Does the platform matter? Social media and COVID-19 conspiracy theory beliefs in 17 countries

Agnieszka Stępińska,Soyeon Jin,Tamir Sheafer,Laia Castro,David Nicolas Hopmann,Frank Esser,Peter Van Aelst,Joerg Matthes,Christian Schemer,Sergio Splendore,Jesper Strömbäck,Claes De Vreese,Václav Štětka,Ana Cardenal,Karolina Koc-Michalska,Nicoleta Corbu,Yannis Theocharis,James Stanyer,Toril Aalberg

doi:10.1177/14614448211045666

Abstract

While the role of social media in the spread of conspiracy theories has received much attention, a key deficit in previous research is the lack of distinction between different types of platforms. This study places the role of social media affordances in facilitating the spread of conspiracy beliefs at the center of its enquiry. We examine the relationship between platform use and conspiracy theory beliefs related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Relying on the concept of technological affordances, we theorize that variation across key features make some platforms more fertile places for conspiracy beliefs than others. Using data from a crossnational dataset based on a two-wave online survey conducted in 17 countries before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we show that Twitter has a negative effect on conspiracy beliefs—as opposed to all other platforms under examination which are found to have a positive effect.

Highlights

Conspiracies around COVID-19 enjoy appreciable endorsement in many Western societies
We examine the relationship between platform use and conspiracy theory beliefs related to the COVID-19 pandemic
The main purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between social media platform use and conspiracy theory beliefs related to the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the following five different social media platforms: Messenger, WhatsApp, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook

Summary

Introduction

Conspiracies around COVID-19 enjoy appreciable endorsement in many Western societies. Conspiracy theories circulated among mostly small, local communities; social media offers a fertile ground for their proliferation at a much larger scale (Del Vicario et al, 2016; Tucker et al, 2017) Affordances such as the focus on short texts, and the ease of sharing across networks dubious material without the necessity to provide elaborate arguments, facilitate the propagation of rumor-spreading through informational cascades, and helps the dissemination of “fake news” (Bimber and Gil de Zúñiga, 2020; Vosoughi et al, 2018). In light of these considerations, studying conspiracy beliefs around COVID-19 invites caution. For the purposes of this study, we follow the pragmatic approach suggested by Sunstein and Vermeule (2009: 203) and focus on beliefs which at the time of the fieldwork were perceived as false, unfounded, potentially harmful for public health, with policy implications (e.g. resistance to mask wearing) and with consequences for scientific efforts to fight against the virus (e.g. vaccination; see Calisher et al, 2020)

Objectives

Results

Conclusion