Search

Despite their heightening popularity and potential individual and societal implications, little scientific attention has been given to the news coverage of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) kits (e.g. 23andMe, AncestryDNA, and MyHeritage). To accommodate, this study leverages the Analysis of Topic Model Networks to inductively develop a comprehensive overview of how major U.S. news media framed DTC-GT kits between 2009 and 2022, and then explicates the relationship of such coverage with kit sales between 2012 and 2019. We find four frames through which the news media talk about the kits: Utility, Scientific, Political-Economic, and Commercial. Further, as kit sales increase over time, news media maintain a strong emphasis on the utility of kits in their coverage, but also increasingly promote kits through product reviews. We find that this news coverage is influenced by―but does not influence―kit sales, and discuss implications pertaining to the DTC-GT industry and to biotechnology more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Has the "big lie"—the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump—shaped citizens' views of the legitimacy of other US elections? We argue that it has. Those who believe Trump's claim, whom we call election skeptics, lack confidence in elections for two interrelated reasons. First, because they think 2020 was inaccurately and unfairly conducted, they think that other elections will suffer a similar fate, and hence think these elections are illegitimate even before any votes are cast. Second, while most voters think elections are less legitimate when their preferred candidate loses, this effect will be especially large for election skeptics, because voter fraud gives them a mechanism to explain their candidate's loss. Using an original panel dataset spanning the 2020 and 2022 elections, we show strong support for these hypotheses. This has important implications for our elections, and their legitimacy, moving forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic illness affects millions worldwide, rendering the life of those affected complex to manage. Extant research points to the need for effective and supportive care for the successful treatment, yet health care encounters for this population are often filled with negative experiences, ranging from discontinuity of care to disenfranchisement from providers. One such group dedicated to sharing struggles is the NEISVoid (No End In Sight) community on Twitter. Through the use of the hashtag, #NEISVoid, they come together to share what experiences living with chronic illness look like, in vulnerable and potentially unfiltered ways. The present study analyzes the discourse surrounding the hashtag #NEISVoid in tweets published from January 1 2020, until September 1 2022 (N = 450,914 tweets) using the mixed-method analysis of topic model network (ANTMN) approach. We identify and discuss four broad discursive themes: community experiences, symptom management, efficacy solutions, and biomedical health. We analyze this discourse through the chronic care model (CCM) and in light of research on hashtag activism. We discuss practical and theoretical implications for health communicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examined hashtag activism promoting Taiwan's participation in the global efforts to combat COVID-19. We employed the computational Analysis of Topic Model Networks (ANTMN) to examine the discourse around the #TaiwanCanHelp/#TWforWHO campaign in 2020 (N = 163,876) on Twitter. Our model identified 35 topics clustered within three frames. The containment frame emphasized strategies used to stop COVID-19's spread in Taiwan. The geopolitics frame described China's use of its international power to exclude Taiwan from the World Health Organization. The international cooperation frame emphasized Taiwan's ability and efficacy to contribute to the global efforts to slow down COVID-19. These results extend our understanding of hashtag activism by examining the intersection of geopolitics and global health crises. We introduce the theoretical concept of a mutually beneficial coalition, one that points to detrimental impacts of oppression on both the oppressed and the allies who are asked to help. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As concerns about social bots online increase, studies have attempted to explore the discourse they produce, and its effects on individuals and the public at large. We argue that the common reliance on aggregated scores of binary classifiers for bot detection may have yielded biased or inaccurate results. To test this possibility, we systematically compare the differences between non-bots and bots using binary and non-binary classifiers (classified into the categories of astroturf, self-declared, spammers, fake followers, and Other). We use two Twitter corpora, about COVID-19 vaccines (N = 1,697,280) and climate change (N = 1,062,522). We find that both in terms of volume and thematic content, the use of binary classifiers may hinder, distort, or mask differences between humans and bots, that could only be discerned when observing specific bot types. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Romantic comedies have long been understood to create unrealistic views of relationships. In the current study, we tested theory-driven corrective strategies for counteracting potentially harmful beliefs about romantic relationships. In an online experiment (N = 626), participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: to a no exposure control, to watch a romantic comedy scene without correction, to read a corrective article before viewing, or to read a corrective article before viewing and complete a counterarguing exercise after viewing. Results showed that both corrective treatments significantly reduced romantic belief endorsement. We also investigated narrative engagement factors as mediators of these effects. Media enjoyment, realism of specific scenes, and overall movie realism each mediated the effect of corrections on romantic belief endorsement. Our findings suggest theory-driven corrective strategies are effective for reducing idealistic beliefs associated with