How Do People Feel About COVID-19 Vaccine? An Analysis Of Twitter Polarization

How Do People Feel About COVID-19 Vaccine? An Analysis Of Twitter Polarization | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article How Do People Feel About COVID-19 Vaccine? An Analysis Of Twitter Polarization Djonata Schiessl This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3086902/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract With the growth of social media, some issues started to affect people's interactions and create polarization regarding sensitive themes. Recently, it happened with the COVID-19 Vaccines when celebrities and public authorities were against vaccines application. This polarization is implicating in the application of vaccines aggravating the impacts of the pandemic. We analyzed data from Twitter to understand how this polarization affected people's psychological aspects compared with traditional vaccines. Results indicated that Tweets related to COVID-19 had more engagement and generated more positive emotions than traditional vaccines. Conversely, traditional vaccines generated more negative emotions than the COVID-19 vaccine. Furthermore, other aspects regarding polarization were explored. Vaccine Covid-19 Polarization Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Introduction Understanding public sentiment toward global issues is very important in a rapidly changing digital society. One such issue is the public response to COVID-19 vaccinations. This research explores the topic, focusing on the polarization of opinion on Twitter, a popular social media platform that serves as a microcosm for more expansive societal views. The rise of social media and communication facilities triggered some issues for people. For instance, polarization has become more prominent in daily interactions, and some aspects are discussed more intensely (Buder et al., 2021 ). Look, for example, for the discussion about flat earth and the efficacy of the application of vaccines. Further, exposure to negative or positive positioning in social media alters how people evaluate some subjects. For example, exposure to negative portrayals reinforces negative attitudes (Schmuck et al., 2020 ), affecting psychological aspects. In this sense, Twitter is a social media that discuss sensitive themes and generally ends in polarization (Hong & Kim, 2016 ). This polarization can negatively affect users and distort the theme discussed in social media. Generally, this discussion is guided by political positioning that distorts scientific arguments, creating an environment filled with hate and negative emotions (Hong & Kim, 2016 ; Urman, 2020 ). For instance, pro-trump personas have a negative positioning regarding vaccines than anti-trump (Walter et al., 2020 ). All these aspects affect how people feel during situations like this. Nowadays, humanity faces the worst pandemic in history regarding COVID-19, and now countries are trying to vaccinate citizens to control the advance of the pandemic around the world. However, there is some polarization regarding this topic. In this case, some pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine debates about vaccines' quality and effectiveness growth in social media scenarios. Therefore, the polarized debate can prejudice the application of vaccines worldwide in combating the advance of the Pandemic (Pareek et al., 2009 ). Nevertheless, how do people feel about the COVID-19 vaccine compared to traditional Vaccines? This research investigated this issue using a large sample extracted from Twitter (N = 1,527,701). To analyze the psychological aspects triggered in people, we perform a sentiment analysis of tweets using the software LIWC. This software extracts psychological meanings from words (Chung & Pennebaker, 2013 ) and helps us understand how subjects feel in their tweets. The results revealed that there are polarizations regarding COVID-19. Specifically, compared with traditional vaccines, COVID-19 Vaccines generated more positive emotions, achievement perceptions, fewer risk perceptions, and fewer death perceptions. It indicates that people are not preoccupied with the effects of COVID-19, and it can prejudice the advance of vaccine application. With these findings, we contribute to public health by demonstrating how the vaccines for COVID-19 implicate citizens' psychological aspects. Moreover, we showed how they could act to attenuate this polarization to improve the advance of vaccination campaigns. Furthermore, we explore an alternative method to monitor people's perceptions about other vaccines or campaigns to combat other diseases. The findings from our analysis offer significant insights into public sentiment surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines, revealing a marked polarization compared to traditional vaccines. We observed an increase in positive emotions and achievement perceptions, coupled with a decrease in risk and death perceptions, which point to an overall reduced sense of urgency about the severity of the pandemic among specific population segments. Such trends could have significant implications for the progress of vaccination drives. Our research underscores the critical role of psychological factors in shaping public responses to public health initiatives, with far-reaching implications. It suggests that efforts to advance vaccination campaigns must consider not just medical and scientific factors but also the psychological responses of the population. Tailoring communication strategies to address these responses could significantly enhance the effectiveness of these campaigns. Moreover, our findings shed light on an innovative approach for gauging public sentiment towards health campaigns. By harnessing the power of social media analysis, we can uncover crucial insights into the public's perceptions and emotions regarding vaccines or other disease prevention strategies. This method could be valuable for health authorities to gauge public sentiment and tailor their approach accordingly. This study has not only deepened our understanding of the psychological implications of COVID-19 vaccinations but also provided a roadmap for leveraging similar methodologies for future health campaigns. However, more research is needed to understand the demographic and sociocultural factors that may further shape these perceptions and how they evolve. Theoretical review The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a gamut of emotions, reactions, and responses across the globe, making understanding public sentiment toward it a vital aspect (Pedrosa et al., 2020 ). This research dives into this public sentiment, focusing primarily on the polarization of opinion regarding COVID-19 vaccines on Twitter, a widespread social media platform that reflects broader societal perspectives. A significant sentiment polarization has been observed on Twitter towards diverse themes, which is not different regarding COVID-19 vaccines. Factors such as misinformation, political beliefs, personal experiences, and influence from public figures contribute to this. The echo chamber effect, which leads to users interacting more with like-minded individuals, further exacerbates this polarization (Garimella & Weber, 2017 ). Understanding this polarization is crucial, given its wide-ranging implications. Negative sentiment and misinformation contribute to vaccine hesitancy, identified by the World Health Organization as one of the significant threats to global health (Troiano & Nardi, 2021 ). On the other hand, positive sentiment can encourage vaccine uptake, especially when shared by influencers. The findings derived from Twitter sentiment analysis can inform public health agencies and governments to tailor their communication strategies, addressing fears and misconceptions and promoting fact-based dialogue. Understanding public sentiment is vital for developing effective health communication strategies despite the complexity of understanding public sentiment. The advent of big data presents opportunities to harness these tools to understand better and address public sentiment, potentially paving the way