The anti-vaccination movement has successfully spread its views on social media. This study examined how community building emerges in the messages of Dutch anti-vaccination Telegram groups. Particularly, we investigated the extent to which these groups provide a platform for sharing information, perpetuating a shared identity, and promoting action. As negative emotions are considered a prime driver of collective action, we examined to what extent the messages had a negative valence. We used a mixed-method approach through a quantitative content analysis of 4654 text messages from five Telegram groups, while also examining the nature of the content through a qualitative analysis. The results suggest that most messages contained a form of shared identity (ingroup favoritism and outgroup hostility) or (mis)information, and, to a lesser extent, encouragements for (online) action. Moreover, most content had a negative valence. These findings illustrate how online groups might be sources of (mis)information, polarization, and intergroup hostility.
BaccarellaCVWagnerTFKietzmannJH, et al. (2018) Social media? It’s serious! Understanding the dark side of social media. European Management Journal36(4): 431–438.
2.
BakshyEMessingSAdamicLA (2015) Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science348(6239): 1130–1132.
3.
BeckerJCTauschN (2015) A dynamic model of engagement in normative and non-normative collective action: psychological antecedents, consequences, and barriers. European Review of Social Psychology26(1): 43–92.
BorAJørgensenFPetersenMB (2023) Discriminatory attitudes against unvaccinated people during the pandemic. Nature613(7945): 704–711.
7.
BoukesMVan de VeldeBAraujoT, et al. (2020) What’s the tone? Easy doesn’t do it: analyzing performance and agreement between off-the-shelf sentiment analysis tools. Communication Methods and Measures14(2): 83–104.
8.
BuderJRablLFeiksM, et al. (2021) Does negatively toned language use on social media lead to attitude polarization?Computers in Human Behavior116: 106663.
9.
CasciniFPantovicAAl-Ajlouniet al. (2022) Social media and attitudes towards a COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review of the literature. eClinicalMedicinie28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101454
CovielloLSohnYKramerADI, et al. (2014) Detecting emotional contagion in massive social networks. PLoS ONE9(3): e90315.
13.
DeligözK (2022) Virtual Communities and Lifestyles. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
14.
DiRussoCStansberryK (2022) Unvaxxed: a cultural study of the online anti-vaccination movement. Qualitative Health Research32(2): 317–329.
15.
DuboisEBlankG (2018) The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society21(5): 729–745.
16.
GeißSMaginMJürgensP, et al. (2021) Loopholes in the echo chambers: how the echo chamber metaphor oversimplifies the effects of information gateways on opinion expression. Digital Journalism9(5): 660–686.
17.
GreijdanusHde Matos FernandesCATurner-ZwinkelsF, et al. (2020) The psychology of online activism and social movements: relations between online and offline collective action. Current Opinion in Psychology35: 49–54.
18.
HameleersM (2020) My reality is more truthful than yours: radical right-wing politicians’ and citizens’ construction of “fake” and “truthfulness” on social media—evidence from the United States and the Netherlands. International Journal of Communication14: 18.
19.
HammondM (2017) What is an online community? A new definition based around commitment, connection, reciprocity, interaction, agency, and consequences. International Journal of Web Based Communities13(1): 118–136.
20.
HoltKUstad FigenschouTFrischlichL (2019) Key dimensions of alternative news media. Digital Journalism7(7): 860–869.
21.
HornseyMJHarrisEAFieldingKS (2018) The psychological roots of anti-vaccination attitudes: a 24-nation investigation. Health Psychology37(4): 307–315.
22.
HughesBMiller-IdrissCPiltch-LoebR, et al. (2021) Development of a codebook of online anti-vaccination rhetoric to manage COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health18(14): 7556.
23.
JagodicsBSzabóÉ (2023) Is intergroup discrimination triggered by vaccination status? Exploring some social aspects of vaccinations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Journal of Social Psychology163: 826–840.
24.
JohanssonHScaramuzzinoG (2023) Digital resource abundance: how social media shapes success and failure of online mobilisation. Convergence29: 586–601.
25.
KauschkeCBahnDVeskerM, et al. (2019) The role of emotional valence for the processing of facial and verbal stimuli—positivity or negativity bias?Frontiers in Psychology10: 1654.
KingPS (2013) Emotions: positive and negative. In: GellmanMDTurnerJR (eds) Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine. New York: Springer, pp. 676–678.
28.
LazerDMJBaumMABenklerY, et al. (2018) The science of fake news. Science359(6380): 1094–1096.
29.
LeaB-RYuW-BMaguluruN, et al. (2006) Enhancing business networks using social network based virtual communities. Industrial Management & Data Systems106: 121–138.
30.
LizzoRLiechtyT (2022) The Hogwarts running club and sense of community: a netnography of a virtual community. Leisure Sciences44(7): 959–976.
31.
LovejoyKSaxtonGD (2012) Information, community, and action: how nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication17(3): 337–353.
