1. Introduction
Recent research demonstrates that psychosocial and communicative factors involved in vaccination decisions often mirror those influencing the adoption of pro-environmental behaviors. In both cases, risk perception, social influence, and trust in official sources play decisive roles in youth decision-making.
For example, strategies to combat misinformation and conspiracy theories about vaccines, such as engaging influencers and educational campaigns based on empathetic messaging, can be effectively adapted to address climate skepticism and anxiety. Recent studies by Vosoughi, Roy, and Aral (2018) [1] have highlighted how misinformation spreads faster than factual information on social media, influencing public health and environmental behaviors. Similarly, message personalization, which has proven effective in reducing vaccine hesitancy, can increase youth engagement with environmental issues by creating content that resonates directly with their experiences and values. Social media has emerged as one of the most influential ecosystems for public communication in the digital age. The platforms that fall under the umbrella of social media enable the rapid dissemination of information and shape human interactions, creating a virtual arena where opinions and perspectives can be discussed and influenced in unprecedented ways. Users play dual roles as both consumers and creators of content, effectively shifting the traditional one-way communication dynamic.
Recent theoretical contributions emphasize that social media not only disseminates information but also fundamentally shapes individual behavior and collective perceptions. According to the Social Media Impact Theory [2], digital platforms act as powerful ecosystems influencing health and environmental decisions through emotional resonance and peer dynamics. Moreover, the echo chamber phenomenon, as analyzed by Cinelli et al. [3], illustrates how algorithmic personalization reinforces pre-existing beliefs, potentially amplifying misinformation and polarizing public opinion.
Today’s young generation faces a dual challenge: addressing public health threats and combating environmental degradation. Interestingly, the psychosocial and communicative mechanisms that drive vaccine acceptance also apply to climate-conscious behavior. Risk perception, trust in authorities, and the influence of social networks play decisive roles in both contexts. This paper explores how the strategies and insights gained from promoting vaccination can be repurposed to support pro-environmental behavior. In doing so, it positions digital media as a key facilitator of behavioral change.
In this digital era, social media has transformed public communication, altering how people interact, access, and share information while profoundly impacting societal opinions and behaviors. Social platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok have evolved beyond mere spaces for entertainment or personal connection; they have become battlegrounds for significant social and political discussions. These platforms are central to shaping public perceptions on complex issues, such as vaccination. This transformation is driven by advanced algorithms that personalize information flows based on individual user preferences and behaviors, which can amplify phenomena like “echo chambers” and the polarization of public opinion.
Studies show that social media influences health-related decisions through two key mechanisms: the rapid dissemination of information and the generation of strong emotional reactions. For instance, research by Vosoughi, Roy, and Aral [1] demonstrated that fake news, often viral on social media, spreads faster than fact-based news, affecting public perceptions of the risks and benefits of vaccination. Meanwhile, Larson et al. [4] highlight that negative emotions, such as fear or doubt, can be intensified by content shared on social networks, disproportionately impacting individual decisions.
This complex dynamic also involves important psychosocial aspects. Digital opinion leaders and influencers significantly contribute to shaping public attitudes, using personalized narratives and emotional appeals that often surpass the impact of institutional messages. In this context, social media platforms become communication channels and spaces for symbolic and cultural negotiations, where the public actively constructs social reality [5]. This intricate process underscores the importance of understanding communicational and psychosocial mechanisms to counter misinformation and support informed vaccine adoption.
In 2025, social media continues to redefine public communication, solidifying its status as a central ecosystem for disseminating information and shaping public opinion. These platforms profoundly influence collective perceptions on complex subjects such as vaccination, political polarization, and global crises through advanced algorithms and direct user interactions.
Thus, using social media to promote public health and counter misinformation represents a unique opportunity that requires intersectoral collaboration, media education, and global responsibility. Only through a well-grounded approach can these virtual spaces become catalysts for social progress and informed engagement.
Public responses to vaccination and climate change share several characteristics: emotional polarization, reliance on trusted messengers, and vulnerability to misinformation. Social media intensifies these phenomena, often fostering echo chambers where beliefs are reinforced rather than challenged. Understanding these parallels is critical to designing messages that resonate emotionally while maintaining factual integrity. Campaigns that succeeded in encouraging vaccination through empathetic storytelling and influencer support can inform strategies to promote recycling, energy conservation, or sustainable consumption.
Therefore, this study aims to propose and validate a conceptual model linking pro-vaccination and pro-environmental behaviors among youth, based on psychosocial factors influenced by social media communication.
Building on the Social Media Impact Theory [2], echo chamber theory [3], and insights from risk perception literature, this study proposes a conceptual framework in which psychosocial mechanisms (e.g., fear, trust, peer influence) mediate the relationship between digital communication and behavioral outcomes in two critical domains: vaccination and environmental sustainability. The model posits that strategic, emotionally resonant messaging can drive engagement across both contexts, thereby enabling integrated health–environment interventions.
The study builds on the Social Media Impact Theory [2] and Echo Chamber Theory [3] as theoretical frameworks underpinning the proposed model.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Social Media as a Medium for Participatory Communication
Social media platforms create participatory environments where users act as both content consumers and creators. Algorithms amplify emotionally charged content, sometimes spreading misinformation, but also enabling widespread engagement when leveraged correctly. For youth, platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube serve as influential arenas for identity formation and value negotiation. By applying pro-vaccine strategies to environmental communication—such as using relatable influencers, personal narratives, and visually engaging content—we can spark greater interest in ecological issues.
Unlike traditional forms of mass communication, social media allows users to be consumers and creators of content simultaneously. This dual function creates an interactive communication network that fosters public participation and enhances individuals’ ability to influence groups. The study by Parveen et al. [6] highlights that social media facilitates the dissemination of information with unprecedented speed, shaping the public agenda and influencing opinions on current topics such as vaccination. Furthermore, recent research by Vosoughi, Roy, and Aral [1] demonstrated that false news, often prevalent in the digital space, spreads significantly faster than verified information, directly impacting public perceptions and social decisions.
Thus, social media functions as a participatory platform where individuals not only consume information but also actively contribute to shaping narratives through comments, shares, and original posts. Kaplan and Haenlein [7] described this transformation as a shift from “mass-self communication”, characterized by individual self-expression, to a more collaborative and collective influence process. Within the realms of both public health (e.g., vaccination) and environmental sustainability, this interactivity enables the formation of “digital communities” that either support or resist mainstream science, depending on the prevailing sentiments and the narratives amplified by algorithmic curation.
In both contexts, digital communities serve as echo chambers that reinforce preexisting beliefs and values. The study by Chen et al. [8] highlights how social networks empower unofficial opinion leaders—often influencers or content creators—who can mobilize large audiences around specific causes. This amplification can be leveraged to promote evidence-based information, but it also creates vulnerabilities by enabling the rapid spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories, whether about vaccines or climate change. Likewise, Zhang et al. [9] showed that users tend to cluster in ideologically homogeneous groups, deepening polarization and reducing exposure to dissenting viewpoints—an effect that applies equally to anti-vaccine groups and climate denial communities.
Social media thus redefines the communication process by transforming passive consumers into active, agenda-setting participants. This shift has profound implications for how public narratives around health and environmental responsibility are shaped. As platforms where meaning is negotiated and identity is constructed, social media spaces offer opportunities for engagement but also risks of misinformation, tribalism, and emotional manipulation.
By 2025, social media remains at the center of public discourse, fundamentally altering how information is produced, distributed, and consumed. Unlike traditional mass media, today’s platforms enable a participatory ecosystem where users are simultaneously content creators, curators, and amplifiers. This dual function fosters the growth of influential digital communities that can be mobilized to support vaccination uptake, environmental stewardship, or—conversely—spread distrust, doubt, and inaction. Understanding this dynamic is crucial to developing strategic communication interventions that not only inform but also emotionally resonate and socially integrate into the lives of young audiences. In the context of public health, such as vaccination, social media functions as a dynamic space for interaction and conflict, where opinions polarize within digital echo chambers. It offers significant opportunities for education and awareness but also expands the risk of misinformation fueled by algorithms that prioritize engaging and often emotional content.