for tackling the ongoing pandemic and future global challenges. This research uses this rich data source to provide some insights into how people perceive the creation of the COVID-19 vaccine and how people express their sentiments related to it. Understanding Sentiment Analysis Sentiment analysis, or opinion mining, is a computational study of people's opinions, appraisals, and emotions toward entities, events, and attributes. It has been widely used in politics, marketing, and public health for understanding public sentiment and informing strategy. With its massive user base and high-volume data, Twitter is an excellent platform for this kind of analysis (Aslan et al., 2023 ). Sentiment analysis can be complex due to the nuances of human language, including sarcasm, idioms, and cultural context. However, advanced machine learning and natural language processing (NLP) algorithms have shown promise in addressing these challenges. Polarization on Twitter and COVID-19 Vaccines Twitter has been a hotbed for the discussion of COVID-19 vaccines. Studies have indicated significant polarization in sentiments toward the vaccine(Henkel et al., 2023 ). On one end, there is strong endorsement and encouragement for vaccination as a vital measure to curb the pandemic. On the other, there are skepticism, mistrust, and outright vaccine denial sentiments (Henkel et al., 2023 ). Several factors contribute to this polarization, including misinformation, political beliefs, personal experiences, and the influence of public figures. The echo chamber effect, where users are more likely to interact with and be influenced by like-minded individuals, further intensifies this polarization (Dolman et al., 2023 ; Henkel et al., 2023 ; Xie et al., 2023 ). Understanding this polarization has far-reaching implications. Vaccine hesitancy, partly fueled by negative sentiment and misinformation, has been identified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as one of the top threats to global health. Conversely, positive sentiment, particularly when shared by influencers, can encourage vaccine uptake (Garimella & Weber, 2017 ; Troiano & Nardi, 2021 ). The information obtained from sentiment analysis on Twitter can help public health agencies, and governments tailor their communication strategies to address fears and misconceptions and promote fact-based dialogue. Sentiment analysis on Twitter provides an insightful lens into the public's sentiment about the COVID-19 vaccine, revealing a significant polarization of opinions. This understanding, while complex, is vital for designing effective health communication strategies. In the age of big data, harnessing these tools and approaches to understand better and address public sentiment could be vital in tackling the ongoing pandemic and future global challenges. Method To perform the analysis, we compare two datasets related to vaccination. Therefore, we take data from Twitter with Rstudio and the rtweet package. The first dataset was regarding traditional vaccines before the COVID-19 Pandemic. We employed the keywords "#vaccine OR vaccine OR Vaccines OR #vaccines" to obtain the tweets. Further, we followed the same procedures to take data about COVID-19 vaccines. However, we used the keywords "#Covid19vaccination OR #Coronavirusvaccination OR #Covidvaccination OR #Coronavaccination OR #Covid19vaccine OR #Coronavirusvaccine OR #Covidvaccine OR #Coronavaccine OR Covid19vaccination OR Coronavirusvaccination OR Covidvaccination OR Coronavaccination OR Covid19vaccine OR Coronavirus vaccine OR Covidvaccine OR Coronavaccine ". Moreover, after eliminating all duplicated tweets, the final sample was 1,527,701: traditional vaccines tweets (N = 782,678) and tweets about COVID-19 vaccines (N = 745,023). In the next step, we performed a text analysis in LIWC. This software is used to extract the psychological elements from the text. Specifically, LIWC examines the text and creates an index of words related to a variable(Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010 ). Finally, we ran an ANOVA analysis to evaluate the differences between both types of vaccines and how the polarizations are related to them. Results We perform an ANOVA analysis to compare the results of both types of tweets. We called the tweets not related to COVID-19 as regular vaccines. Figure 1 demonstrates the differences in people's effects compared to both types of vaccines. Note that tweets about COVID-19 vaccines generated more positive affect than traditional vaccines. However, conversely, traditional vaccines generated more negative emotions. One explanation for these results is that people superficially process the pandemic's severity and do not perceive the gravity of COVID-19. Another explanation is that citizens created high expectations regarding the COVID-19 vaccine due to extended quarantine periods. In this case, staying alone because of the quarantine creates severe psychological and social problems, and vaccines restore hope to everyday life (Matias et al., 2020 ). Moreover, traditional vaccines englobe many other diseases that have affected humanity for a long time. Some diseases kill hundreds of people annually, and do not have a vaccine to combat them (Plotkin, 2005 ). Therefore, it can explain why traditional vaccines trigger more negative emotions than COVID-19 Vaccines. Another explanation is that the recent polarization in social media has reduced people's negative perceptions regarding COVID-19. In this case, some influencers and the presidents' positionings could attenuate the severity of the pandemic. Furthermore, another category can confirm this view we extracted from data, the achievement people perceived in the progress of the COVID-19 vaccine. This variable is presented in Fig. 2 . As we argued before, during the COVID-19 Pandemic, people stayed a long time at home because of the quarantine, which created several psychological issues (e.g., anxiety, sadness, depression). Creating a vaccine to combat COVID-19 makes them feel more positive emotions than regular vaccines. This view is confirmed by their perceived achievement when the vaccine was launched. At the same time, the risk perceptions regarding both types of vaccines differ from people's perspectives. It can be noted in Fig. 3 . Compared with traditional vaccines, the perceived risk in COVID-19 vaccines was lower. In this case, we trust these results can be attributed to three factors. The first one is that the death rate of COVID-19 is lower in the average age of people that use Twitter (Sousa et al., 2020 ; Statista, 2021 ). Therefore, it can alter how they process the risk of this disease. The second factor we attributed to this result is that COVID-19 has an inferior death rate than other diseases. For instance, diphtheria can have a mortality rate of 3,5% in some places (Arguni et al., 2021 ), while COVID-19 has a mortality rate of 2% (WHO, 2021 ). At last, some polarization within social media can explain this lower perception of risk. For instance, the positioning of the president or other authorities can create polarization on the internet that can attenuate the severity of the disease and the treatment (Walter et al., 2020 ). The analysis of death perceptions by people complements this view. Figure 4 pictures this difference. As we argued before, there are some reasons for Covid-19-related tweets to reveal a lower death perception. First, the average age of Twitter users was not affected brutally by Covid 19. Second, many diseases are included in the dataset of traditional vaccines, including some diseases with a higher mortality rate than Covid 19. Third, Covid-19 affects humanity for a lower time than other diseases. Finally, some ideological aspects could affect people's feelings about the COVID-19 vaccine. Discussion COVID-19 was one of the worst pandemics in human history; thousands died in two years because of this disease. Thus, creating a vaccine to combat the virus was essential to restoring normality. However, even though vaccines are expected, some people are positioning against this method to combat the disease. This research investigated some of these issues