A multilayered graph-based framework to explore behavioural phenomena in social media conversations.

OBJECTIVE: Social media is part of current health communications. This research aims to delve into the effects of social contagion, biased assimilation, and homophily in building and changing health opinions on social media. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Conversations about COVID-19 vaccination on English and Spanish Twitter are the case studies. A new multilayered graph-based framework supports the integrated analysis of content similarity within and across posts, users, and conversations to interpret contrasting and confluent user stances. Deep learning models are applied to infer stance. Graph centrality and homophily scores support the interpretation of information reproduction. RESULTS: The results show that semantically related English posts tend to present a similar stance about COVID-19 vaccination (rstance = 0.51) whereas Spanish posts are more heterophilic (rstance = 0.38). Neither case showed evidence of homophily regarding user influence or vaccine hashtags. Graph filters for Pfizer and Astrazeneca with a similarity threshold of 0.85 show stance homophily in English scenarios (i.e. rstance = 0.45 and rstance = 0.58, respectively) and small homophily in Spanish scenarios (i.e. r = 0.12 and r = 0.3, respectively). Highly connected users are a minority and are not socially influential. Spanish conversations showed stance homophily, i.e. most of the connected conversations promote vaccination (rstance = 0.42), whereas English conversations are more likely to offer contrasting stances. CONCLUSION: The methodology proposed for quantifying the impact of natural and intentional social behaviours in health information reproduction can be applied to any of the main social platforms and any given topic of conversation. Its effectiveness was demonstrated by two case studies describing English and Spanish demographic and sociocultural scenarios.

Effects of Biological Determinism on Beliefs and Attitudes About Transgender People: Psychological Essentialism and Biased Assimilation.

This experimental study examined the effects of biological attributions on individuals' beliefs and attitudes toward transgender people and the moderating role of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). We randomly assigned 183 Chinese university students (men: n = 85, women: n = 98) to read one of three fictitious articles. The first article suggested that transgender identity was causally linked to biology (biological determinist condition), the second one highlighted the interplay between biological and environmental factors (epigenetic condition), whereas the third article did not mention the origins of transgender identity (control condition). Consistent with the biased assimilation hypothesis, the effects of biological attributions depended on individual differences in RWA. Low-RWA participants showed higher levels of naturalness and discreteness/homogeneity beliefs about transgender identity in the biological determinist condition than those in the control condition. By contrast, high-RWA participants displayed higher levels of discreteness/homogeneity beliefs but similar levels of naturalness beliefs when they read the biological determinist message compared with the control group. Low-RWA participants showed higher levels of naturalness but similar levels of discreteness/homogeneity beliefs in the epigenetic condition compared with the control, whereas high-RWA participants exhibited lower levels of naturalness and higher levels of discreteness/homogeneity beliefs when they read the epigenetic message compared with the control group. This study also suggests that, contrary to attribution theory, presenting information regarding the biological basis of transgender identity does not necessarily lead to more positive attitudes because (a) it triggers essentialist thinking and (b) the effects of biological attributions depend on recipients' authoritarian dispositions.

Leveraging scientific credibility about Arctic sea ice trends in a polarized political environment.

This work argues that, in a polarized environment, scientists can minimize the likelihood that the audience's biased processing will lead to rejection of their message if they not only eschew advocacy but also, convey that they are sharers of knowledge faithful to science's way of knowing and respectful of the audience's intelligence; the sources on which they rely are well-regarded by both conservatives and liberals; and the message explains how the scientist arrived at the offered conclusion, is conveyed in a visual form that involves the audience in drawing its own conclusions, and capsulizes key inferences in an illustrative analogy. A pilot experiment raises the possibility that such a leveraging-involving-visualizing-analogizing message structure can increase acceptance of the scientific claims about the downward cross-decade trend in Arctic sea ice extent and elicit inferences consistent with the scientific consensus on climate change among conservatives exposed to misleadingly selective data in a partisan news source.