The algorithms of social media platforms play a central role in personalizing the user experience by curating content based on individual preferences, behavioral patterns, and emotional responses. This personalization often leads to the formation of so-called “echo chambers” [10], digital environments where users are continuously exposed to information that confirms and reinforces their existing beliefs. As a result, exposure to opposing viewpoints is minimized, contributing to opinion polarization and the creation of ideologically homogeneous virtual communities [3].
In the context of both vaccination and environmental responsibility, echo chambers exhibit a dual impact. On the one hand, they can facilitate the rapid dissemination of accurate, science-based content, bolstering public awareness campaigns aimed at increasing vaccine uptake or encouraging sustainable behaviors. On the other hand, they create ideal conditions for amplifying misinformation, climate denial, or anti-vaccine rhetoric, especially when emotional or controversial content is algorithmically prioritized [11].
A notable example is Facebook, where studies have shown that both anti-vaccination and anti-environmental user groups often benefit from heightened visibility due to their emotionally charged and polarizing nature [12]. This increased engagement can overshadow science-based messaging, particularly in communities already skeptical of authority. Furthermore, users heavily embedded within echo chambers show reduced receptivity to corrective information, which limits the effectiveness of fact-based interventions [13].
To address the risks posed by echo chambers in both domains, social media platforms must implement algorithmic reforms that promote informational diversity. This includes prioritizing balanced, evidence-based content and actively reducing the reach of harmful misinformation. Research by Cinelli et al. [3] demonstrates that exposure to diverse and credible sources—enabled through platform-level adjustments—can mitigate user polarization and foster more nuanced understanding of complex issues, whether related to vaccines or environmental sustainability.
Integrating fact-checking mechanisms, such as warning labels and information panels, has also proven moderately effective in slowing the spread of misleading content [14]. However, these technological interventions must be complemented by human-centered strategies: engaging online opinion leaders who serve as trusted intermediaries, capable of translating expert knowledge into accessible, emotionally resonant messages [15].
Crucially, the psychosocial context of users affects how they interact with echo chamber content. Individuals with high levels of anxiety, distrust in institutions, or feelings of marginalization are more likely to adopt conspiratorial beliefs—whether about vaccine safety or climate change denial [16]. Campaigns must therefore move beyond information delivery to actively address these emotional undercurrents using empathy, narrative techniques, and culturally adapted messaging.
In this dual behavioral landscape, the power of algorithms and echo chambers cannot be overlooked. They are both amplifiers of misinformation and gateways to collective awareness. Effective counterstrategies must draw from interdisciplinary collaboration—combining expertise in digital technology, public health, environmental communication, and behavioral science—to create environments that promote informed engagement and behavioral alignment with scientific consensus.
Ultimately, social media’s role in shaping public discourse around health and environmental issues is both promising and problematic. While digital platforms can act as powerful allies in promoting pro-vaccine and pro-environmental behaviors, they can equally serve as breeding grounds for doubt, fear, and misinformation. To shift this balance, platforms must partner with experts to design algorithmic policies and communication strategies that prioritize emotional intelligence, scientific integrity, and social trust.
In a digitized society, the success of both public health and climate action campaigns will increasingly depend on our ability to navigate and reform the algorithmic architectures that mediate public understanding. Echo chambers must evolve from silos of self-confirmation into spaces of constructive dialogue, where shared values and evidence-based actions can flourish.
Social media not only accelerates the diffusion of information but also powerfully influences user emotions, shaping how people engage with content on critical issues such as public health and environmental sustainability. Messages that trigger strong emotional responses—fear, anger, hope, or empathy—are more likely to go viral and significantly shape public discourse. In both the vaccination and environmental domains, affective content has been shown to mobilize individuals toward action or, conversely, deepen skepticism and resistance. Recent research by Schivinski and Dabrowski [17] emphasizes that messages’ narrative and visual structure are critical in shaping public perceptions of sensitive issues like vaccination. Personal stories, emotionally compelling imagery, and authentic voices can increase trust in science-backed messages or, depending on context, amplify doubt and conspiratorial thinking. This dual potential applies equally to vaccine campaigns and sustainability initiatives, where trust in authorities is often fragile and emotionally charged narratives dominate the online space.
Emotional misinformation—often unverified, sensationalist, or anecdotal—tends to spread faster than evidence-based content, as shown by Vosoughi, Roy, and Aral [1]. This dynamic is supported by cognitive bias theory, particularly the confirmation bias, which leads individuals to focus on information that aligns with their preexisting beliefs. As Kahneman’s research illustrates [18], these biases are amplified by social media algorithms that prioritize emotionally engaging content, regardless of accuracy. Additionally, recent literature, such as the analysis by Bavel et al. [19] in Nature Human Behaviour, underscores how fear of the unknown, combined with incomplete information, leads to opinion polarization and the reinforcement of narratives based on collective anxieties. In this context, messages that foster trust through clear scientific evidence and empathetic communication can counteract hesitation and misinformation, as shown in studies by Betsch et al. [20]. Thus, communication strategies that integrate an understanding of emotions and cognition are crucial for the success of vaccination promotion campaigns.
Moreover, recent research indicates that emotions influence information dissemination and shape individuals’ decision-making processes, affecting how they interpret and respond to messages about vaccination. The study by Pennycook and Rand [21], published in Nature, demonstrates that users more susceptible to emotional content tend to share messages without critically evaluating their accuracy. This creates a vicious cycle: as emotional content dominates social networks, public perceptions become increasingly polarized, complicating efforts to promote evidence-based public health messages.
In the context of vaccination, fear assumes an ambivalent role. On the one hand, the fear of vaccine side effects, exacerbated by sensational narratives on social media, can deter vaccine acceptance. Conversely, the fear of disease, heightened through compelling images and testimonies of victims, may encourage a greater willingness to vaccinate. Research conducted by Larson et al. [4] on the dynamics of vaccine confidence underscores that strong emotions—both positive and negative—are critical in shaping public opinion.
Another significant factor is the role of empathy in communication. Research by Hornsey et al. [16] indicates that expressing empathy for the personal experiences of others, such as those impacted by COVID-19, can reduce vaccine hesitancy and enhance acceptance. Authentic and empathetic messages, which convey positive emotions like hope and solidarity, prove to be more effective in countering misinformation and encouraging individuals to engage in responsible behaviors.
Thus, integrating a complex psychosocial perspective into vaccination communication campaigns by balancing emotions with factual information remains a central challenge. This requires collaboration among public health experts, psychologists, and communication specialists to create messages that inspire trust and engagement.
Social media plays a central role in shaping public opinion about vaccination, where emotions become essential for information dissemination and for spreading misinformation. Fear, empathy, and other emotional reactions shape how users perceive and respond to messages about vaccines, influencing both hesitancy and acceptance. On the one hand, alarmist messages amplified by algorithms favoring emotional content can undermine vaccine trust. On the other hand, fear of disease and empathetic stories about immunization’s positive impact can mobilize populations to support vaccination.
The solution lies in balancing emotions with evidence-based information in a digital context dominated by cognitive biases and echo chambers. Vaccination campaigns must adopt a strategic approach, integrating empathetic messages, authentic stories, and precise scientific data to address the public’s emotional and cognitive needs.
In conclusion, combating misinformation and promoting behavior change—whether related to vaccines or the environment—requires a holistic, human-centered strategy. Only through strategies that address fear and empathy as complementary factors, alongside measures to regulate social media algorithms, can significant progress be made in promoting public health and building trust in vaccination. This challenge requires a holistic approach that integrates the complexity of human behavior in a digitally connected world.
One of the most controversial and impactful aspects of social media is its dual role as both a driver of information and a conduit for misinformation, with far-reaching consequences for public health and environmental action. The same digital infrastructure that enables rapid access to scientific knowledge also facilitates the viral spread of false or misleading narratives. This dynamic becomes particularly problematic in domains where public trust is fragile, such as vaccination and environmental protection.
The speed at which social media operates allows emotionally charged content to reach wide audiences almost instantaneously. However, this speed often comes at the expense of accuracy. Studies show that users are more likely to engage with and share content that triggers emotional responses—such as fear, outrage, or moral indignation—especially when it involves highly sensitive topics like vaccine side effects or exaggerated claims about climate hoaxes. Alarmist stories, anti-vaccine myths, or climate denial rhetoric tend to be perceived as more “engaging”, leading platforms’ algorithms to boost their visibility regardless of factual integrity [14].