using a social media analysis to understand how psychological mechanisms drive this polarization. Results demonstrated that some psychological aspects are different from traditional vaccines with Covid vaccines. Specifically, when people wrote about the COVID-19 vaccine, they revealed more positive affect and fewer negative emotions than conventional vaccines. Furthermore, the analysis of other psychological aspects demonstrated that achievement, risk perceptions, and death perceptions are more substantial in traditional vaccines than in COVID-19. We attribute these results to three factors. First, the age of people using Twitter is less affected by COVID-19. Thus, it can distort their perceptions about the severity of the virus, reducing their preoccupation with death. Second, the anxiety triggered by the quarantine could lead people to higher expectations regarding the vaccine. Thus, the severity of the pandemic and the effects of COVID-19 were attenuated with vaccine creation, leading to less risk and death perceptions. Further, the duration of COVID-19 is shorter than other diseases, reducing the perception of seriousness. Psychological factors play a critical role in shaping perceptions about vaccines. The analysis indicated that COVID-19 vaccines invoked more positive emotions and less negative affect than traditional vaccines. It suggests that amidst a global crisis, the creation of a vaccine may have served as a beacon of hope, overshadowing the typical apprehension accompanying vaccination. The decreased perceptions of risk and death related to COVID-19 vaccines compared to traditional ones are intriguing. It can be explained through several psychological theories. The selective exposure theory posits that people seek information that aligns with their beliefs and avoids information that contradicts them. In this context, younger Twitter users may selectively expose themselves to content that downplays the severity of COVID-19, shaping their perceptions of risk and death associated with the disease (Stroud, 2014 ). Optimism bias, the belief that one is less likely to experience an adverse event, could also play a part in this context. Younger people might perceive themselves as less vulnerable to COVID-19 due to reports of the disease being less severe in younger age groups, thus reducing their perceived risk (Bracha & Brown, 2012 ). The anxiety-uncertainty management theory suggests that people manage their anxiety and uncertainty by drawing on their expectations and hopes. In this context, the high hopes for a COVID-19 vaccine, fueled by a desire to return to normality, could have attenuated negative feelings about the pandemic (Stephan et al., 1999 ). Our analysis provides an insightful understanding of the psychological mechanisms behind the public sentiment toward the COVID-19 vaccine. Notably, the age demographic on Twitter and the context of the pandemic appear to have uniquely shaped the narrative around the COVID-19 vaccine, differentiating it from traditional vaccines. At last, the differences between people's perceptions can be explained by the polarization created within the internet, especially in social media. Therefore, this research investigated how it can distort people's perceptions of traditional and COVID-19 Vaccines. As demonstrated by previous studies, the positioning of a president or other authority can distort the severity of the disease, leading to higher polarization (Walter et al., 2020 ). Furthermore, the findings of this study supported this notion by demonstrating how COVID-19 distorts people's perceptions about the severity of the disease compared with traditional vaccines. Thus, these findings bring some contributions to public health. This study allows further research into how demographic factors and global crisis contexts impact public health messaging effectiveness. Furthermore, it underlines the importance of tailored communication strategies to address diverse population segments, considering their unique psychological and contextual factors. Public Health Implications This research also revealed some exciting insights into the development of Public Health. First, we demonstrated how the COVID-19 vaccine affects people's psychological aspects differently from traditional vaccines. Specifically, COVID-19 vaccines trigger more positive emotions and lower risk perceptions. Further, we argue that this difference is because citizens perceive the pandemic as less severe. In this case, policymakers and public persons can use this finding to improve their communication with people about the severity of COVID-19 and other viral diseases. Finally, note that we analyzed social media. Thus, the strategies to inform the population must differ on those platforms. In line with this reasoning, social media users were less affected by the COVID-19 Pandemic. Thus, it can distort how they perceive the pandemic and change the view of people around them who use social media. Therefore, policy and campaign makers must consider the age they are informing. Moreover, we demonstrated how social media could polarize sensitive themes like vaccines. Part of this polarization is due to the circulation of fake news (Spohr, 2017 ). In this case, policymakers need to create strategies to break the dissemination of fake news to reduce its adverse impacts on people's perceptions. Furthermore, we also investigated more sensitive aspects that affect people's perceptions and lead them to polarize their vaccine positioning. For instance, political ideology can affect how people perceive the efficacy of vaccines (Hong & Kim, 2016 ; Walter et al., 2020 ). Moreover, we analyzed the effect of religion on people's perceptions. Results demonstrated that higher levels of religiousness increase negative emotions for both vaccines (F = 28.337; p < .000). With this in mind, the campaigns focusing on vaccination need to use different approaches to inform Republicans and Democrats. Besides that, they need to use different approaches to more religious people to avoid the negative emotions associated with vaccines, increasing the number of adepts to take them. At last, with this research, we demonstrated an alternative approach to policymakers and campaign makers to monitor how people think about vaccines and campaigns about diseases. In addition, the methods employed in this research can be a good and cheaper way to evaluate citizens' emotions and other psychological aspects regarding the pandemic. References Arguni E, Karyanti MR, Satari HI, Hadinegoro SR. Diphtheria outbreak in Jakarta and Tangerang, Indonesia: Epidemiological and clinical predictor factors for death. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(2 February):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246301 . Aslan S, Kızıloluk S, Sert E. (2023). TSA-CNN-AOA: Twitter sentiment analysis using CNN optimized via arithmetic optimization algorithm. Neural Comput Appl, 1–18. Bracha A, Brown DJ. Affective decision making: A theory of optimism bias. Games Econ Behav. 2012;75(1):67–80. Buder J, Rabl L, Feiks M, Badermann M, Zurstiege G. (2021). Does negatively toned language use on social media lead to attitude polarization? Computers in Human Behavior , 116 (December 2020), 106663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106663 . Chung CK, Pennebaker JW. (2013). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC). Applied Natural Language Processing , 2015 , 206–229. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60960-741-8.ch012 . Dolman AJ, Fraser T, Panagopoulos C, Aldrich DP, Kim D. Opposing views: associations of political polarization, political party affiliation, and social trust with COVID-19 vaccination intent and receipt. J Public Health. 2023;45(1):36–9. Garimella VRK, Weber I. (2017). A long-term analysis of polarization on Twitter. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , 11 (1), 528–531. Henkel L, Sprengholz P, Korn L, Betsch C, Böhm R. The association between vaccination status identification and societal polarization. Nat Hum Behav. 