Abstract
Original abstract online at
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23800844261464610
Objective
This study aimed to identify and categorize polarized messages about fluoride in Facebook posts shared by professionals or organizations engaged in scientific communication.
Methods
A total of 250 English-language Facebook posts were retrieved using CrowdTangle. Posts were classified by a trained investigator according to their fluoride perspective (pro- or anti-fluoride) regarding dental caries prevention. Each post was segmented into individual sentences and analyzed using deductive thematic content analysis in QDA Miner to determine polarization status (polarized or nonpolarized). Polarized sentences were then categorized into 3 predefined themes: criticism, emphasis, and discordance. All classifications were validated by an experienced investigator. Category frequencies were analyzed, and topic modeling was conducted using WordStat. Cramér’s V tests were performed to assess distribution differences (P < 0.05).
Results
Polarized posts comprised 56.00% of the sample (n = 140). Anti-fluoride content was significantly more frequent in polarized posts (n = 109, 92.37%), while pro-fluoride content predominated among nonpolarized posts (n = 101, 76.52%) (P < 0.001). Health professionals were the most frequent authors of polarized posts (n = 75, 53.57%), whereas mass media authors were more prevalent in nonpolarized posts (n = 50, 45.45%) (P < 0.001). Criticism was more common in pro-fluoride sentences (9.4%) compared to anti-fluoride sentences (5.1%), while emphasis appeared more frequently in anti-fluoride content (44.0%) than in pro-fluoride content (34.6%). Topic modeling revealed 4 polarized topics related to detoxifying behaviors, and 5 nonpolarized topics focused on oral health maintenance.
Conclusions
Polarized messages were frequently found in Facebook posts about fluoride, with a strong association with anti-fluoride perspectives. Pro- and anti-fluoride polarized content differed in intent, shifting between defense and attack, respectively, as reflected in the rhetorical strategies employed.
Knowledge Transfer Statement:
This study reveals patterns in the presentation of polarized fluoride content on Facebook. Specifically, anti-fluoride posts commonly used dramatization and skepticism, while pro-fluoride messages emphasized consensus and scientific authority. These findings may inform the development of more effective public health communication strategies aimed at countering misinformation and reinforcing evidence-based information regarding fluoride’s role in the prevention of dental caries on social media platforms.
References [see original abstract for links to studies]
Aiken L. S., West S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Allen M. (1991). Meta-analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and two-sided messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 390-404.
Blankenship K. L., Craig T. Y. (2011). Language use and persuasion: Multiple roles for linguistic styles. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 194-205.
Blankenship K. L., Holtgraves T. (2005). The role of different markers of linguistic powerlessness in persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 3-24.
Bless H., Wänke M., Bohner G., Fellhauer R. F., Schwarz N. (1994). Need for cognition: Eine Skala zur Erfassung von Engagement und Freude bei Denkaufgaben [Need for cognition: A scale for the assessment of involvement and enjoyment of cognitive tasks]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 25, 147-154.
Bromme R., Kienhues D., Porsch T. (2010). Who knows what and who can we believe? Epistemological beliefs are beliefs about knowledge (mostly) attained from others. In Bendixen L. D., Feucht F. C. (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 163-193). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Brossard D., Scheufele D. A. (2013). Science, new media, and the public. Science, 339, 40-41.
Burrell N. A., Koper R. J. (1998). The efficacy of powerful/powerless language on attitudes and source credibility. In Allen M., Preiss R. W. (Eds.), Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 203-217). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Bushman B. J., Rothstein H. R., Anderson C. A. (2010). Much ado about something: Violent video game effects and a school of red herring: Reply to Ferguson and Kilburn (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136, 182-187.
Cacioppo J. T., Petty R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
Cacioppo J. T., Petty R. E., Feinstein J. A., Jarvis W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197-253.
Cohen A. R., Scotland E., Wolfe D. M. (1955). An experimental investigation of need for cognition. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 51, 291-294.
Crowley A. E., Hoyer W. D. (1994). An integrative framework for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 561-574.
Dixon G., Clarke C. (2013). Heightening uncertainty around certain science: Media coverage, false balance, and the autism-vaccine controversy. Science Communication, 35, 358-382.