This behavior is deeply rooted in cognitive biases, particularly confirmation bias, which drives individuals to seek, favor, and recall information that confirms their existing beliefs, while dismissing opposing evidence [22]. As a result, users often remain trapped in feedback loops where their views are continuously reinforced—whether they relate to vaccine hesitancy or environmental skepticism.
In the context of vaccination, this mechanism fosters distrust in medical institutions, fuels conspiracy theories, and undermines the efforts of public health campaigns. Similarly, in the environmental domain, misinformation contributes to climate inaction, the rejection of sustainable policies, and resistance to lifestyle changes aimed at reducing ecological footprints. The spread of misinformation about vaccines directly affects vaccination decisions and collective behavior, contributing to lower immunization rates and the resurgence of preventable diseases [23]. Antivaccine campaigns often use powerful, persuasive techniques, such as emotional appeals, to generate fear or doubt among users. Houston et al. [24] propose a functional framework for using social media in crisis communication planning, emphasizing the importance of proactively combating misinformation by creating credible content and leveraging influential opinion leaders.
In addition to combating strategies, other studies highlight the importance of digital literacy and public education in increasing resilience against misinformation. For example, Roozenbeek et al. [25] demonstrated that educational games simulating misinformation creation can improve individuals’ ability to recognize false content. Integrating these methods with emerging artificial intelligence (AI) technologies could provide an effective solution for filtering misleading content and protecting public health.
Thus, limiting the impact of misinformation requires a multidimensional approach that combines education, technology, and effective public communication strategies.
2.2. Social Media Influence on Environmental Behavior
Successful pro-vaccination campaigns have demonstrated that youth are profoundly influenced by digital content generating emotions, solidarity, and a sense of belonging. These lessons can be directly applied in pro-environmental campaigns to amplify sustainable messages and generate active youth engagement. By leveraging young opinion leaders and developing compelling narratives based on positive emotions such as hope and empathy, social media can become powerful tools in converting general environmental concerns into concrete and sustained actions.
Social media algorithms have the potential to amplify effective messages but can equally facilitate the rapid spread of misinformation. Just as algorithms promoting emotional content can accentuate vaccine hesitancy, these algorithms can be recalibrated to encourage environmental behaviors by prioritizing scientifically validated and culturally adapted messages. Collaboration between social platforms, sustainability experts, and social psychologists can create digital infrastructure that positively supports pro-environmental behaviors among youth.
In the long term, an effective strategy to reduce the impact of misinformation about vaccines must involve collaboration among social media platforms, public authorities, and scientific communities. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter have introduced mechanisms to label and reduce the visibility of content promoting false information, but the effectiveness of these measures is limited without adequate education [26]. In this sense, public authorities should invest more in awareness campaigns that use the exact virality mechanisms and positive emotional narratives to counter the effects of anti-vaccine campaigns.
Moreover, science-based communication must be accompanied by cultural and emotional adaptation to resonate with diverse audiences. Studies show that messages featuring personal stories of survivors of vaccine-preventable diseases or testimonials from trusted healthcare professionals significantly impact audiences, increasing both acceptance and intention to vaccinate [27]. Additionally, engaging community leaders, influencers, and trusted figures in online communities can amplify positive vaccination messages and reduce the polarization of discourse [28].
Another key element is monitoring public sentiment and trends on social media platforms. Advanced natural language processing algorithms can help identify emerging misinformation themes and develop rapid, context-appropriate responses. For example, recent studies highlight the potential of AI tools to predict the evolution of antagonistic narratives and deploy effective counter-messages before they go viral [29].
The emotional and cognitive influence of misinformation about vaccines requires a complex and well-coordinated approach to protect public health. By combining education, strategic communication, technological monitoring, and the involvement of opinion leaders, a safer and more effective informational ecosystem can be created to promote trust in science and strengthen collective resilience against misinformation.
The spread of vaccine misinformation through social media represents a significant challenge for public health and an opportunity for well-designed strategic interventions. The amplification of negative emotions and the use of persuasive techniques in antivaccine campaigns underline the need for a multidimensional approach to counter these effects through education, technology, and effective communication.
Success in vaccination depends on the ability to adapt scientific messages to resonate with diverse audiences, using personal stories and credible opinion leaders. Furthermore, digital literacy and integrating emerging technologies, such as AI, can be crucial in monitoring and combating misleading narratives before they dominate.
In the long run, collaboration between social platforms, public authorities, and health experts is essential to create a robust informational ecosystem. By promoting informational diversity, engaging local communities, and implementing empathy-driven, evidence-based awareness campaigns, we can reduce the impact of misinformation and increase public trust in vaccines and health systems. This joint effort will contribute to protecting collective health and strengthening resilience in the face of future crises.
Although social media can amplify misinformation, it also represents a powerful tool for disseminating accurate, science-based information—provided it is used strategically, ethically, and with emotional intelligence. In the dual contexts of vaccination and environmental sustainability, the success of communication efforts depends largely on how well they adapt to the emotional, cognitive, and cultural needs of specific audiences.
Luttrell [30] emphasizes the crucial role of digital influencers in structured campaigns designed to build public trust. While originally discussed in the context of vaccine promotion, this insight applies equally to environmental communication. Influencers can act as bridges between scientific messages and public understanding, especially when they are perceived as relatable, authentic, and emotionally aligned with the concerns of their communities.
This observation is reinforced by Johnson et al. [31], who show that message personalization based on platform and audience significantly amplifies engagement and behavioral intention. For instance, youth audiences are more responsive to short-form video content on platforms like TikTok, YouTube, or Instagram Reels—making these ideal spaces to promote not only vaccination but also eco-conscious practices like recycling, sustainable fashion, or plant-based diets. In contrast, older demographics, such as parents or community leaders, may resonate more with narrative-driven content on platforms like Facebook or Instagram, where trust is built through personal testimony and emotional storytelling.
Furthermore, Auxier et al. [32] underscore the importance of involving authentic opinion leaders—not necessarily celebrities, but respected community members who have established credibility and emotional connection with their audience. These leaders are particularly effective in reaching hesitant or undecided groups, whether addressing doubts about vaccine safety or skepticism around climate change and environmental responsibility.
In this new digital landscape, empathy and authenticity emerge as defining features of successful public communication. Traditional government messaging that relies heavily on facts and statistics, though important, is often insufficient in a social media context driven by emotion, relatability, and peer influence. The adapted model demonstrates that both attitudes and decisions—across health and environmental behaviors—are shaped by emotional resonance and trust in the messenger as much as the message itself.
Therefore, strategic campaigns must go beyond simply “informing” and focus on emotionally intelligent engagement. This includes: Identifying and collaborating with micro- and macro-influencers aligned with both public health and environmental values. Tailoring content formats and tones to the communication styles of different audience segments. Framing messages around shared experiences, empathy, and aspirational narratives that inspire collective action.
When these strategies are implemented thoughtfully, social media becomes not just a tool for countering misinformation, but a catalyst for positive behavioral change. It can humanize science, normalize sustainable practices, and empower individuals—especially youth—to take ownership of their health and their planet. Another important aspect is using social media platform algorithms to combat misinformation. Instead of being mere distribution channels, these platforms could become active partners in disseminating verified information and prioritizing content from trusted sources. However, this opportunity is not without challenges, as it requires precise regulation and close collaboration between governments, private companies, and international organizations.
Social media is a double-edged sword in the context of vaccination: on the one hand, it can amplify misinformation; on the other, it holds immense potential to disseminate accurate information and build trust when used strategically and ethically. The success of vaccine communication depends on tailoring messages to the target audience, involving authentic opinion leaders, and using empathy and authenticity to address people’s legitimate concerns.
Risk perception, trust, and social influence are central factors in both vaccination decisions and youth environmental behaviors. Communication campaigns in both domains must be carefully designed to directly address young people’s emotional and cognitive barriers. Messages should be clear, personalized, and employ empathetic and authentic communication strategies, directly addressing specific concerns and anxieties of this age group.
Thus, the integrated approach proposed here provides an opportunity to apply lessons learned from pro-vaccination campaigns in developing innovative and effective initiatives to stimulate pro-environmental behavior among younger generations.
