Home COVID-19 vaccine reviews on YouTube: What do they say?
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

COVID-19 vaccine reviews on YouTube: What do they say?

  • Da-Young Kang ORCID logo EMAIL logo and Eyun-Jung Ki
Published/Copyright: March 13, 2024
Communications
From the journal Communications Volume 50 Issue 2

Abstract

After the Covid-19 vaccination started, social media users created an enormous amount of content on the vaccines. Especially in the early stages of vaccination, people searched and watched YouTube videos sharing personal experiences after getting the vaccines (i.e., vaccine review videos), usually titled “I got the COVID-19 vaccine.” Few studies have examined the characteristics and impacts of vaccine review videos on viewers’ responses (e.g., likes, dislikes, comments). This study investigates the content of, and reactions to, the most-viewed Covid-19 vaccine review videos on YouTube, based on the social communication framework. A quantitative content analysis of 148 vaccine review videos revealed their unique characteristics, including source expertise, message valence, narration, and topics. Most of the videos had a positive tone, with some urging vaccination and showing pro-vaccine attitudes. Furthermore, source expertise and hybrid message types (messages conveyed in narrative and informative ways) were not significantly related to positive responses. Rather, non-expert videos received more positive responses. The findings concern the public opinions surrounding new vaccines, including related concerns and attitudes. Given the positive tone of the content, vaccine review content made by diverse groups can be encouraged by public health institutions regardless of the creators’ expertise.

Keywords: eWOM; social communication framework; COVID-19 vaccine; YouTube; online review

References

Andsager, J. L., Bemker, V., Choi, H.-L., & Torwel, V. (2006). Perceived similarity of exemplar traits and behavior: Effects on message evaluation. Communication Research, 33(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365020528309910.1177/0093650205283099Search in Google Scholar

Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), 31-35. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2494377910.1038/scientificamerican1155-31Search in Google Scholar

Basch, C. H., Hillyer, G. C., Meleo-Erwin, Z. C., Jaime, C., Mohlman, J., & Basch, C. E. (2020). Preventive behaviors conveyed on YouTube to mitigate transmission of COVID-19: Cross-sectional study. JMIR Public Health Surveillance, 6(2), e18807. https://doi.org/10.2196/1880710.2196/18807Search in Google Scholar

Basch, C. H., Menafro, A., Mongiovi, J., Hillyer, G. C., & Basch, C. E. (2017). A content analysis of YouTube™ videos related to prostate cancer. American Journal of Men’s Health, 11(1), 154-157. https://doi.org/10.1177/155798831667145910.1177/1557988316671459Search in Google Scholar

Bendau, A., Plag, J., Petzold, M. B., & Ströhle, A. (2021). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and related fears and anxiety. International immunopharmacology, 97, 107724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2021.10772410.1016/j.intimp.2021.107724Search in Google Scholar

Bilandzic, H., & Busselle, R. (2012). Narrative persuasion. In L. Shen (Ed.), The Sage handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 200-219). SAGE Publications.10.4135/9781452218410.n13Search in Google Scholar

Bolsen, T., & Palm, R. (2022). Politicization and COVID-19 vaccine resistance in the US. Progress in molecular biology and translational science, 188(1), 81-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pmbts.2021.10.00210.1016/bs.pmbts.2021.10.002Search in Google Scholar

Bone, P. F. (1992). Determinants of word-of-mouth communications during product consumption. Advances in Consumer Research, 19, 579-583.Search in Google Scholar

Breves, P. L., Liebers, N., Abt, M., & Kunze, A. (2019). The perceived fit between instagram influencers and the endorsed brand: How influencer–brand fit affects source credibility and persuasive effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 59(4), 440-454. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2019-03010.2501/JAR-2019-030Search in Google Scholar

Briones, R., Nan, X., Madden, K., & Waks, L. (2012). When vaccines go viral: An analysis of HPV vaccine coverage on YouTube. Health Communication, 27(5), 478-485. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2011.61025810.1080/10410236.2011.610258Search in Google Scholar

Carl, W. J. (2006). What’s all the buzz about?: Everyday communication and the relational basis of word-of-mouth and buzz marketing practices. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(4), 601-634. https://doi.org/10.1177/089331890528476310.1177/0893318905284763Search in Google Scholar

Cheung, C. M. K., & Thadani, D. R. (2012). The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: A literature analysis and integrative model. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 461-470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.06.00810.1016/j.dss.2012.06.008Search in Google Scholar

Chou, W.-Y. S., & Budenz, A. (2020). Considering emotion in COVID-19 vaccine communication: Addressing vaccine hesitancy and fostering vaccine confidence. Health Communication, 35(14), 1718-1722. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.183809610.1080/10410236.2020.1838096Search in Google Scholar