2023;7(2):231–9. Hong S, Kim SH. Political polarization on twitter: Implications for the use of social media in digital governments. Government Inform Q. 2016;33(4):777–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.007 . Matias T, Dominski FH, Marks DF. Human needs in COVID-19 isolation. J Health Psychol. 2020;25(7):871–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105320925149 . Pareek M, Clark T, Dillon H, Kumar R, Stephenson I. Willingness of healthcare workers to accept voluntary stockpiled H5N1 vaccine in advance of pandemic activity. Vaccine. 2009;27(8):1242–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.12.006 . Pedrosa AL, Bitencourt L, Fróes ACF, Cazumbá MLB, Campos RGB, de Brito SBCS, Simões AC. (2020). Emotional, Behavioral, and Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology , 11 (October), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566212 . Plotkin SA. Vaccines: Past, present and future. Nat Med. 2005;11(4S). S5. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm1209 . Schmuck D, Heiss R, Matthes J. Drifting Further Apart? How Exposure to Media Portrayals of Muslims Affects Attitude Polarization. Political Psychol. 2020;41(6):1055–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12664 . Sousa GJB, Garces TS, Cestari VRF, Florêncio RS, Moreira TMM, Pereira MLD. Mortality and survival of COVID-19. Epidemiol Infect. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268820001405 . Spohr D. Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Bus Inform Rev. 2017;34(3):150–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382117722446 . Statista. (2021). Distribution of Twitter users worldwide as of April 2021, by age group . https://www.statista.com/statistics/283119/age-distribution-of-global-twitter-users/ . Stephan WG, Stephan CW, Gudykunst WB. Anxiety in intergroup relations: A comparison of anxiety/uncertainty management theory and integrated threat theory. Int J Intercultural Relations. 1999;23(4):613–28. Stroud NJ. (2014). Selective exposure theories. The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication , February 2022 , 1–21. papers3://publication/doi/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199793471 . Tausczik YR, Pennebaker JW. The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. J Lang Social Psychol. 2010;29(1):24–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676 . Troiano G, Nardi A. Vaccine hesitancy in the era of COVID-19. Public Health. 2021;194:245–51. Urman A. Context matters: political polarization on Twitter from a comparative perspective. Media Cult Soc. 2020;42(6):857–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443719876541 . Walter D, Ophir Y, Jamieson KH. Russian twitter accounts and the partisan polarization of vaccine discourse, 2015–2017. Am J Public Health. 2020;110(5):715–24. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305564 . WHO. (2021). WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard . https://covid19.who.int/ . Xie L, Wang D, Ma F. (2023). Analysis of individual characteristics influencing user polarization in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Comput Hum Behav, 107649. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3086902","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":211670858,"identity":"802c1280-0601-4d29-8870-6fb3429ca8f5","order_by":0,"name":"Djonata Schiessl","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2219-5641","institution":"UDESC: Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina","correspondingAuthor":true,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Djonata","middleName":"","lastName":"Schiessl","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2023-06-20 11:02:28","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3086902/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3086902/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":39187143,"identity":"e5801eb0-125c-4ff0-8752-a975c1d1275f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-06-27 19:07:22","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":215967,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(A) \u003c/strong\u003eComparisons of positive affect between tweets. (B) Comparisons of negative affect between tweets\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3086902/v1/f4ff8f9a8b609eefd55248c9.jpeg"},{"id":39186426,"identity":"d2b5d60c-1887-4b18-905d-db58a271b0f3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-06-27 18:59:22","extension":"jpeg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":136352,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComparisons of achievement\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3086902/v1/582898f0a2628404c327e1f5.jpeg"},{"id":39186422,"identity":"ab5dbdfc-8b42-453a-add5-135a16c18e53","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-06-27 18:59:22","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":135280,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComparisons of Risk perceptions\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3086902/v1/4eafc4be1074782f8c99a484.jpeg"},{"id":39186423,"identity":"8625ccb6-42de-4de4-8b16-0c9611bd7296","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-06-27 18:59:22","extension":"jpeg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":148974,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComparisons of death perceptions\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3086902/v1/da6b8dacb38ebb0c0ba1380d.jpeg"},{"id":39187144,"identity":"ad52dcc1-4e9a-47a3-9aa4-e755f0328ddd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-06-27 19:07:27","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":325131,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3086902/v1/98025a36-878a-4368-a713-70fbc6bd9547.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"How Do People Feel About COVID-19 Vaccine? An Analysis Of Twitter Polarization","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eUnderstanding public sentiment toward global issues is very important in a rapidly changing digital society. One such issue is the public response to COVID-19 vaccinations. This research explores the topic, focusing on the polarization of opinion on Twitter, a popular social media platform that serves as a microcosm for more expansive societal views.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe rise of social media and communication facilities triggered some issues for people. For instance, polarization has become more prominent in daily interactions, and some aspects are discussed more intensely (Buder et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Look, for example, for the discussion about flat earth and the efficacy of the application of vaccines. Further, exposure to negative or positive positioning in social media alters how people evaluate some subjects. For example, exposure to negative portrayals reinforces negative attitudes (Schmuck et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), affecting psychological aspects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this sense, Twitter is a social media that discuss sensitive themes and generally ends in polarization (Hong \u0026amp; Kim, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This polarization can negatively affect users and distort the theme discussed in social media. Generally, this discussion is guided by political positioning that distorts scientific arguments, creating an environment filled with hate and negative emotions (Hong \u0026amp; Kim, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Urman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, pro-trump personas have a negative positioning regarding vaccines than anti-trump (Walter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). All these aspects affect how people feel during situations like this.