2.3. Bridging Health and Environmental Behaviors
Increasingly, research in behavioral science suggests that public health behaviors such as vaccine uptake and environmental actions such as recycling or adopting sustainable habits share underlying psychosocial mechanisms. Youth responses to both domains are shaped by similar cognitive, emotional, and social influences—including risk perception, trust in information sources, social conformity, and exposure to emotionally resonant content.
As outlined by Hornsey et al. [16] and Betsch et al. [20], the emotional components of trust, fear, and empathy significantly affect vaccine decisions, particularly among younger populations. Simultaneously, similar emotions drive engagement in climate-related action, particularly when individuals perceive environmental threats as personally relevant or when they identify emotionally with affected communities. These emotional undercurrents are amplified in digital environments where social validation and peer influence operate strongly.
Social identity theory and the echo chamber effect described by Cinelli et al. [3] further reinforce how digital platforms cluster users into ideologically aligned groups, reducing exposure to dissenting views and strengthening belief systems—whether they are vaccine-related or environmentally motivated. In both cases, information becomes emotionally charged and cognitively filtered. The impact of emotionally tailored messaging on behavior has also been demonstrated by Schivinski and Dabrowski [17], who found that personalized narratives on social media foster stronger attitudinal and behavioral alignment than factual information alone.
Thus, pro-vaccination and pro-environmental attitudes are not isolated constructs but share a common foundation of psychological and communicative mechanisms. When these are strategically activated through digital media—especially among highly connected youth populations—they can facilitate dual behavioral engagement. Recognizing this overlap provides an opportunity to transfer successful intervention models across domains. For example, influencer-led storytelling campaigns used in vaccine promotion may be effectively repurposed to encourage climate-responsible behavior. This theoretical convergence justifies an integrated analysis of social media’s role in shaping both health and environmental actions.
2.4. Conceptual Framework
Building on the reviewed literature, the current study proposes a unified conceptual framework that explains how social media influences youth behaviors across both vaccination and environmental domains. The model assumes that content exposure on digital platforms—whether scientifically validated or misinformation—interacts with psychosocial mediators such as trust in official sources, fear responses, emotional resonance, and peer norms. These mediators, in turn, shape individual attitudes and behavioral intentions related to both public health and sustainability.
Drawing from the Social Media Impact Theory [2], the model acknowledges the ecosystemic nature of digital platforms where users operate simultaneously as content consumers and creators. This bidirectional flow reinforces social norms and identity formation, leading to emotionally charged interactions that affect decisions. The framework incorporates algorithmic curation, message framing, influencer engagement, and emotional tone as structural inputs that condition how users perceive and internalize information.
Moreover, the model positions the social environment—including peer groups, digital communities, and perceived group norms—as a central mediating construct. As seen in the results of the SEM analysis (R2 values ranging from 0.50 to 0.70), the social environment and digital exposure consistently emerge as the most powerful predictors of both vaccination and pro-environmental behaviors. This underscores the significance of collective influence and emotional engagement in digital behavior change processes.
The framework also highlights the dual role of financial investment in campaigns, showing that targeted, well-funded digital communication efforts increase the reach and impact of both public health and sustainability messages. This effect operates not only through increased visibility but also by enhancing message quality—especially when narratives are emotionally intelligent and culturally resonant.
The resulting model integrates all these variables into a comprehensive structure designed for empirical validation using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). It is illustrated in Figure 1 and serves as the basis for hypothesis development.
3. Materials and Methods
The purpose of this research is to explore and understand the role of social media in shaping public opinion and individual behavior related to both vaccination and environmental sustainability. In a digital era where social platforms serve as the primary source of information and interaction for much of the population—especially youth—it becomes critical to examine how these platforms influence public perceptions and decision-making processes on urgent societal issues.
This study investigates the psychosocial and communicative dynamics involved in how individuals respond to content about both public health and environmental challenges. It aims to clarify the mechanisms through which risk perception, trust in information sources, social norms, and emotional engagement are shaped by digital media environments. By addressing both the medical (vaccination) and ecological (sustainability) domains, the research provides a comparative perspective on how similar social media structures can either encourage or inhibit evidence-based behavior across different contexts.
Using a multidisciplinary approach, this research explores how message framing, emotional appeal, and influencer engagement can translate lessons from vaccine promotion into impactful environmental campaigns. The findings underscore the importance of strategic communication that integrates empathy, personalization, and scientific credibility to inspire responsible environmental actions. The research proposes a conceptual model that integrates psychosocial variables like fear, trust, and social influence with communicative elements such as message framing and narrative techniques. The findings highlight the dual role of social media as both a facilitator of misinformation and a tool for effective public health communication. The article discusses the practical implications of the campaigns created to counteract the effects of misinformation about vaccines on the beneficiaries’ decisions. A proposed conceptual model was thus created that can be useful both in future research and in the validation of one’s particular situations regarding the factors underlying the influence of vaccine decisions.
3.1. Sample and Data Collection
A total of 450 participants aged 18–26 were recruited via social media campaigns. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. The decision to select participants aged between 18 and 26 years was based on both theoretical and empirical considerations. Young adults within this age range are among the most active users of multiple online platforms, including social media, streaming services, and digital communities, demonstrating high digital literacy but also increased daily engagement compared to older demographics who often face time constraints due to professional obligations [32]. Moreover, while they are highly familiar with digital environments, young adults have been shown to exhibit greater susceptibility to misinformation, particularly in emotionally charged contexts, compared to older users [33]. Thus, focusing on this age group is critical for understanding how digital communication strategies influence both vaccination and pro-environmental behaviors.
Participants were informed about the confidentiality of their responses. The study adhered to ethical guidelines, ensuring anonymity and voluntary participation. As no sensitive personal data were collected, ethical approval was not required under local regulations.
To achieve these goals, the study constructs and validates a conceptual model using structural equation modeling (SEM). The model identifies the causal relationships among key variables such as: Exposure to and type of content on social media; Influence of opinion leaders and influencers; Personal and social experiences; Algorithmic amplification; Emotional resonance and message framing; Social environment and peer influence.
Measurement scales for each latent variable were developed based on previously validated instruments from existing literature. For misinformation exposure, the structure and content of the items were inspired by the approach used by Vosoughi et al. [1], which emphasizes the impact of false versus factual content dissemination. Vaccine trust and hesitancy measures followed the guidelines and instruments used by Betsch et al. [20], focusing on perceived safety, effectiveness, and confidence in health institutions. Each item was evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree), allowing consistent quantification of attitudes and perceptions across constructs.
The model aims to highlight how these factors shape both attitudes and decisions regarding vaccination and pro-environmental behavior. In doing so, the research bridges traditionally separate fields—health communication and environmental psychology—under a unified digital framework.
Ultimately, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of how digital ecosystems can be leveraged to design more effective communication campaigns. These campaigns must not only inform but also inspire, using tailored, empathetic, and scientifically grounded strategies to promote both public health and ecological responsibility [34]. By addressing this complex topic, the research aims to provide a deep understanding of the phenomenon and offer practical recommendations for designing more effective public communication campaigns. These campaigns should consider the specificities of the digital environment, address public concerns, and leverage social media’s potential to disseminate scientifically validated information while countering misinformation.
3.2. Research Objectives
O1.. Evaluate the influence of exposure to science-based content on social media on public attitudes toward vaccination and pro-environmental behavior.
This objective aims to analyze the relationship between the frequency, format, and nature of exposure to educational and persuasive messages on social media and the public’s attitudes toward both vaccination and sustainable practices, considering platform-specific characteristics.
O2.. Investigate the impact of misinformation on social media on vaccine hesitancy and environmental skepticism.
The objective seeks to measure how exposure to false, misleading, or conspiratorial information affects users’ perception of risk, trust in official sources, and behavioral decisions in both the public health and environmental domains.
O3.. Determine the effectiveness of opinion leaders in promoting vaccine acceptance and environmental responsibility via social media.
This objective explores the role of influencers and digital opinion leaders in shaping public perceptions by delivering empathetic, personalized, and accurate messages, and identifies the conditions under which their communication is most impactful.
O4.. Analyze the relationship between financial investments in digital campaigns and public attitudes toward vaccination and sustainability.
The research investigates how budget allocation for health and environmental communication campaigns on social media affects public awareness, message reach, trust, and behavioral intention.
