Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Calls to “do your own research” (DYOR) on social media promote a range of claims, from expert-recommended treatments to conspiracy theories. Exploring how the slogan is used offers insight into how individuals navigate concerns about information accuracy in an abundant but low-trust media ecosystem. This quantitative content analysis investigates how DYOR messages in Facebook and Instagram posts about reproductive health, food and diet, and vaccination are used to raise alarms, promote personal agency, and disclaim responsibility. We additionally examine how DYOR messages are associated with content including risk information and product promotion. While DYOR messages sometimes raise alarms about suspected conspiracies and misinformation, more often they advocate for personal agency and education, encouraging people to become as informed as possible to make the best decisions for themselves. In this way, DYOR messages promote individual responsibility for navigating information risks and reflect wider concerns about (mis-)information and distrust of institutions.

Keywords

Do your own research expertise information seeking social media trust

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bailey

Krieger

Agénor

, et al (2017) Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: evidence and interventions. The Lancet 389(10077): 1453–1463.

Ballantyne

Dunning

(2022) Opinion—Skeptics say, “do your own research.” It’s not that simple. The New York Times, 3 January. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/03/opinion/dyor-do-your-own-research.html

Ballantyne

Celniker

Dunning

(2024) Do your own research. Social Epistemology 38: 302–317.

Bandura

(2006) Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents 5(1): 307–337.

Barthel

Mitchell

Holcomb

(2016) Many Americans believe fake news is sowing confusion. Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project, 15 December. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2016/12/15/many-americans-believe-fake-news-is-sowing-confusion/

Bond

Gaither

Nasser

, et al (2021) Working agenda for black mothers. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 14(2): e007643.

Brehm

(1966) A Theory of Psychological Reactance. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.

Buzzell

Rini

(2023) Doing your own research and other impossible acts of epistemic superheroism. Philosophical Psychology 36(5): 906–930.

Carrion

(2018) “You need to do your research”: vaccines, contestable science, and maternal epistemology. Public Understanding of Science 27(3): 310–324.

10.

Chinn

Hasell

(2023) Support for “doing your own research” is associated with COVID-19 misperceptions and scientific mistrust. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review 4: 1–15.

11.

Chinn

Hasell

Hiaeshutter-Rice

(2023) Mapping digital wellness content: implications for health, science, and political communication research. Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media 3: 1–56.

12.

Chinn

Hiaeshutter-Rice

Chen

(2024) How science influencers polarize supportive and skeptical communities around politicized science: a cross-platform and over-time comparison. Political Communication 41(4): 627–648.

13.

Cleghorn

(2021) Unwell Women: Misdiagnosis and Myth in a Man-Made World. New York: Dutton.

14.

Cotter

Thorson

(2022) Judging value in a time of information cacophony: young adults, social media, and the messiness of do-it-yourself expertise. The International Journal of Press/politics 27(3): 629–647.

15.

Cullinan

Zimdars

(2024) Their truth is out there: scientific (dis)trust and alternative epistemology in online health groups. Social Media + Society 10(3): 1–12.

16.

DeAndrea

(2014) Advancing warranting theory. Communication Theory 24(2): 186–204.

17.

DeAndrea

Vendemia

(2019) The influence of self-generated and third-party claims online: Perceived self-interest as an explanatory mechanism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 24(5): 223–239.

18.

DeVito

(2017) From editors to algorithms: a values-based approach to understanding story selection in the Facebook news feed. Digital Journalism 5(6): 753–773.

19.

Epstein

(1995) The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology, & Human Values 20(4): 408–437.

20.

Eriksson-Backa

Enwald

Hirvonen

, et al (2018) Health information seeking, beliefs about abilities, and health behaviour among Finnish seniors. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 50(3): 284–295.

21.

Feinstein

Baram-Tsabari

(2024) Epistemic networks and the social nature of public engagement with science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 61: 2049–2068.

22.

Freelon

(2013) ReCal OIR: Ordinal, Interval, and Ratio Intercoder Reliability as a Web Service. International Journal of Internet Science 8(1): 10–16.

23.

Fricker

(2007) Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

24.

Garrett

Weeks

(2017) Epistemic beliefs’ role in promoting misperceptions and conspiracist ideation. PLOS ONE 12(9): 1–17.

25.

Goldenberg

(2021) Vaccine Hesitancy: Public Trust, Expertise, and the War on Science. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

26.

Grace

(2021) COVID-19 anti-vaxxers mocked in Shady Halloween home displays. New York Post, 21 October. Available at: https://nypost.com/2021/10/12/covid-19-anti-vaxxers-mocked-in-shady-halloween-home-displays/

27.

Hanitzsch

Van Dalen

Steindl

(2018) Caught in the nexus: a comparative and longitudinal analysis of public trust in the press. The International Journal of Press/Politics 23(1): 3–23.

28.

Herrman

(2022) They did their own “research.” Now what? The New York Times, 29 May. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/29/style/do-your-own-research.html

29.