Conlin, L., & Roberts, C. (2016). Presence of online reader comments lowers news site credibility. Newspaper Research Journal, 37(4), 365-376. https://doi.org/10.1177/073953291667705610.1177/0739532916677056Search in Google Scholar

Donzelli, G., Palomba, G., Federigi, I., Aquino, F., Cioni, L., Verani, M., Carducci, A., & Lopalco, P. (2018). Misinformation on vaccination: A quantitative analysis of YouTube videos. Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 14(7), 1654-1659. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2018.145457210.1080/21645515.2018.1454572Search in Google Scholar

Dror, A. A., Eisenbach, N., Taiber, S., Morozov, N. G., Mizrachi, M., Zigron, A., Srouji, S., & Sela, E. (2020). Vaccine hesitancy: The next challenge in the fight against COVID-19. European Journal of Epidemiology, 35(8), 775-779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-020-00671-y10.1007/s10654-020-00671-ySearch in Google Scholar

Dunlop, S., Wakefield, M., & Kashima, Y. (2008). Can you feel it? Negative emotion, risk, and narrative in health communication. Media Psychology, 11(1), 52-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/1521326070185311210.1080/15213260701853112Search in Google Scholar

Eastin, M. S. (2001). Credibility assessments of online health information: The effects of source expertise and knowledge of content. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00126.x10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00126.xSearch in Google Scholar

Elkin, L. E., Pullon, S. R. H., & Stubbe, M. H. (2020). ‘Should I vaccinate my child?’ Comparing the displayed stances of vaccine information retrieved from Google, Facebook and YouTube. Vaccine, 38(13), 2771-2778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.02.04110.1016/j.vaccine.2020.02.041Search in Google Scholar

Ferchaud, A., Grzeslo, J., Orme, S., & LaGroue, J. (2018). Parasocial attributes and YouTube personalities: Exploring content trends across the most subscribed YouTube channels. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 88-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.04110.1016/j.chb.2017.10.041Search in Google Scholar

Hamby, A., Daniloski, K., & Brinberg, D. (2015). How consumer reviews persuade through narratives. Journal of Business Research, 68(6), 1242-1250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.00410.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.004Search in Google Scholar

Hovland, C. I. (1948). Social communication. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 92(5), 371-375. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3143048Search in Google Scholar

Jamison, A., Broniatowski, D. A., Smith, M. C., Parikh, K. S., Malik, A., Dredze, M., & Quinn, S. C. (2020). Adapting and extending a typology to identify vaccine misinformation on Twitter. American Journal of Public Health, 110(S3), S331-S339. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.30594010.2105/AJPH.2020.305940Search in Google Scholar

Jung, W. S., Chung, M.-Y., & Rhee, E. S. (2018). The effects of attractiveness and source expertise on online health sites. Health Communication, 33(8), 962-971. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.132336410.1080/10410236.2017.1323364Search in Google Scholar

Kim, S. J., Maslowska, E., & Malthouse, E. C. (2018). Understanding the effects of different review features on purchase probability. International Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 29-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2017.134092810.1080/02650487.2017.1340928Search in Google Scholar

Klobas, J. E., McGill, T. J., Moghavvemi, S., & Paramanathan, T. (2018). Compulsive YouTube usage: A comparison of use motivation and personality effects. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 129-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.03810.1016/j.chb.2018.05.038Search in Google Scholar

Lahouati, M., De Coucy, A., Sarlangue, J., & Cazanave, C. (2020). Spread of vaccine hesitancy in France: What about YouTube™? Vaccine, 38(36), 5779-5782. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.07.00210.1016/j.vaccine.2020.07.002Search in Google Scholar

Lim, B. C., & Chung, C. M. (2014). Word-of-mouth: The use of source expertise in the evaluation of familiar and unfamiliar brands. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-02-2013-002710.1108/APJML-02-2013-0027Search in Google Scholar

Marchal, N., & Au, H. (2020). “Coronavirus EXPLAINED”: YouTube, COVID-19, and the socio-technical mediation of expertise. Social Media + Society, 6(3), 2056305120948158. https://doi.org/10.1177/205630512094815810.1177/2056305120948158Search in Google Scholar

McQueen, A., Kreuter, M. W., Kalesan, B., & Alcaraz, K. I. (2011). Understanding narrative effects: The impact of breast cancer survivor stories on message processing, attitudes, and beliefs among African American women. Health Psychology, 30(6), 674. https://doi.org/10.1037/a002539510.1037/a0025395Search in Google Scholar