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNowadays, humanity faces the worst pandemic in history regarding COVID-19, and now countries are trying to vaccinate citizens to control the advance of the pandemic around the world. However, there is some polarization regarding this topic. In this case, some pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine debates about vaccines' quality and effectiveness growth in social media scenarios. Therefore, the polarized debate can prejudice the application of vaccines worldwide in combating the advance of the Pandemic (Pareek et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNevertheless, how do people feel about the COVID-19 vaccine compared to traditional Vaccines? This research investigated this issue using a large sample extracted from Twitter (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1,527,701). To analyze the psychological aspects triggered in people, we perform a sentiment analysis of tweets using the software LIWC. This software extracts psychological meanings from words (Chung \u0026amp; Pennebaker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) and helps us understand how subjects feel in their tweets.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results revealed that there are polarizations regarding COVID-19. Specifically, compared with traditional vaccines, COVID-19 Vaccines generated more positive emotions, achievement perceptions, fewer risk perceptions, and fewer death perceptions. It indicates that people are not preoccupied with the effects of COVID-19, and it can prejudice the advance of vaccine application.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith these findings, we contribute to public health by demonstrating how the vaccines for COVID-19 implicate citizens' psychological aspects. Moreover, we showed how they could act to attenuate this polarization to improve the advance of vaccination campaigns. Furthermore, we explore an alternative method to monitor people's perceptions about other vaccines or campaigns to combat other diseases.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings from our analysis offer significant insights into public sentiment surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines, revealing a marked polarization compared to traditional vaccines. We observed an increase in positive emotions and achievement perceptions, coupled with a decrease in risk and death perceptions, which point to an overall reduced sense of urgency about the severity of the pandemic among specific population segments. Such trends could have significant implications for the progress of vaccination drives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur research underscores the critical role of psychological factors in shaping public responses to public health initiatives, with far-reaching implications. It suggests that efforts to advance vaccination campaigns must consider not just medical and scientific factors but also the psychological responses of the population. Tailoring communication strategies to address these responses could significantly enhance the effectiveness of these campaigns.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, our findings shed light on an innovative approach for gauging public sentiment towards health campaigns. By harnessing the power of social media analysis, we can uncover crucial insights into the public's perceptions and emotions regarding vaccines or other disease prevention strategies. This method could be valuable for health authorities to gauge public sentiment and tailor their approach accordingly.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study has not only deepened our understanding of the psychological implications of COVID-19 vaccinations but also provided a roadmap for leveraging similar methodologies for future health campaigns. However, more research is needed to understand the demographic and sociocultural factors that may further shape these perceptions and how they evolve.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTheoretical review\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe COVID-19 pandemic triggered a gamut of emotions, reactions, and responses across the globe, making understanding public sentiment toward it a vital aspect (Pedrosa et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This research dives into this public sentiment, focusing primarily on the polarization of opinion regarding COVID-19 vaccines on Twitter, a widespread social media platform that reflects broader societal perspectives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA significant sentiment polarization has been observed on Twitter towards diverse themes, which is not different regarding COVID-19 vaccines. Factors such as misinformation, political beliefs, personal experiences, and influence from public figures contribute to this. The echo chamber effect, which leads to users interacting more with like-minded individuals, further exacerbates this polarization (Garimella \u0026amp; Weber, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnderstanding this polarization is crucial, given its wide-ranging implications. Negative sentiment and misinformation contribute to vaccine hesitancy, identified by the World Health Organization as one of the significant threats to global health (Troiano \u0026amp; Nardi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). On the other hand, positive sentiment can encourage vaccine uptake, especially when shared by influencers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings derived from Twitter sentiment analysis can inform public health agencies and governments to tailor their communication strategies, addressing fears and misconceptions and promoting fact-based dialogue. Understanding public sentiment is vital for developing effective health communication strategies despite the complexity of understanding public sentiment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe advent of big data presents opportunities to harness these tools to understand better and address public sentiment, potentially paving the way for tackling the ongoing pandemic and future global challenges. This research uses this rich data source to provide some insights into how people perceive the creation of the COVID-19 vaccine and how people express their sentiments related to it.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eUnderstanding Sentiment Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSentiment analysis, or opinion mining, is a computational study of people's opinions, appraisals, and emotions toward entities, events, and attributes. It has been widely used in politics, marketing, and public health for understanding public sentiment and informing strategy. With its massive user base and high-volume data, Twitter is an excellent platform for this kind of analysis (Aslan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSentiment analysis can be complex due to the nuances of human language, including sarcasm, idioms, and cultural context. However, advanced machine learning and natural language processing (NLP) algorithms have shown promise in addressing these challenges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePolarization on Twitter and COVID-19 Vaccines\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwitter has been a hotbed for the discussion of COVID-19 vaccines. Studies have indicated significant polarization in sentiments toward the vaccine(Henkel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). On one end, there is strong endorsement and encouragement for vaccination as a vital measure to curb the pandemic. On the other, there are skepticism, mistrust, and outright vaccine denial sentiments (Henkel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral factors contribute to this polarization, including misinformation, political beliefs, personal experiences, and the influence of public figures. The echo chamber effect, where users are more likely to interact with and be influenced by like-minded individuals, further intensifies this polarization (Dolman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Henkel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Xie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnderstanding this polarization has far-reaching implications. Vaccine hesitancy, partly fueled by negative sentiment and misinformation, has been identified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as one of the top threats to global health. Conversely, positive sentiment, particularly when shared by influencers, can encourage vaccine uptake (Garimella \u0026amp; Weber, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Troiano \u0026amp; Nardi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe information obtained from sentiment analysis on Twitter can help public health agencies, and governments tailor their communication strategies to address fears and misconceptions and promote fact-based dialogue.