O5.. Examine the influence of psychosocial factors on health- and environment-related decisions in the digital context.
This objective analyzes how social influence, peer pressure, perceived risk, and group norms—amplified by digital platforms—affect individual attitudes and decisions related to vaccines and ecological actions.
O6.. Evaluate the role of social media algorithms in shaping public opinion on vaccines and environmental issues.
The objective seeks to identify how algorithmic prioritization of emotionally charged content influences opinion polarization, increases behavioral intention, or amplifies resistance in both behavioral domains.
O7.. Assess the effectiveness of personalized, emotionally resonant educational content in reducing vaccine hesitancy and ecological apathy.
The research aims to evaluate how tailored social media messages that combine emotional appeal with scientific accuracy can reduce uncertainty and increase engagement among undecided or hesitant users, for both health and environmental behaviors.
3.3. Hypotheses Development and Theoretical Justification
This research segment presents well-grounded hypotheses exploring the impact of social, psychological, economic, and technological factors on vaccine perceptions. These hypotheses are based on existing scientific literature and aim to investigate relationships such as the influence of educational or emotional content, the role of opinion leaders, and the impact of social media platform algorithms. In addition, they integrate relevant variables, such as investments in advertising, message personalization, and online community interactions.
By defining these hypotheses, the research aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of the phenomenon, providing a solid theoretical foundation for developing a structural equation model. This model will explore and validate how social media influences vaccination decisions, facilitating strategic public health communication interventions. The chapter thus lays the groundwork for empirical testing and relevant global conclusions.
Exposure to scientifically validated content on social media increases both pro-vaccination and pro-environmental attitudes.
This hypothesis is based on studies showing that social media can influence attitudes by disseminating scientifically validated information and amplifying positive messages. According to research by Cascini et al. [35], social platforms can shape public perceptions of vaccines through well-structured campaigns and the use of opinion leaders. The study highlights that frequent exposure to pro-vaccination messages is associated with a significant increase in vaccination intention.
Exposure to misinformation about public health or environmental issues on social media increases both vaccine hesitancy and resistance to environmental behaviors.
This hypothesis is supported by evidence showing that social media plays a central role in amplifying vaccine hesitancy through the rapid spread of erroneous or conspiratorial information. Research by Muric et al. [36] analyzes the impact of antivaccine content on platforms like Twitter, demonstrating that exposure to misinformation influences risk perception, decreases trust in medical authorities, and contributes to adverse vaccination decisions.
Social media influencers promoting emotionally resonant and credible messages enhance both pro-vaccination and pro-environmental attitudes.
This hypothesis derives from research showing that social media influences public perception and decision-making when opinion leaders, such as influencers, disseminate relevant messages. A study by Bonnevie et al. [37] demonstrates that using influencers in pro-vaccination campaigns can increase vaccine knowledge and foster positive attitudes. Through personalized and empathetic narratives, these leaders can overcome psychological and social barriers among audiences.
Financial investments in digital campaigns increase the effectiveness of both vaccine promotion and environmental awareness campaigns.
This hypothesis is based on research showing that budgets invested in digital advertising enable the creation of well-targeted campaigns that increase awareness and positively influence vaccine perceptions. A study by Benoit and Mauldin [38] highlights that extensive use of financial resources for social media marketing campaigns correlates with more favorable user attitudes toward vaccination. Strategic investments contribute to content personalization and its distribution to relevant audience segments.
Social environment significantly mediates the relationship between individual attitudes and behavior for both vaccination and environmental decisions.
This hypothesis is supported by studies emphasizing the importance of social influence and individual perceptions in vaccination decisions. Research by Browne et al. [39] shows that factors such as group pressure, omission bias, and risk perception associated with vaccines significantly influence individual behaviors. In the context of social media, these influences are amplified by online interactions and exposure to similar opinions in echo chambers.
Social media algorithms that amplify emotional content influence public perception and decision-making in both health and environmental domains.
This hypothesis is derived from research showing that social platform algorithms prioritize emotionally impactful content, accelerating the distribution of polarized messages. A study by Brewer et al. [40] emphasizes that repeated exposure to emotional messages, whether pro-vaccination or antivaccination, shapes public perceptions and behaviors.
Personalized educational content on social media reduces both vaccine hesitancy and ecological apathy among undecided youth.
This hypothesis is based on evidence showing that personalized messages tailored to individual needs and concerns are more effective in reducing anxiety and hesitancy about vaccines. Research by Mauldin and Benoit [38] supports that communication strategies based on personalization can significantly impact public trust in scientific information.
Previous experience with health or environmental campaigns influences pro-environmental attitudes via perceived personal relevance.
Trust in official sources enhances both vaccine acceptance and willingness to engage in pro-environmental actions.
Social media exposure moderates the effect of message content on behavior change, increasing engagement with relatable and emotionally congruent messages.
The data utilized in this research were collected through a structured questionnaire administered to a sample relevant to the study’s objectives. The questionnaire was designed to capture the key variables of the marketing model, enabling the analysis of relationships between them. Once collected, the responses were entered into a database and coded to facilitate statistical analysis.
3.4. Data Analysis Technique
Data analysis and marketing modeling were performed using WarpPLS 8.0, an advanced tool for Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Marketing modelling involves identifying and analyzing relationships between consumer attitudes, purchase intentions, satisfaction, and loyalty. This method enables the exploration and validation of causal and relational links within a proposed theoretical model.
WarpPLS offers the advantage of analyzing complex relationships between latent variables using nonlinear and partial regression techniques (PLS—Partial Least Squares). This software helps identify and validate direct and indirect influences between variables, thus contributing to a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying marketing decisions. Additionally, WarpPLS allows for assessing model quality through indicators such as determination coefficients (R2), the statistical significance of path coefficients, and global model fit measures. By applying this methodological framework, the research aimed to test the proposed hypotheses and provide relevant insights for optimizing marketing strategies and making informed decisions.
4. Results
Following the application of the WarpPLS methodology, the measurement model was first evaluated to ensure the reliability and validity of the latent constructs. Key indicators such as Cronbach’s Alpha, Composite Reliability (CR), and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) were calculated to assess internal consistency and convergent validity. Cronbach’s Alpha specifically measures the reliability of the constructs by evaluating the consistency and error-free nature of the items, with values ranging between 0 and 1. According to standard guidelines, Alpha values above 0.7 indicate satisfactory reliability, although thresholds above 0.5 are acceptable in exploratory research. Additionally, the AVE was used to assess convergent validity, with values indicating whether the constructs explain more than half of the variance of their indicators. The square roots of the AVE values, placed on the diagonal of the latent variable correlation matrix, were compared against interconstruct correlations to confirm discriminant validity. A higher square root of AVE than the correlations with other constructs demonstrates that the measurement model meets discriminant validity criteria. Furthermore, the model’s quality and predictive capacity were assessed by testing the structural model through coefficients of determination (R2), predictive relevance (Q2), and multicollinearity diagnostics (VIF). The detailed results of the reliability, validity, and structural model assessments are presented in Table 1.
The discriminant validity was met, suggesting that the measurements were suggestive of the definition and use of variables within the proposed conceptual model, as shown in Table 2.
The model generated through WarpPLS provides a detailed view of the relationships between the analyzed variables, highlighting the determinants of attitudes toward vaccines and vaccination decisions. The key variables included in the model are:
Previous Experience: This variable captures individual encounters with vaccination or environmental actions, whether personal or observed, that may influence current attitudes and behaviors. Positive experiences may reinforce acceptance and engagement, while negative ones could foster hesitancy or apathy.
Sources of Information (Official): This refers to the influence of credible, institutional sources—such as government agencies, environmental organizations, or health institutions—in shaping perceptions and decisions regarding both vaccination and environmental behavior.
Messages from Social Media: This variable reflects how content disseminated via social platforms—whether promoting or opposing vaccination or environmental responsibility—impacts users’ attitudes. It captures the emotional tone, framing, and frequency of pro-social messages or misinformation.
Exposure to Social Media: This measures the extent and frequency of an individual’s engagement with health- or environment-related content on social platforms, influencing the level of susceptibility to or defense against online narratives.
Financial Investments: This variable assesses the role of targeted investments in digital campaigns, examining how budget allocation affects the visibility, reach, and impact of messaging related to vaccines or environmental sustainability.
