al. ’s (2022) mixed method study used the framework of expert and algorithmic legitimacy in explaining how people form trust in misinformation on social media.…”

Marketing and Public Policy Implications of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

“…Medical evidence shows that these “reversals” are neither effective nor safe. But there are tested methods for slowing the spread of misinformation; retailers can alter algorithms for “Best Sellers” and “suggestions” that promote misinformation (see Di Domenico, Nunan, and Pitardi 2022), and organizations can improve the spread of accurate information by making it more interesting and useful (Pressgrove, McKeever, and Jang 2018). Research on crafting impactful accurate information designed specifically to increase diffusion would be useful for all stakeholders, so that the providers of accurate information can operate on equal footing with disseminators of disinformation.…”

Into the Woods: Making a Difference via Marketing and Public Policy Research

“…Diversity of perspectives ensures that the work published in JPP&M is grounded in science, and points to the importance of having an ERB that consists of people who acknowledge this. As we have seen through the decades, JPP&M is a journal where authors are likely to tackle important issues that might be polarizing; recent examples include critical race theory (Poole et al 2020), vaccines (DiDomenico, Nunan, and Pitardi 2022), mental health (Kemp, Davis, and Porter 2023), and abortion (Fitzgerald et al 2023). We continue to encourage submissions of these and other issues; certainly, there are many to find in the woods.…”