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSentiment analysis on Twitter provides an insightful lens into the public's sentiment about the COVID-19 vaccine, revealing a significant polarization of opinions. This understanding, while complex, is vital for designing effective health communication strategies. In the age of big data, harnessing these tools and approaches to understand better and address public sentiment could be vital in tackling the ongoing pandemic and future global challenges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo perform the analysis, we compare two datasets related to vaccination. Therefore, we take data from Twitter with Rstudio and the rtweet package. The first dataset was regarding traditional vaccines before the COVID-19 Pandemic. We employed the keywords \"#vaccine OR vaccine OR Vaccines OR #vaccines\" to obtain the tweets.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurther, we followed the same procedures to take data about COVID-19 vaccines. However, we used the keywords \"#Covid19vaccination OR #Coronavirusvaccination OR #Covidvaccination OR #Coronavaccination OR #Covid19vaccine OR #Coronavirusvaccine OR #Covidvaccine OR #Coronavaccine OR Covid19vaccination OR Coronavirusvaccination OR Covidvaccination OR Coronavaccination OR Covid19vaccine OR Coronavirus vaccine OR Covidvaccine OR Coronavaccine \".\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, after eliminating all duplicated tweets, the final sample was 1,527,701: traditional vaccines tweets (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;782,678) and tweets about COVID-19 vaccines (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;745,023). In the next step, we performed a text analysis in LIWC. This software is used to extract the psychological elements from the text. Specifically, LIWC examines the text and creates an index of words related to a variable(Tausczik \u0026amp; Pennebaker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, we ran an ANOVA analysis to evaluate the differences between both types of vaccines and how the polarizations are related to them.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe perform an ANOVA analysis to compare the results of both types of tweets. We called the tweets not related to COVID-19 as regular vaccines. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e demonstrates the differences in people's effects compared to both types of vaccines.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNote that tweets about COVID-19 vaccines generated more positive affect than traditional vaccines. However, conversely, traditional vaccines generated more negative emotions. One explanation for these results is that people superficially process the pandemic's severity and do not perceive the gravity of COVID-19.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother explanation is that citizens created high expectations regarding the COVID-19 vaccine due to extended quarantine periods. In this case, staying alone because of the quarantine creates severe psychological and social problems, and vaccines restore hope to everyday life (Matias et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, traditional vaccines englobe many other diseases that have affected humanity for a long time. Some diseases kill hundreds of people annually, and do not have a vaccine to combat them (Plotkin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, it can explain why traditional vaccines trigger more negative emotions than COVID-19 Vaccines. Another explanation is that the recent polarization in social media has reduced people's negative perceptions regarding COVID-19. In this case, some influencers and the presidents' positionings could attenuate the severity of the pandemic.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, another category can confirm this view we extracted from data, the achievement people perceived in the progress of the COVID-19 vaccine. This variable is presented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs we argued before, during the COVID-19 Pandemic, people stayed a long time at home because of the quarantine, which created several psychological issues (e.g., anxiety, sadness, depression). Creating a vaccine to combat COVID-19 makes them feel more positive emotions than regular vaccines. This view is confirmed by their perceived achievement when the vaccine was launched. At the same time, the risk perceptions regarding both types of vaccines differ from people's perspectives. It can be noted in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompared with traditional vaccines, the perceived risk in COVID-19 vaccines was lower. In this case, we trust these results can be attributed to three factors. The first one is that the death rate of COVID-19 is lower in the average age of people that use Twitter (Sousa et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Statista, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, it can alter how they process the risk of this disease. The second factor we attributed to this result is that COVID-19 has an inferior death rate than other diseases. For instance, diphtheria can have a mortality rate of 3,5% in some places (Arguni et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), while COVID-19 has a mortality rate of 2% (WHO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt last, some polarization within social media can explain this lower perception of risk. For instance, the positioning of the president or other authorities can create polarization on the internet that can attenuate the severity of the disease and the treatment (Walter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The analysis of death perceptions by people complements this view. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e pictures this difference.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs we argued before, there are some reasons for Covid-19-related tweets to reveal a lower death perception. First, the average age of Twitter users was not affected brutally by Covid 19. Second, many diseases are included in the dataset of traditional vaccines, including some diseases with a higher mortality rate than Covid 19. Third, Covid-19 affects humanity for a lower time than other diseases. Finally, some ideological aspects could affect people's feelings about the COVID-19 vaccine.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eCOVID-19 was one of the worst pandemics in human history; thousands died in two years because of this disease. Thus, creating a vaccine to combat the virus was essential to restoring normality. However, even though vaccines are expected, some people are positioning against this method to combat the disease.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research investigated some of these issues using a social media analysis to understand how psychological mechanisms drive this polarization. Results demonstrated that some psychological aspects are different from traditional vaccines with Covid vaccines. Specifically, when people wrote about the COVID-19 vaccine, they revealed more positive affect and fewer negative emotions than conventional vaccines.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the analysis of other psychological aspects demonstrated that achievement, risk perceptions, and death perceptions are more substantial in traditional vaccines than in COVID-19. We attribute these results to three factors. First, the age of people using Twitter is less affected by COVID-19. Thus, it can distort their perceptions about the severity of the virus, reducing their preoccupation with death.