#EpiTwitter: Public Health Messaging During the COVID-19 Pandemic

TL;DR

This study analyzes how public health experts and pseudo-experts used emotional and moral language on Twitter during COVID-19, revealing differences in messaging, partisanship, and engagement that influence public perception and polarization.

Contribution

It provides a comparative analysis of emotional and moral language in COVID-19 communication by experts and pseudo-experts on Twitter, highlighting their impact on public engagement and polarization.

Findings

PHEs focus on masking, healthcare, and vaccines with positive language.

Pseudo-experts emphasize therapeutics and lockdowns with negative emotions.

Negative emotional and moral language increases engagement.

Abstract

Effective communication during health crises is critical, with social media serving as a key platform for public health experts (PHEs) to engage with the public. However, it also amplifies pseudo-experts promoting contrarian views. Despite its importance, the role of emotional and moral language in PHEs' communication during COVID-19 remains under explored. This study examines how PHEs and pseudo-experts communicated on Twitter during the pandemic, focusing on emotional and moral language and their engagement with political elites. Analyzing tweets from 489 PHEs and 356 pseudo-experts from January 2020 to January 2021, alongside public responses, we identified key priorities and differences in messaging strategy. PHEs prioritize masking, healthcare, education, and vaccines, using positive emotional language like optimism. In contrast, pseudo-experts discuss therapeutics and lockdowns more frequently, employing negative emotions like pessimism and disgust. Negative emotional and moral language tends to drive engagement, but positive language from PHEs fosters positivity in public responses. PHEs exhibit liberal partisanship, expressing more positivity towards liberals and negativity towards conservative elites, while pseudo-experts show conservative partisanship. These findings shed light on the polarization of COVID-19 discourse and underscore the importance of strategic use of emotional and moral language by experts to mitigate polarization and enhance public trust.