Social Environment: This captures the influence of peer groups, family, community norms, and digital networks in reinforcing or discouraging particular attitudes and behaviors. It plays a mediating role between internal attitudes and external behavioral decisions.
Attitude Towards Vaccines: This reflects an individual’s overall evaluation of vaccines, including perceived effectiveness, safety, necessity, and trust in vaccine-related authorities. It is shaped by media exposure, personal experience, and social context.
Vaccination Decision: This dependent variable represents the individual’s final behavioral choice regarding vaccination, influenced by internal attitudes and external social factors.
Pro-environmental Attitude: This variable captures beliefs, emotional engagement, and perceived personal responsibility regarding environmental protection. It encompasses perceptions of climate risk, sustainability values, and willingness to act in eco-conscious ways.
Pro-environmental Decision: This dependent variable measures the actual or intended adoption of environmentally responsible behaviors—such as recycling, conserving energy, or supporting climate action. It is influenced by both internal pro-environmental attitudes and the social environment.
The WarpPLS-generated model identifies direct and indirect relationships among these variables, revealing their influence on attitudes and vaccination decisions. For example:
Previous Experience and Social Environment are likely to significantly influence vaccination decisions through their effect on Attitudes towards Vaccines.
Messages from Social Media and Exposure to Social Media may directly impact attitudes while interacting with Sources of Information (Official) and Financial Investments to shape perceptions.
Financial Investments can amplify the reach and impact of pro-vaccination messages, potentially mitigating the effects of misinformation on social media.
By visualizing these relationships, the model provides actionable insights for designing targeted communication strategies and interventions to increase vaccination rates. The structured relationships between variables enable a deeper understanding of the mechanisms influencing public attitudes and behaviors, thereby supporting evidence-based decision-making in public health campaigns.
The analysis reveals that Attitude towards Vaccines (R2 = 0.70) is accounted for 70% by the following factors (Figure 2): Previous Experience (β = 0.12; p < 0.01): Previous experiences have a positive influence on attitudes towards vaccines, indicating that both direct and indirect encounters shape individuals’ perceptions. Official Sources of Information (β = 0.10; p = 0.02): Official information sources contribute positively to the formation of a favorable attitude towards vaccines, albeit with a relatively modest impact. Social Media Messages (β = 0.09; p = 0.04): Social media messages exert a marginal yet significant effect on attitudes, underscoring the impact of online communications on public perceptions. Exposure to Social Media (β = 0.44; p < 0.01): Interaction with social media proves to be the most influential factor on attitudes, suggesting that engagement with social platforms can substantially shape public opinion. Financial Investments (β = 0.13; p < 0.01): Financial aspects related to vaccination, including perceived costs and resource allocation, substantially affect attitudes. Social Environment (β = 0.17; p < 0.01): The social environment plays a crucial role, reflecting how social groups and communities influence the development of attitudes towards vaccination.
In terms of the Vaccination Decision (R2 = 0.53), 53% is explained by the following factors: Attitude towards Vaccines (β = 0.38; p < 0.01): A favorable attitude towards vaccines serves as a strong predictor of the vaccination decision, suggesting that positive perceptions enhance the likelihood of choosing to get vaccinated. Social Environment (β = 0.42; p < 0.01): The social environment is even more influential than individual attitudes in shaping the vaccination decision, highlighting the importance of social norms and support in the decision-making process.
In addition to the determinants of vaccine-related attitudes and decisions, the model also examines the formation of Pro-environmental Attitudes and Pro-environmental Decisions, providing insight into how similar mechanisms function across both health and environmental domains.
Pro-environmental Attitude (R2 = 0.50): The model shows that 50% of the variance in Pro-environmental Attitude is explained by the following predictors:
Social Media Messages (β = 0.16; p < 0.01): Emotionally resonant and engaging messages shared via social platforms have a significant influence on pro-environmental attitudes, indicating that storytelling and content framing can shift youth perceptions toward sustainability.
Exposure to Social Media (β = 0.12; p < 0.01): Frequent interaction with digital content related to environmental topics positively correlates with awareness and concern, highlighting the power of platform engagement in shaping eco-consciousness.
Financial Investments (β = 0.14; p < 0.01): Investment in digital environmental campaigns positively affects environmental attitudes, confirming that well-funded, targeted messaging enhances user receptivity.
Official Sources of Information (β = 0.11; p = 0.01): Official environmental communication contributes modestly but significantly to forming pro-environmental beliefs, underlining the importance of institutional trust.
Previous Experience (β = 0.11; p = 0.01): Personal or indirect involvement in environmental initiatives increases concern and favorable attitudes, suggesting that familiarity enhances emotional investment.
Financial Factors (again, β = 0.31; p < 0.01): This strong coefficient may reflect the overlap in perception regarding how environmental actions are funded or incentivized, further emphasizing the importance of perceived value and accessibility.
Pro-environmental Decision (R2 = 0.52): 52% of the variance in Pro-environmental Decision is explained by the following:
Pro-environmental Attitude (β = 0.34; p < 0.01): As expected, a strong, positive attitude toward environmental issues significantly increases the likelihood of engaging in sustainable behavior, confirming the attitudinal–behavioral link.
Social Environment (β = 0.47; p < 0.01): The influence of peers, family, and social norms is even more pronounced in environmental decisions than in vaccination choices. This underscores that sustainable behavior is deeply embedded in group identity, shared values, and cultural acceptance.
Cross-Cutting Insights
Social Environment (R2 = 0.32) acts as a key mediator in both domains—health and environment—highlighting that the decision-making process is strongly tied to social context and normative pressure.
Both vaccination and environmental action are significantly influenced by the emotional tone and frequency of social media exposure, reinforcing the importance of empathetic, persuasive, and frequent digital engagement.
The relatively high R2 values (0.70 for Attitude, 0.50 for Pro-environmental Attitude, and over 0.50 for both decisions) suggest a robust and well-fitted model with strong predictive validity.
5. Discussion
The findings encourage interdisciplinary collaboration between environmental scientists, public health experts, digital marketers, and social psychologists. Future research should empirically validate the proposed framework using experimental and observational studies on environmental campaigns shaped by health communication strategies. Additionally, attention should be paid to cultural nuances, platform dynamics, and the evolving emotional landscape of youth in a digital age.
Attitude towards Vaccines is explained predominantly by variables such as Exposure to Social Media (β = 0.44) and Social Environment (β = 0.17). This confirms that digital platforms are not only primary sources of information but also deeply embedded in the social fabric of youth interaction and decision-making. Similarly, Pro-environmental Attitude is significantly influenced by Social Media Exposure (β = 0.12) and Messages from Social Media (β = 0.16), highlighting a parallel mechanism in how social media channels shape attitudes across domains.
While Official Sources of Information (β = 0.10 for vaccines; β = 0.11 for environment) have a consistent but modest impact, their presence still reinforces trust when strategically amplified. This suggests that official campaigns—whether health- or environment-related—must adapt their communication style to the digital space: messages need to be visually engaging, emotionally resonant, and delivered in formats native to the platforms where young audiences spend their time.
Previous Experience (β = 0.12 for vaccines; β = 0.11 for environment) also significantly shapes attitudes in both cases, indicating that personal or observed involvement with vaccination or environmental action fosters cognitive engagement and emotional connection. This underlines the role of lived experience and peer influence in reinforcing belief systems and behavioral predispositions.
Furthermore, Financial Investments in digital campaigns (β = 0.13 for vaccines; β = 0.14 for environment) play a substantial role in forming favorable attitudes. This supports the idea that carefully funded, well-designed communication campaigns—particularly those that leverage personalization and influencer content—are instrumental in shaping youth behavior. Interestingly, the model also shows a stronger financial pathway toward environmental attitudes (β = 0.31), suggesting that sustainability messaging may require greater investment to reach emotional salience equivalent to health messaging.
When it comes to actual behavioral decisions, the Social Environment emerges as a dominant force in both domains: it is the strongest predictor of Vaccination Decision (β = 0.42) and even more influential in driving Pro-environmental Decision (β = 0.47). These findings emphasize the collective and normative dimension of behavior: individuals are more likely to act when supported—or expected—by their peers, family, and communities. This aligns with social identity theory and confirms the need for network-based interventions that activate community-level norms.