32.
LuDHongD (2022) Emotional contagion: research on the influencing factors of social media users’ negative emotional communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology13: 931835.
33.
LuoMHancockJT (2020) Self-disclosure and social media: motivations, mechanisms and psychological well-being. Current Opinion in Psychology31: 110–115.
34.
MeeusW (2015) Why do young people become Jihadists? A theoretical account on radical identity development. European Journal of Developmental Psychology12(3): 275–281.
35.
MiyazakiKUchibaTTanakaK, et al. (2021) The strategy behind Anti-Vaxxers’ reply behavior on social media. arxiv:2105.10319. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10319
36.
MottaMCallaghanTSylvesterS, et al. (2023) Identifying the prevalence, correlates, and policy consequences of anti-vaccine social identity. Politics, Groups, and Identities11: 108–122.
37.
NeffTKaiserJPasquettoI, et al. (2021) Vaccine hesitancy in online spaces: a scoping review of the research literature, 2000–2020. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. Epub ahead of print 11 October. DOI: 10.37016/mr-2020-82.
NielsenRKSchrøderKC (2014) The relative importance of social media for accessing, finding, and engaging with news: an eight-country cross-media comparison. Digital Journalism2(4): 472–489.
OhHJOzkayaELaRoseR (2014) How does online social networking enhance life satisfaction? The relationships among online supportive interaction, affect, perceived social support, sense of community, and life satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior30: 69–78.
42.
PennycookGRandDG (2021) The psychology of fake news. Trends in Cognitive Sciences25(5): 388–402.
43.
PetričG (2014) Perceived quality of conversations in online communities: conceptual framework, scale development, and empirical validation. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking17(2): 82–90.
44.
RogersR (2020) Deplatforming: following extreme Internet celebrities to Telegram and alternative social media. European Journal of Communication35(3): 213–229.
45.
SantaliaRFGunadiWSetiadiA (2022) The effect of emotional support and informational support on the need for relatedness and user’s satisfaction with the use of social media. Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management Istanbul, Turkey, March 7–10, 2022.
46.
SchletteAvan ProoijenJWBloklandA, et al. (2022) The online structure and development of posting behaviour in Dutch anti-vaccination groups on Telegram. New Media and Society 146144482211284. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221128475
47.
ShinJThorsonK (2017) Partisan selective sharing: the biased diffusion of fact-checking messages on social media: sharing fact-checking messages on social media. Journal of Communication67(2): 233–255.
48.
SmithNGrahamT (2017) Mapping the anti-vaccination movement on Facebook. Information, Communication & Society22(9): 1310–1327.
49.
SmithTCReissDR (2020) Digging the rabbit hole, COVID-19 edition: anti-vaccine themes and the discourse around COVID-19. Microbes and Infection22(10): 608–610.
50.
SpearsRPostmesT (2015) Group Identity, social influence, and collective action online: extensions and applications of the side model. In: SundarSS (ed.) The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology. 1st ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 23–46.
51.
StoeckelFCarterCLyonsBA, et al. (2022) The politics of vaccine hesitancy in Europe. European Journal of Public Health32(4): 636–642.
52.
StratonNJangHNgR, et al. (2019) Computational modeling of stigmatized behaviour in pro-vaccination and anti-vaccination discussions on social media. In: 2019 IEEE international conference on bioinformatics and biomedicine (BIBM), San Diego, CA, 18–21November, pp. 2673–2681. New York: IEEE.
53.
TajfelHTurnerJ (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In:AustinWGWorchelS (eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, pp. 33–37.
54.
TajfelHBilligMGBundyRP, et al. (1971) Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology1: 149–178.
55.
UrmanAHoJCKatzS (2021) Analyzing protest mobilization on Telegram: the case of 2019 anti-extradition bill movement in Hong Kong. PLoS ONE16(10): e0256675.
56.
Van ProoijenJ-WKrouwelAPMPolletTV (2015) Political extremism predicts belief in conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science6(5): 570–578.
57.
Van ZomerenM (2016) Building a tower of Babel? Integrating core motivations and features of social structure into the political psychology of political action. Political Psychology37(S1): 87–114.
58.
VermeulenAVandeboschHHeirmanW (2018) #Smiling, #venting, or both? Adolescents’ social sharing of emotions on social media. Computers in Human Behavior84: 211–219.
59.
Von BehrIRedingAEdwardC, et al. (2013) Radicalisation in the Digital Era: The Use of the Internet in 15 Cases of Terrorism and Extremism. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Available at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR453.html
WickhamHAverickMBryanJ, et al. (2019) Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software4(43): 1686.
65.
WilliamsHTPMcMurrayJRKurzT, et al. (2015) Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change. Global Environmental Change32: 126–138.
66.
ZhangSBantumEOOwenJ, et al. (2017) Online cancer communities as informatics intervention for social support: conceptualization, characterization, and impact. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association24(2): 451–459.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