Nabi, J. (June 22, 2021). Opinion: Vaccine hesitancy in the U.S. is a peculiar privilege. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/06/22/1007145368/opinion-vaccine-hesitancy-in-the-u-s-is-a-peculiar-privilegeSearch in Google Scholar

Nan, X., Dahlstrom, M. F., Richards, A., & Rangarajan, S. (2015). Influence of evidence type and narrative type on HPV risk perception and intention to obtain the HPV vaccine. Health Communication, 30(3), 301-308. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.88862910.1080/10410236.2014.888629Search in Google Scholar

Naujoks, A., & Benkenstein, M. (2020). Who is behind the message? The power of expert reviews on eWOM platforms. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 44, 101015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2020.10101510.1016/j.elerap.2020.101015Search in Google Scholar

Paek, H.-J., Hove, T., Ju Jeong, H., & Kim, M. (2011). Peer or expert? The persuasive impact of YouTube public service announcement producers. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 161-188. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-30-1-161-18810.2501/IJA-30-1-161-188Search in Google Scholar

Pant, S., Deshmukh, A., Murugiah, K., Kumar, G., Sachdeva, R., & Mehta, J. L. (2012). Assessing the credibility of the “YouTube approach” to health information on acute myocardial infarction. Clinical Cardiology, 35(5), 281-285. https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.2198110.1002/clc.21981Search in Google Scholar

Park, D.-H., Lee, J., & Han, I. (2007). The effect of online consumer reviews on consumer purchasing intention: The moderating role of involvement. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11(4), 125-148. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-441511040510.2753/JEC1086-4415110405Search in Google Scholar

Pluviano, S., Della Sala, S., & Watt, C. (2020). The effects of source expertise and trustworthiness on recollection: The case of vaccine misinformation. Cognitive Processing, 21(3), 321-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-020-00974-810.1007/s10339-020-00974-8Search in Google Scholar

Pruitt-Young, S. (September 19, 2021). YouTube is banning all content that spreads vaccine misinformation. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/29/1041493544/youtube-vaccine-misinformation-banSearch in Google Scholar

Purnawirawan, N., Eisend, M., De Pelsmacker, P., & Dens, N. (2015). A meta-analytic investigation of the role of valence in online reviews. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 31, 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2015.05.00110.1016/j.intmar.2015.05.001Search in Google Scholar

Robichaud, P., Hawken, S., Beard, L., Morra, D., Tomlinson, G., Wilson, K., & Keelan, J. (2012). Vaccine-critical videos on YouTube and their impact on medical students’ attitudes about seasonal influenza immunization: A pre and post study. Vaccine, 30(25), 3763-3770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.03.07410.1016/j.vaccine.2012.03.074Search in Google Scholar

Smith, T. C. (2017). Vaccine rejection and hesitancy: A review and call to action. Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx14610.1093/ofid/ofx146Search in Google Scholar

Symoneaux, R., Galmarini, M. V., & Mehinagic, E. (2012). Comment analysis of consumers’ likes and dislikes as an alternative tool to preference mapping. A case study on apples. Food Quality and Preference, 24(1), 59-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.08.01310.1016/j.foodqual.2011.08.013Search in Google Scholar

Tajuddin, U. N. R. A., Hassan, L. F. A., Othman, A. K., & Razak, N. A. (2020). Electronic word-of-mouth (E-WOM), brand image and consumer purchase intention on healthcare products. Journal of Accounting Research, Organization and Economics, 3(1), 73-83. https://doi.org/10.24815/jaroe.v3i1.1682310.24815/jaroe.v3i1.16823Search in Google Scholar

Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2009). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X0935167610.1177/0261927X09351676Search in Google Scholar

Thiriot, S. (2018). Word-of-mouth dynamics with information seeking: Information is not (only) epidemics. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 492, 418-430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2017.09.05610.1016/j.physa.2017.09.056Search in Google Scholar

Thon, F. M., & Jucks, R. (2017). Believing in expertise: How authors’ credentials and language use influence the credibility of online health information. Health Communication, 32(7), 828-836. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.117229610.1080/10410236.2016.1172296Search in Google Scholar

Thorson, K. S., & Rodgers, S. (2006). Relationships between blogs as EWOM and interactivity, perceived interactivity, and parasocial interaction. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6(2), 5-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2006.1072211710.1080/15252019.2006.10722117Search in Google Scholar

Yiannakoulias, N., Slavik, C. E., & Chase, M. (2019). Expressions of pro-and anti-vaccine sentiment on YouTube. Vaccine, 37(15), 2057-2064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.03.00110.1016/j.vaccine.2019.03.001Search in Google Scholar
Published Online: 2024-03-13
Published in Print: 2025-05-28

© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Titelseiten
  2. Articles
  3. Communication and academic burnout: The effects of social support and participation in decision-making
  4. With time comes trust? The development of misinformation perceptions related to COVID-19 over a six-month period: Evidence from a five-wave panel survey study in the Netherlands
  5. A qualitative examination of (political) media diets across age cohorts in five countries
  6. Oldies but goldies? Comparing the trustworthiness and credibility of ‘new’ and ‘old’ information intermediaries
  7. Life online during the pandemic : How university students feel about abrupt mediatization
  8. Publishing strategies and professional demarcations: Enacting media logic(s) in European academic climate communication through open letters
  9. International cooperation on (counter)publics between tradition and reorientation: Social democracy and its media in the Cold War era
  10. The Silicon Valley paradox: A qualitative interview study on the social, cultural, and ideological foundations of a global innovation center
  11. Quality and conflicts of communication consulting: Demystifying the concept and current practices based on a study of consultants and clients across Europe
  12. Hate speech mainstreaming in the Greek virtual public sphere: A quantitative and qualitative approach
  13. Examining the spread of disinformation on Facebook during the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic: A case study in Switzerland
  14. COVID-19 vaccine reviews on YouTube: What do they say?
  15. It’s the political economy after all: Implications of the case of Israel’s media system transition on the theory of media systems
  16. Periods of upheaval and their effect on mediatized ways of life: Changes in media use in the wake of separation, new partnership, children leaving the parental home, and relocation
  17. Solving the crisis with “do-it-yourself heroes”? The media coverage on pioneer communities, Covid-19, and technological solutionism
  18. What makes audiences resilient to disinformation? Integrating micro, meso, and macro factors based on a systematic literature review
  19. “That’s just, like, your opinion” – European citizens’ ability to distinguish factual information from opinion
  20. Book reviews
  21. Cuelenaere, E., Willems, G., & Joye, S. (Eds.) (2021). European film remakes. Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474460668. 272 pp.
  22. Cushion, S. (2024). Beyond mainstream media: Alternative media and the future of journalism. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003360865. 193 pp.
  23. Frau-Meigs, D., & Corbu, N. (2024). Disinformation debunked: Building resilience through media and information literacy. Routledge. 328 pp. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003387404
https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2023-0056
Keywords for this article
eWOM; social communication framework; COVID-19 vaccine; YouTube; online review

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Titelseiten
  2. Articles
  3. Communication and academic burnout: The effects of social support and participation in decision-making
  4. With time comes trust? The development of misinformation perceptions related to COVID-19 over a six-month period: Evidence from a five-wave panel survey study in the Netherlands
  5. A qualitative examination of (political) media diets across age cohorts in five countries
  6. Oldies but goldies? Comparing the trustworthiness and credibility of ‘new’ and ‘old’ information intermediaries
  7. Life online during the pandemic : How university students feel about abrupt mediatization
  8. Publishing strategies and professional demarcations: Enacting media logic(s) in European academic climate communication through open letters
  9. International cooperation on (counter)publics between tradition and reorientation: Social democracy and its media in the Cold War era
  10. The Silicon Valley paradox: A qualitative interview study on the social, cultural, and ideological foundations of a global innovation center
  11. Quality and conflicts of communication consulting: Demystifying the concept and current practices based on a study of consultants and clients across Europe
  12. Hate speech mainstreaming in the Greek virtual public sphere: A quantitative and qualitative approach
  13. Examining the spread of disinformation on Facebook during the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic: A case study in Switzerland
  14. COVID-19 vaccine reviews on YouTube: What do they say?
  15. It’s the political economy after all: Implications of the case of Israel’s media system transition on the theory of media systems
  16. Periods of upheaval and their effect on mediatized ways of life: Changes in media use in the wake of separation, new partnership, children leaving the parental home, and relocation
  17. Solving the crisis with “do-it-yourself heroes”? The media coverage on pioneer communities, Covid-19, and technological solutionism
  18. What makes audiences resilient to disinformation? Integrating micro, meso, and macro factors based on a systematic literature review
  19. “That’s just, like, your opinion” – European citizens’ ability to distinguish factual information from opinion
  20. Book reviews
  21. Cuelenaere, E., Willems, G., & Joye, S. (Eds.) (2021). European film remakes. Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474460668. 272 pp.
  22. Cushion, S. (2024). Beyond mainstream media: Alternative media and the future of journalism. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003360865. 193 pp.
  23. Frau-Meigs, D., & Corbu, N. (2024). Disinformation debunked: Building resilience through media and information literacy. Routledge. 328 pp. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003387404
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 16.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/commun-2023-0056/html
Scroll to top button