Also noteworthy is the slightly stronger predictive power of Attitude in vaccine-related behavior (β = 0.38) versus Pro-environmental behavior (β = 0.34). While both are meaningful, this difference might reflect the more immediate, tangible nature of health-related risks compared to environmental ones, which are often perceived as distant or abstract. Therefore, environmental campaigns may benefit from more emotionally vivid content that brings climate consequences into personal proximity.
The role of social media continues to be dual and paradoxical. While Messages from Social Media contribute positively to both attitudes (β = 0.09 for vaccines; β = 0.16 for environment), their impact remains modest compared to total exposure. This discrepancy may stem from the saturated and competitive nature of digital information ecosystems, where factual content often competes with emotionally charged misinformation. These results are in line with prior research showing that false or conspiratorial content spreads faster and engages users more intensely than evidence-based messaging. Technological innovation has historically played a critical role in enhancing both diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic outcomes in complex fields such as oncology. As highlighted by Mihai et al. (2017) [41] in their review of nanotechnological approaches for skin cancer management, the integration of advanced technologies into healthcare strategies enables more precise, personalized, and effective interventions. Similarly, in the context of public health communication, leveraging digital platforms like social media offers an unprecedented opportunity to tailor educational campaigns to the emotional and cognitive profiles of target audiences. This technological personalization parallels the trend observed in medical advancements, emphasizing the necessity of adapting communication methods to the specific needs and vulnerabilities of young populations.
To address these challenges, the findings support a multidimensional communication strategy. Campaigns should integrate: Empathetic storytelling to drive emotional connection Evidence-based messaging adapted to the audience’s values and concerns Cultural and contextual tailoring to different demographic and psychographic segments Collaboration with digital influencers and peer leaders to normalize desired behaviors Algorithmic tools to prioritize verified content and reduce the spread of misinformation
In addition, digital literacy should be enhanced through education campaigns, equipping users with the critical thinking skills necessary to assess the credibility of information—whether related to vaccines or environmental issues.
6. Theoretical and Practical Implications
This study contributes to the theoretical discourse by bridging public health communication and environmental psychology through a unified digital behavioral model. It demonstrates that the same psychosocial variables—fear, trust, social pressure—can drive behavioral intentions across domains when activated through social media.
Practically, the findings inform the design of interdisciplinary communication campaigns that apply lessons from vaccine promotion—such as influencer engagement and emotionally resonant narratives—to environmental causes. Campaign planners can replicate successful message structures across sectors, optimizing reach and impact within youth communities.
7. Conclusions
This research highlights the pivotal role of social media in shaping public attitudes and decisions related to both vaccination and pro-environmental behaviors. By analyzing the complex interplay of psychosocial and communicative factors—such as exposure to digital platforms, previous experience, social environment, and financial investments—this study offers a comprehensive understanding of how online ecosystems influence youth perceptions and actions across two critical domains: health and sustainability.
The findings confirm that exposure to social media is the strongest predictor of attitudes in both contexts, underscoring the essential role that digital platforms play in shaping opinions and disseminating persuasive content. However, the social environment also emerges as a powerful determinant, especially in guiding actual behavioral decisions—whether it involves choosing to vaccinate or adopting sustainable practices. This highlights the duality of influence: while online messaging initiates cognitive engagement, the offline and peer-based context often determines whether that engagement leads to action.
Importantly, the research reinforces the dual nature of social media: it can function both as a tool for empowerment and as a conduit for misinformation. On one hand, carefully crafted, emotionally resonant campaigns can enhance trust in vaccines and motivate ecological responsibility. On the other, the prevalence of emotionally charged misinformation—whether about vaccine side effects or climate denial—can hinder public understanding and amplify polarization. This duality underlines the need for strategic interventions that combine algorithmic solutions with empathetic storytelling and trusted messengers.
Additionally, the study emphasizes the relevance of previous experience and financial investments in shaping attitudes. Personal and community-level experiences significantly influence emotional responses and behavioral openness in both thematic areas. Likewise, investment in digital communication—when well-targeted and culturally adapted—can dramatically increase the effectiveness of campaigns designed to engage hesitant or undecided audiences.
In conclusion, social media represents both a challenge and a transformative opportunity for promoting public health and environmental responsibility. Its power to influence attitudes and behaviors can only be fully realized through a multidisciplinary and coordinated approach. Collaboration between public institutions, social media platforms, digital influencers, and behavioral scientists is essential to create a communication ecosystem that prioritizes verified information, strengthens digital literacy, and fosters trust.
By responding to the emotional, cognitive, and social dynamics that drive behavior, this research offers valuable insights for developing impactful, evidence-based campaigns that not only encourage vaccination but also inspire meaningful and sustained pro-environmental action among youth in the digital age.
8. Limitations and Future Research Directions
While the study provides important insights, several limitations must be noted. First, the cross-sectional design limits causal inference. Second, the reliance on self-reported data introduces the potential for response bias. Third, the cultural context (Romania) may affect generalizability across other regions.
Future research should consider longitudinal designs to track behavioral shifts over time, as well as cross-cultural comparisons to validate the model globally. Experimental studies manipulating message formats and emotional content could also deepen understanding of social media’s causal role in health–environment behavioral alignment.
Ethical review and approval were waived for this study in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and EU Regulation 536/2014, as it is non-interventional and uses anonymous questionnaires to explore youth behaviors.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Publication of this paper was supported by the University of Medicine and Pharmacy Carol Davila, through the institutional program “Publish not Perish”.
The author declares no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 Proposed conceptual model.
Figure 2 Validated Conceptual Model.
Latent variable coefficients.
| Experien | Informat | SM_Messa | Financia | SM_Expos | Attitude | Decision | Social_e | Pro-Envi | D_Pro_en | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cronbach’s alpha | 0.640 | 0.813 | 0.429 | 0.731 | 0.831 | 0.770 | 0.768 | 0.788 | 0.565 | 0.753 |
| Average variances extracted | 0.415 | 0.518 | 0.417 | 0.384 | 0.505 | 0.467 | 0.524 | 0.542 | 0.475 | 0.510 |
| Q-squared | 0.617 | 0.535 | 0.318 | 0.510 | 0.521 | |||||
| R squared | 0.698 | 0.533 | 0.323 | 0.505 | 0.522 |
Correlations among latent variables with the square root of AVEs (average variance extracted).
| Experien | Informat | SM_Messa | Financia | SM_Expos | Attitude | Decision | Social_e | Pro-Envi | D_Pro_en | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experien | (0.644) | 0.673 | 0.545 | 0.614 | 0.599 | 0.615 | 0.609 | 0.689 | 0.567 | 0.587 |
| Informat | 0.633 | (0.720) | 0.629 | 0.611 | 0.649 | 0.632 | 0.665 | 0.720 | 0.598 | 0.678 |
| SM_Messa | 0.545 | 0.699 | (0.646) | 0.612 | 0.505 | 0.456 | 0.511 | 0.623 | 0.496 | 0.591 |
| Financia | 0.664 | 0.681 | 0.612 | (0.639) | 0.601 | 0.624 | 0.653 | 0.689 | 0.622 | 0.615 |
| SM_Expos | 0.599 | 0.649 | 0.505 | 0.601 | (0.721) | 0.617 | 0.669 | 0.660 | 0.509 | 0.517 |
| Attitude | 0.615 | 0.632 | 0.456 | 0.624 | 0.717 | (0.684) | 0.650 | 0.667 | 0.548 | 0.559 |
| Decision | 0.609 | 0.665 | 0.511 | 0.623 | 0.669 | 0.650 | (0.724) | 0.669 | 0.636 | 0.560 |
| Social_e | 0.689 | 0.710 | 0.623 | 0.629 | 0.660 | 0.667 | 0.669 | (0.736) | 0.513 | 0.647 |
| Pro-Envi | 0.567 | 0.598 | 0.496 | 0.622 | 0.509 | 0.548 | 0.636 | 0.513 | (0.689) | 0.582 |
| D_Pro_en | 0.587 | 0.678 | 0.591 | 0.615 | 0.517 | 0.559 | 0.560 | 0.647 | 0.582 | (0.714) |
1. Vosoughi, S.; Roy, D.; Aral, S. The spread of true and false news online. Science; 2018; 359, pp. 1146-1151. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29590045]