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, the anxiety triggered by the quarantine could lead people to higher expectations regarding the vaccine. Thus, the severity of the pandemic and the effects of COVID-19 were attenuated with vaccine creation, leading to less risk and death perceptions. Further, the duration of COVID-19 is shorter than other diseases, reducing the perception of seriousness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePsychological factors play a critical role in shaping perceptions about vaccines. The analysis indicated that COVID-19 vaccines invoked more positive emotions and less negative affect than traditional vaccines. It suggests that amidst a global crisis, the creation of a vaccine may have served as a beacon of hope, overshadowing the typical apprehension accompanying vaccination. The decreased perceptions of risk and death related to COVID-19 vaccines compared to traditional ones are intriguing. It can be explained through several psychological theories.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe selective exposure theory posits that people seek information that aligns with their beliefs and avoids information that contradicts them. In this context, younger Twitter users may selectively expose themselves to content that downplays the severity of COVID-19, shaping their perceptions of risk and death associated with the disease (Stroud, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOptimism bias, the belief that one is less likely to experience an adverse event, could also play a part in this context. Younger people might perceive themselves as less vulnerable to COVID-19 due to reports of the disease being less severe in younger age groups, thus reducing their perceived risk (Bracha \u0026amp; Brown, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe anxiety-uncertainty management theory suggests that people manage their anxiety and uncertainty by drawing on their expectations and hopes. In this context, the high hopes for a COVID-19 vaccine, fueled by a desire to return to normality, could have attenuated negative feelings about the pandemic (Stephan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur analysis provides an insightful understanding of the psychological mechanisms behind the public sentiment toward the COVID-19 vaccine. Notably, the age demographic on Twitter and the context of the pandemic appear to have uniquely shaped the narrative around the COVID-19 vaccine, differentiating it from traditional vaccines.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt last, the differences between people's perceptions can be explained by the polarization created within the internet, especially in social media. Therefore, this research investigated how it can distort people's perceptions of traditional and COVID-19 Vaccines. As demonstrated by previous studies, the positioning of a president or other authority can distort the severity of the disease, leading to higher polarization (Walter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the findings of this study supported this notion by demonstrating how COVID-19 distorts people's perceptions about the severity of the disease compared with traditional vaccines. Thus, these findings bring some contributions to public health.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study allows further research into how demographic factors and global crisis contexts impact public health messaging effectiveness. Furthermore, it underlines the importance of tailored communication strategies to address diverse population segments, considering their unique psychological and contextual factors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePublic Health Implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research also revealed some exciting insights into the development of Public Health. First, we demonstrated how the COVID-19 vaccine affects people's psychological aspects differently from traditional vaccines. Specifically, COVID-19 vaccines trigger more positive emotions and lower risk perceptions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurther, we argue that this difference is because citizens perceive the pandemic as less severe. In this case, policymakers and public persons can use this finding to improve their communication with people about the severity of COVID-19 and other viral diseases. Finally, note that we analyzed social media. Thus, the strategies to inform the population must differ on those platforms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn line with this reasoning, social media users were less affected by the COVID-19 Pandemic. Thus, it can distort how they perceive the pandemic and change the view of people around them who use social media. Therefore, policy and campaign makers must consider the age they are informing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, we demonstrated how social media could polarize sensitive themes like vaccines. Part of this polarization is due to the circulation of fake news (Spohr, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). In this case, policymakers need to create strategies to break the dissemination of fake news to reduce its adverse impacts on people's perceptions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, we also investigated more sensitive aspects that affect people's perceptions and lead them to polarize their vaccine positioning. For instance, political ideology can affect how people perceive the efficacy of vaccines (Hong \u0026amp; Kim, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Walter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, we analyzed the effect of religion on people's perceptions. Results demonstrated that higher levels of religiousness increase negative emotions for both vaccines (F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28.337; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.000).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith this in mind, the campaigns focusing on vaccination need to use different approaches to inform Republicans and Democrats. Besides that, they need to use different approaches to more religious people to avoid the negative emotions associated with vaccines, increasing the number of adepts to take them.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt last, with this research, we demonstrated an alternative approach to policymakers and campaign makers to monitor how people think about vaccines and campaigns about diseases. In addition, the methods employed in this research can be a good and cheaper way to evaluate citizens' emotions and other psychological aspects regarding the pandemic.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArguni E, Karyanti MR, Satari HI, Hadinegoro SR. Diphtheria outbreak in Jakarta and Tangerang, Indonesia: Epidemiological and clinical predictor factors for death. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(2 February):1\u0026ndash;11. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246301\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pone.0246301\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAslan S, Kızıloluk S, Sert E. (2023). TSA-CNN-AOA: Twitter sentiment analysis using CNN optimized via arithmetic optimization algorithm. Neural Comput Appl, 1\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBracha A, Brown DJ. Affective decision making: A theory of optimism bias. Games Econ Behav. 2012;75(1):67\u0026ndash;80.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBuder J, Rabl L, Feiks M, Badermann M, Zurstiege G. (2021). Does negatively toned language use on social media lead to attitude polarization? \u003cem\u003eComputers in Human Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e116\u003c/em\u003e(December 2020), 106663. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106663\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.chb.2020.106663\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChung CK, Pennebaker JW. (2013). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC). \u003cem\u003eApplied Natural Language Processing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2015\u003c/em\u003e, 206\u0026ndash;229. