Propagating and Debunking Conspiracy Theories on Twitter During the 2015–2016 Zika Virus Outbreak

Abstract The present study investigates the characteristics of discussion of conspiracy theories about the Zika virus outbreak of 2015–16 on Twitter. Content and social network analysis of a dataset of 25,162 original Tweets about Zika virus conspiracy theories showed that relative to debunking messages, conspiracy theories spread through a more decentralized network, are more likely to invoke supposedly knowledgeable authorities in making arguments, and ask more rhetorical questions. These trends can be understood in the context of previous work on conspiracy theories, including the “just asking questions” style of rhetoric, the importance of sourcing and authority, and the tendency to simultaneously consider many different potential conspiracies that might underlie an important topic or event.

[1]  Yunan Chen,et al.  Conspiracy Talk on Social Media , 2017, Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact..

[2]  Karen M. Douglas,et al.  “What about building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[3]  Karen M. Douglas,et al.  Online communication as a window to conspiracist worldviews , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[4]  Prashant Bordia,et al.  Problem Solving in Social Interactions on the Internet: Rumor As Social Cognition , 2004 .

[5]  Kate Starbird,et al.  Examining the Alternative Media Ecosystem Through the Production of Alternative Narratives of Mass Shooting Events on Twitter , 2017, ICWSM.

[6]  Renata Vieira,et al.  Sentiment Analysis on Twitter Data for Portuguese Language , 2012, PROPOR.

[7]  David A. Broniatowski,et al.  Zika vaccine misconceptions: A social media analysis. , 2016, Vaccine.

[8]  Karen M. Douglas,et al.  Dead and Alive , 2012, Diary of a Detour.

[9]  E. Dijk,et al.  When consequence size predicts belief in conspiracy theories: The moderating role of perspective taking , 2014 .

[10]  P. Knight.  Conspiracy Nation: The Politics of Paranoia in Postwar America , 2002 .

[11]  Gábor Csárdi,et al.  The igraph software package for complex network research , 2006 .

[12]  John C. Kilburn,et al.  A TEST OF THE GRAPEVINE: AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES AMONG AFRICAN AMERICANS , 1999 .

[13]  J. Byford.  Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction , 2011 .

[14]  P. Knight,et al.  Bridging the great divide: Conspiracy theory research for the 21st century , 2015 .

[15]  P. Bordia,et al.  Rumor, Gossip and Urban Legends , 2007 .

[16]  Kate Starbird,et al.  Could This Be True?: I Think So! Expressed Uncertainty in Online Rumoring , 2016, CHI.

[17]  A. Furnham,et al.  Putting the stress on conspiracy theories: Examining associations between psychological stress, anxiety, and belief in conspiracy theories , 2016 .

[18]  M. Wood.  Conspiracy suspicions as a proxy for beliefs in conspiracy theories: Implications for theory and measurement , 2017, British journal of psychology.

[19]  Jorge E. Camargo,et al.  Ideological Consumerism in Colombian Elections, 2015: Links Between Political Ideology, Twitter Activity, and Electoral Results , 2016, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[20]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[21]  Ulf Olsson,et al.  A Measure of Agreement for Interval or Nominal Multivariate Observations by Different Sets of Judges , 2004 .

[22]  Joseph E. Uscinski,et al.  What Drives Conspiratorial Beliefs? The Role of Informational Cues and Predispositions , 2016 .

[23]  H. Raghav Rao,et al.  Community Intelligence and Social Media Services: A Rumor Theoretic Analysis of Tweets During Social Crises , 2013, MIS Q..

[24]  Joanne M. Miller,et al.  Conspiracy Endorsement as Motivated Reasoning: The Moderating Roles of Political Knowledge and Trust , 2016 .