2. Rachmad, Y.E. Social Media Impact Theory; Academia: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2023.
3. Cinelli, M.; De Francisci Morales, G.; Galeazzi, A.; Quattrociocchi, W.; Starnini, M. The echo chamber effect on social media. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2021; 118, e2023301118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33622786]
4. Larson, C.R.; Sloan, R.; Giedt, J.Z. Defining, measuring, and modeling accruals: A guide for researchers. Rev. Account. Stud.; 2018; 23, pp. 827-871. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11142-018-9457-z]
5. Baym, N.K. Personal Connections in the Digital Age; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015.
6. Parveen, F.; Jaafar, N.I.; Ainin, S. Social media usage and organizational performance: Reflections of Malaysian social media managers. Telemat. Inform.; 2015; 32, pp. 67-78. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2014.03.001]
7. Kaplan, A.M.; Haenlein, M. The early bird catches the news: Nine things you should know about micro-blogging. Bus. Horizons; 2011; 54, pp. 105-113. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2010.09.004]
8. Chen, P.; Nirula, A.; Heller, B.; Gottlieb, R.L.; Boscia, J.; Morris, J.; Huhn, G.; Cardona, J.; Mocherla, B.; Stosor, V.
9. Zhang, H.; Wu, C.; Zhang, Z.; Zhu, Y.; Lin, H.; Zhang, Z.; Sun, Y.; He, T.; Mueller, T.; Smola, A.
10. Sunstein, C. Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2018.
11. Guess, A.M.; Lerner, M.; Lyons, B.; Montgomery, J.M.; Nyhan, B.; Reifler, J.; Sircar, N. A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2020; 117, pp. 15536-15545. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920498117]
12. Wilson, S.L.; Wiysonge, C. Social media and vaccine hesitancy. BMJ Glob. Health; 2020; 5, e004206. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004206]
13. Bessi, A.; Zollo, F.; Del Vicario, M.; Puliga, M.; Scala, A.; Caldarelli, G.; Uzzi, B.; Quattrociocchi, W. Users Polarization on Facebook and Youtube. PLoS ONE; 2016; 11, e0159641. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159641]
14. Pennycook, G.; McPhetres, J.; Zhang, Y.; Lu, J.G.; Rand, D.G. Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychol. Sci.; 2020; 31, pp. 770-780. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797620939054]
15. Kearney, C.; Akos, P.; Domina, T.; Young, Z. Student-to-school counselor ratios: A meta-analytic review of the evidence. J. Couns. Dev.; 2021; 99, 418428. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12394]
16. Hornsey, M.J.; Harris, E.A.; Fielding, K.S. The psychological roots of anti-vaccination attitudes: A 24-nation investigation. Health Psychol.; 2018; 37, pp. 307-315. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/hea0000586]
17. Schivinski, B.; Dabrowski, D. The effect of social media communication on consumer perceptions of brands. J. Mark. Commun.; 2016; 22, pp. 189-214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2013.871323]
18. Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow; Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
19. Van Bavel, J.J.; Baicker, K.; Boggio, P.S.; Capraro, V.; Cichocka, A.; Cikara, M.; Crockett, M.J.; Crum, A.J.; Douglas, K.M.; Druckman, J.N.
20. Betsch, C.; Korn, L.; Sprengholz, P.; Felgendreff, L.; Eitze, S.; Schmid, P.; Böhm, R. Social and behavioral consequences of mask policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2020; 117, pp. 21851-21853. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2011674117]
21. Pennycook, G.; Rand, D.G. Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation. Nat. Commun.; 2022; 13, 233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30073-5]
22. Lewandowsky, S.; Cook, J.; Ecker, U.; Albarracin, D.; Kendeou, P.; Newman, E.J.; Pennycook, G.; Porter, E.; Rand, D.; Zaragoza, M.S.
23. World Health Organization. COVID19 Weekly Epidemiological Update; 43rd ed. World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
24. Houston, J.B.; Hawthorne, J.; Perreault, M.F.; Park, E.H.; Hode, M.G.; Halliwell, M.R.; McGowen, S.E.T.; Davis, R.; Vaid, S.; McElderry, J.A.
25. Roozenbeek, J.; Schneider, C.R.; Dryhurst, S.; Kerr, J.; Freeman, A.L.J.; Recchia, G.; van der Bles, A.M.; van der Linden, S. Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. R. Soc. Open Sci.; 2020; 7, 201199. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201199]
26. Chou, R.; Dana, T.; Buckley, D.I.; Selph, S.; Fu, R.; Totten, A.M. Epidemiology of and risk factors for coronavirus infection in health care workers: A living rapid review. Ann. Intern. Med.; 2020; 173, 120136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7326/M20-1632]
27. Betsch, C.; Böhm, R.; Korn, L.; Holtmann, C. On the benefits of explaining herd immunity in vaccine advocacy. Nat. Hum. Behav.; 2017; 1, 0056. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0056]
28. van der Linden, S.; Leiserowitz, A.; Rosenthal, S.; Maibach, E. Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change. Glob. Challenges; 2017; 1, 1600008. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31565263]
29. Broniatowski, D.A.; Jamison, A.M.; Qi, S.; AlKulaib, L.; Chen, T.; Benton, A.; Quinn, S.C.; Dredze, M. Weaponized health communication: Twitter bots and Russian trolls amplify the vaccine debate. Am. J. Public Health; 2018; 108, pp. 1378-1384. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304567] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30138075]
30. Luttrell, R. Social Media: How to Engage, Share, and Connect; Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, ML, USA, 2018.
31. Johnson, S.; Lavergne, V.; Skinner, A.M.; GonzalesLuna, A.J.; Garey, K.W.; Kelly, C.P.; Wilcox, M.H. Clinical practice guideline by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA): 2021 focused update guidelines on management of Clostridioides difficile infection in adults. Clin. Infect. Dis.; 2021; 73, e1029e1044. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab718]
32. Auxier, B.; Anderson, M. Social Media Use in 2021. Pew Research Center. 2021; Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media-use-in-2021/ (accessed on 30 March 2025).
33. Guess, A.; Nagler, J.; Tucker, J. Less informed but more exposed: How young adults are vulnerable to misinformation. Sci. Adv.; 2019; 5, eaau4585.
34. Dube, A.; Jacobs, J.; Naidu, S.; Suri, S. Monopsony in online labor markets. American Economic Review. Insights; 2020; 2, 3346.
35. Cascini, F.; Pantovic, A.; Al-Ajlouni, Y.A.; Failla, G.; Puleo, V.; Melnyk, A.; Lontano, A.; Ricciardi, W. Social media and attitudes towards a COVID19 vaccination: A systematic literature review. EClinicalMedicine; 2022; 48, 101454. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101454]
36. Muric, G.; Wu, Y.; Ferrara, E. COVID19 vaccine hesitancy on social media: Building a public Twitter data set of antivaccine content, vaccine misinformation, and conspiracies. JMIR Public Health Surveill.; 2021; 7, e30642. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2196/30642]
37. Bonnevie, E.; Rosenberg, S.D.; Kummeth, C.; Goldbarg, J.; Wartella, E.; Smyser, J. Using social media influencers to increase knowledge and positive attitudes toward the flu vaccine. PLoS ONE; 2020; 15, e0240828. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240828]
38. Benoit, S.L.; Mauldin, R.F. The “anti-vax” movement: A quantitative report on vaccine beliefs and knowledge across social media. BMC Public Health; 2021; 21, 111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12114-8]
39. Browne, M.; Thomson, P.; Rockloff, M.J.; Pennycook, G. Going against the herd: Psychological and cultural factors underlying the ‘vaccination confidence gap’. PLoS ONE; 2015; 10, e0132562. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132562]
40. Brewer, N.T.; Chapman, G.B.; Rothman, A.J.; Leask, J.; Kempe, A. Increasing vaccination: Putting psychological science into action. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest; 2017; 18, pp. 149-207. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1529100618760521]
41. Mihai, M.M.; Holban, A.M.; Călugăreanu, A.; Orzan, O.A. Recent advances in diagnosis and therapy of skin cancers through nanotechnological approaches. Nanostructures in Therapeutic Medicine; Grumezescu, R. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; Volume 1, pp. 285-306.
© 2025 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