Durik A. M., Britt M. A., Reynolds R., Storey J. (2008). The effects of hedges in persuasive arguments: A nuanced analysis of language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 217-234.
Ferguson C. J., Kilburn J. (2010). Much ado about nothing: The misestimation and overinterpretation of violent video game effects in Eastern and Western nations: Comment on Anderson et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136, 174-178.
Friedman S. M., Dunwoody S., Rogers C. L. (Eds.). (1999). Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gibbons P., Busch J., Bradac J. J. (1991). Powerful versus powerless language: Consequences for persuasion, impression formation, and cognitive response. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10, 115-133.
Hale J. L., Mongeau P. A., Thomas R. M. (1991). Cognitive processing of one- and two-sided persuasive messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 380-389.
Hamilton M. A., Hunter J. E., Burgoon M. (1990). An empirical test of an axiomatic model of the relationship between language intensity and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9, 235-255.
Hartmann T., Klimmt C. (2006). Gender and computer games: Exploring females’ dislikes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 910-931.
Hofer B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378-405.
Hosman L. A. (2002). Language and persuasion. In Dillard J. P., Pfau M. (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Theory and practice (pp. 371-390). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hosman L. A., Siltanen S. A. (2011). Hedges, tag questions, message processing, and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 30, 341-349.
Igou E. R., Bless H. (2003). Inferring the importance of arguments: Order effects and conversational rules. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 91-99.
Jensen J. D. (2008). Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists’ and journalists’ credibility. Human Communication Research, 34, 347-369.
Kammerer Y., Gerjets P. (2012). Effects of search interface and internet-specific epistemic beliefs on source evaluations during web search for medical information: An eye-tracking study. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31, 83-97.
Kardash C. A. M., Scholes R. J. (1996). Effects of pre-existing beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 260-271.
Lakoff R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Lucas K., Sherry J. L. (2004). Sex differences in video game play: A communication-based explanation. Communication Research, 31, 499-523.
Markkanen R., Schröder H. (1997). Hedging: A challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis. In Markkanen R., Schröder H. (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 3-18). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
Mason L., Ariasi N., Boldrin A. (2011). Epistemic beliefs in action: Spontaneous reflections about knowledge and knowing during online information searching and their influence on learning. Learning and Instruction, 21, 137-151.
O’Keefe D. J. (1999). How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: A meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. In Roloff M. E. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 22 (pp. 209-249). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Perry W. G. Jr. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Petty R. E., Cacioppo J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer.
Petty R. E., Rucker D. D., Bizer G. Y., Cacioppo J. T. (2004). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Seiter J. S., Gass R. H. (Eds.), Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (pp. 65-89). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Popper K. R. (1968). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Quandt T., Breuer J., Festl R., Scharkow M. (2013). Digitale Spiele: Stabile Nutzung in einem dynamischen Markt [Digital games: Stable use in a dynamic market]. Media Perspektiven, 10, 483-492.
Schommer M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498-504.
Winter S., Krämer N. C. (2012). Selecting science information in Web 2.0: How source cues, message sidedness, and need for cognition influence users’ exposure to blog posts. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 80-96.
Biographies
Stephan Winter is a research associate at the University of Duisburg–Essen, Germany. He earned his PhD in 2012 with a thesis on selective exposure and information processing on online news sites. His research interests include persuasion and credibility in online contexts, science communication, and self-presentation in social media applications.
Nicole C. Krämer is a professor for Social Psychology: Media and Communication at the University of Duisburg–Essen. She finished her PhD in 2001 and received the venia legendi for Psychology in 2006 with a thesis on social effects of embodied conversational agents. Her current work focuses on social psychological aspects of Web 2.0 applications as well as on social effects of human–technology interaction.
Leonie Rösner is a research assistant and doctoral student in Social and Media Psychology at the University of Duisburg–Essen. She is interested in social influence in Web 2.0 settings as well as in crisis and risk communication.
German Neubaum is a PhD student at the University of Duisburg–Essen and a research assistant in the Department of Social Psychology. His research interests include online crisis and science communication as well as processes of online persuasion and opinion expression.