Hiaeshutter-Rice

Chinn

Chen

(2021) Platform effects on alternative influencer content: understanding how audiences and channels shape misinformation online. Frontiers in Political Science 3: 642394.

30.

Hofstadter

(1966) Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

31.

Hook

Rose Markus

(2020) Health in the United States: are appeals to choice and personal responsibility making Americans sick? Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science 15(3): 643–664.

32.

Kata

(2012) Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm—an overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Vaccine 30(25): 3778–3789.

33.

Korda

Itani

(2013) Harnessing social media for health promotion and behavior change. Health Promotion Practice 14(1): 15–23.

34.

Lord

Ross

Lepper

(1979) Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37(11): 2098–2109.

35.

Lyons

(2022) Why we should rethink the third-person effect: disentangling bias and earned confidence using behavioral data. Journal of Communication 72(5): 565–577.

36.

Marwick

Partin

(2024) Constructing alternative facts: populist expertise and the QAnon conspiracy. New Media & Society 26: 2535–2555.

37.

McComas

(2006) Defining moments in risk communication research: 1996–2005. Journal of Health Communication 11(1): 75–91.

38.

Meppelink

Smit

Fransen

, et al (2019) “I was right about vaccination”: confirmation bias and health literacy in online health information seeking. Journal of Health Communication 24(2): 129–140.

39.

Milner

(2002) Civic Literacy How Informed Citizens Make Democracy Work. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

40.

Nadeem

Tyson

Kennedy

, et al (2020) Science and scientists held in high esteem across global publics. Pew Research Center Science & Society, 29 September. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/09/29/science-and-scientists-held-in-high-esteem-across-global-publics/

41.

Nelson

Lewis

(2023) Only “sheep” trust journalists? How citizens’ self-perceptions shape their approach to news. New Media & Society 25(7): 1522–1541.

42.

Pew Research Center (2018) The science people see on social media. Pew Research Center, 21 March. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/03/21/the-science-people-see-on-social-media/

43.

Pew Research Center (2024) Social media fact sheet. Pew Research Center, 31 January. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/

44.

Quiring

Ziegele

Schemer

, et al (2021) Constructive skepticism, dysfunctional cynicism? Skepticism and cynicism differently determine generalized media trust. International Journal of Communication 15: 22.

45.

Rainie

Keeter

Perrin

(2019) Trust and distrust in America. Pew Research Center—U.S. Politics & Policy, 22 July. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/07/22/trust-and-distrust-in-america/

46.

Schmuck

Harff

(2024) Popular among distrustful youth? Social media influencers’ communication about COVID-19 and young people’s risk perceptions and vaccination intentions. Health Communication 39: 2730–2743.

47.

Smailhodzic

Hooijsma

Boonstra

, et al (2016) Social media use in healthcare: a systematic review of effects on patients and on their relationship with healthcare professionals. BMC Health Services Research 16(1): 1–14.

48.

Thompson

Babu

Makos

(2023) Women’s experiences of health-related communicative disenfranchisement. Health Communication 38: 3135–3146.

49.

Thorbjørnsrud

Figenschou

(2022) The alarmed citizen: fear, mistrust, and alternative media. Journalism Practice 16(5): 1018–1035.

50.

Tripodi

Garcia

Marwick

(2024) ‘Do your own research’: affordance activation and disinformation spread. Information, Communication & Society 27: 1212–1228.

51.

Turcotte

York

Irving

, et al (2015) News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: effects on media trust and information seeking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 20(5): 520–535.

52.

Vedam

Stoll

Taiwo

, et al (2019) The giving voice to mothers study: inequity and mistreatment during pregnancy and childbirth in the United States. Reproductive Health 16(1): 77.

53.

Vendemia

Bond

DeAndrea

(2019) The strategic presentation of user comments affects how political messages are evaluated on social media sites: Evidence for robust effects across party lines. Computers in Human Behavior 91: 279–289.

54.

Walther

Van Der Heide

Hamel

, et al (2009) Self-generated versus other-generated statements and impressions in computer-Mediated communication: a test of warranting theory using Facebook. Communication Research 36(2): 229–253.

55.

Wellman

(2023) “A friend who knows what they’re talking about”: extending source credibility theory to analyze the wellness influencer industry on Instagram. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 17 April. DOI: 10.1177/14614448231162064.

56.

Willis

(2016) Patients’ self-efficacy within online health communities: facilitating chronic disease self-management behaviors through peer education. Health Communication 31(3): 299–307.

57.

Wynne

(1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science 1(3): 281–304.

58.

Yuan

(2020) “It’s global warming, stupid”: aggressive communication styles and political ideology in science blog debates about climate change. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 97: 1003–1025.

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.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB

What does it mean to “do your own research?” A comparative content analysis of DYOR messages in Instagram and Facebook posts about reproductive health,food,and vaccines

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material