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60960-741-8.ch012\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4018/978-1-60960-741-8.ch012\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDolman AJ, Fraser T, Panagopoulos C, Aldrich DP, Kim D. Opposing views: associations of political polarization, political party affiliation, and social trust with COVID-19 vaccination intent and receipt. J Public Health. 2023;45(1):36\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarimella VRK, Weber I. (2017). A long-term analysis of polarization on Twitter. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 528\u0026ndash;531.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHenkel L, Sprengholz P, Korn L, Betsch C, B\u0026ouml;hm R. The association between vaccination status identification and societal polarization. Nat Hum Behav. 2023;7(2):231\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHong S, Kim SH. Political polarization on twitter: Implications for the use of social media in digital governments. Government Inform Q. 2016;33(4):777\u0026ndash;82. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMatias T, Dominski FH, Marks DF. Human needs in COVID-19 isolation. J Health Psychol. 2020;25(7):871\u0026ndash;82. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1359105320925149\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1359105320925149\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePareek M, Clark T, Dillon H, Kumar R, Stephenson I. Willingness of healthcare workers to accept voluntary stockpiled H5N1 vaccine in advance of pandemic activity. Vaccine. 2009;27(8):1242\u0026ndash;7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.12.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.12.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePedrosa AL, Bitencourt L, Fr\u0026oacute;es ACF, Cazumb\u0026aacute; MLB, Campos RGB, de Brito SBCS, Sim\u0026otilde;es AC. (2020). Emotional, Behavioral, and Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(October), 1\u0026ndash;18. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566212\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566212\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlotkin SA. Vaccines: Past, present and future. Nat Med. 2005;11(4S). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003eS5. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm1209\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"S5. 10.1038/nm1209\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchmuck D, Heiss R, Matthes J. Drifting Further Apart? How Exposure to Media Portrayals of Muslims Affects Attitude Polarization. Political Psychol. 2020;41(6):1055\u0026ndash;72. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12664\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/pops.12664\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSousa GJB, Garces TS, Cestari VRF, Flor\u0026ecirc;ncio RS, Moreira TMM, Pereira MLD. Mortality and survival of COVID-19. Epidemiol Infect. 2020. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268820001405\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/S0950268820001405\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpohr D. Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Bus Inform Rev. 2017;34(3):150\u0026ndash;60. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0266382117722446\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0266382117722446\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStatista. (2021). \u003cem\u003eDistribution of Twitter users worldwide as of April 2021, by age group\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.statista.com/statistics/283119/age-distribution-of-global-twitter-users/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.statista.com/statistics/283119/age-distribution-of-global-twitter-users/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStephan WG, Stephan CW, Gudykunst WB. Anxiety in intergroup relations: A comparison of anxiety/uncertainty management theory and integrated threat theory. Int J Intercultural Relations. 1999;23(4):613\u0026ndash;28.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStroud NJ. (2014). Selective exposure theories. \u003cem\u003eThe Oxford Handbook of Political Communication\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eFebruary 2022\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003epapers3://publication/doi/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199793471\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"papers3://publication/doi/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199793471\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTausczik YR, Pennebaker JW. The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. J Lang Social Psychol. 2010;29(1):24\u0026ndash;54. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0261927X09351676\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTroiano G, Nardi A. Vaccine hesitancy in the era of COVID-19. Public Health. 2021;194:245\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUrman A. Context matters: political polarization on Twitter from a comparative perspective. Media Cult Soc. 2020;42(6):857\u0026ndash;79. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0163443719876541\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0163443719876541\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWalter D, Ophir Y, Jamieson KH. Russian twitter accounts and the partisan polarization of vaccine discourse, 2015\u0026ndash;2017. Am J Public Health. 2020;110(5):715\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305564\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2105/AJPH.2019.305564\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWHO. (2021). \u003cem\u003eWHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://covid19.who.int/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://covid19.who.int/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXie L, Wang D, Ma F. (2023). Analysis of individual characteristics influencing user polarization in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Comput Hum Behav, 107649.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Vaccine, Covid-19, Polarization","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3086902/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3086902/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eWith the growth of social media, some issues started to affect people's interactions and create polarization regarding sensitive themes. Recently, it happened with the COVID-19 Vaccines when celebrities and public authorities were against vaccines application. This polarization is implicating in the application of vaccines aggravating the impacts of the pandemic. We analyzed data from Twitter to understand how this polarization affected people's psychological aspects compared with traditional vaccines. Results indicated that Tweets related to COVID-19 had more engagement and generated more positive emotions than traditional vaccines. Conversely, traditional vaccines generated more negative emotions than the COVID-19 vaccine. Furthermore, other aspects regarding polarization were explored.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"How Do People Feel About COVID-19 Vaccine? An Analysis Of Twitter Polarization","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2023-06-27 18:59:17","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3086902/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"22f537e1-cf4c-4f3c-84bc-9d3ed243dd28","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 27th, 2023","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2023-06-27T18:59:19+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2023-06-27 18:59:17","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3086902","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3086902","identity":"rs-3086902","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"WrCJVZZCHTDjtuVLN7oU0","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}