entertainment media and highlight key persuasive variables for future interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background During the pandemic, countries utilized various forms of statistical estimations of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) impact. Differences between databases make direct comparisons and interpretations of data in different countries a challenge. We evaluated country-specific approaches to COVID-19 data and recommended changes that would improve future international collaborations. Methods We compared the COVID-19 reports presented on official UK (National Health System), Israeli (Department of Health), Latvian (Center for Disease Prevention and Control) and USA (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) health authorities' websites. Results Our analysis demonstrated critical differences in the ways COVID-19 statistics were made available to the general and scientific communities. Specifically, the differences in approaches were found in the presentation of the number of infected cases and tests, and percentage of positive cases, the number of severe cases, the number of vaccinated, and the number and percent of deaths. Conclusion Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reusability principles could guide the development of essential global standards that provide a basis for communication within and outside of the scientific community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resistance to vaccines has hindered attempts to contain and prevent outbreaks of infectious diseases for centuries. More recently, however, the term "vaccine hesitancy" has been used to describe not necessarily outright resistance but also a delay in acceptance or uncertainty regarding vaccines. Given concerns about hesitancy and its impact on vaccine uptake rates, researchers increasingly shifted the focus from resistance to vaccines toward vaccine hesitancy. Acknowledging the urgency to accurately assess the phenomenon, it is critical to understand the state of the literature, focusing on issues of conceptualization and operationalization. To carry out this systematic review, we collected and analyzed all published empirical articles from 2000 to 2021 that explicitly included quantitative self-report measures of vaccine hesitancy (k = 86). Using a mixed-method approach, the review demonstrates and quantifies crucial inconsistencies in the measurement of the construct, lack of clarity in regard to the determination of who should or should not be defined as hesitant, and overreliance on unrepresentative samples. Crucially, our analysis points to a potential systematic bias toward exaggerating the level of hesitancy in the population. Modeling a vaccine hesitancy co-citation network, the analysis also points to the existence of insular academic silos that make it harder to achieve a unified measurement tool. Theoretical and practical implications for academics, practitioners, and policymakers are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of responses to 13 questions from a 2022 national probability sample of 1,154 US adults supported the existence of five factors that we argue assess perceptions of Factors Assessing Science's Self-Presentation (FASS). These factors also predict support for increasing federal funding of science and, separately, supporting federal funding of basic research. Each of the factors reflects perceptions of a key facet of scientists' self-presentation, science/scientists' adherence to professed norms, or science's benefits: specifically, that scientists are Credible, Prudent, and Unbiased and that science is Self-Correcting and Beneficial. The FASS model explained 40.6% of the variance in support for increasing federal funding for science and 33.7% in support for basic research. For both dependent variables, conservatives were less likely to be supportive when they perceived that science/scientists fail to overcome biases. The interactions between political ideology and both Prudence and Beneficial, however, were significant only when predicting Basic Research support. In that case, there were no differences between conservatives and liberals when perceptions of benefit were low, but when high, liberals' perception of benefit had a stronger association with support for funding than conservatives'. Among those perceiving that scientists lack prudence, liberals were more likely to support funding basic research than conservatives, but the difference disappeared when perceptions of prudence were very high. The factors could serve as across-time indicators of the public's assessment of the state of science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, nonwhites, globalists and elites are plotting to eliminate the white race and its dominance through anti-white policies and increased immigration. In that context, abortion among white women is perceived by white nationalists (WN) as a betrayal of their 'biological' and 'traditional' gender role – procreation of white babies. While WN condemn abortion among white women as a murderous sin, at times they encourage the practice among nonwhites to solve demographic threats to white dominance. In this study, we use mixed methods, combining unsupervised machine learning with close textual analysis of 30,725 posts including the term 'abortion' published on the WN website Stormfront between 2001 and 2017. We identify three broad themes: White genocide, focused on the conspiracy theory and detailing the active actors in its alleged execution; political, focused on political agendas and laws; and WN reproductive reasoning, articulating and justifying the contradiction between supporting abortion for nonwhites but not for whites via politics of difference that emphasize nonwhites' supposed inferior morality. We discuss WN's unique and explicitly racist discourse around a medical topic like abortion, a staple of the conservative and religious right for decades, and how it is used to alleviate their cognitive dissonance resulting from their dual-stance on abortion. Such discourse could be harnessed to recruit members into the movement and normalize extreme, racist ideologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]