Three interesting new papers, with thanks to the WHO Infodemic News Flash.
1. CITATION: Psychological Inoculation against Misinformation: Current Evidence and Future Directions
Cecilie S. Traberg, Jon Roozenbeek, Sander van der Linden, First Published May 5, 2022 Research Article
https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221087936
ABSTRACT
Much like a viral contagion, misinformation can spread rapidly from one individual to another. Inoculation theory offers a logical basis for developing a psychological “vaccine” against misinformation. We discuss the origins of inoculation theory, starting with its roots in the 1960s as a “vaccine for brainwash,” and detail the major theoretical and practical innovations that inoculation research has witnessed over the years. Specifically, we review a series of randomized lab and field studies that show that it is possible to preemptively “immunize” people against misinformation by preexposing them to severely weakened doses of the techniques that underlie its production along with ways on how to spot and refute them. We review evidence from interventions that we developed with governments and social media companies to help citizens around the world recognize and resist unwanted attempts to influence and mislead. We conclude with a discussion of important open questions about the effectiveness of inoculation interventions.
2. CITATION: The differential effects of a governmental debunking campaign concerning COVID-19 vaccination misinformation
Anna Helfers et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2022.2047497
ABSTRACT
Background: Throughout the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic debunking misinformation has been one of the most employed strategies used to address vaccine hesitancy. We investigated whether – and for whom – debunking is effective or even counterproductive in decreasing misinformation belief and vaccination hesitancy.
Method: We conducted a randomized controlled trial (N = 588) utilizing a real-world debunking campaign from the German Ministry of Health. We considered the condition (debunking vs. control) as between-subjects factor, assessed misinformation belief (pretest vs. posttest) as a repeated-measures factor and vaccination intention as a dependent variable. Preregistered subgroup analyses were conducted for different levels of a priori misinformation belief and general vaccination confidence.
Results: The analyses revealed differential effects on misinformation belief and vaccination intention in participants with low, medium, and high a priori belief: A debunking effect on misinformation belief (dRM = –0.80) was only found in participants with a medium a priori belief and did not extend to these participants’ vaccination intentions. Among participants with a high a priori misinformation belief, explorative analysis revealed a small unintended backfiring effect on vaccination intentions (ηp2 = 0.03).
Conclusions: Our findings suggest that debunking is an effective communication strategy to address moderate levels of misinformation beliefs, but it does not constitute a one-fits-all strategy to reduce vaccination hesitancy among the general public. Although countering misinformation should certainly be an integral part of public health communication, additional initiatives, which address individual concerns with targeted and authentic communication, should be taken to enhance the impact on hesitant populations and avoid backfiring effects.
3. CITATION: Reducing Health Misinformation in Science: A Call to Arms
Briony Swire-Thompson, David LazerFirst Published May 5, 2022 Research Article
https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221087686
ABSTRACT
The public often turns to science for accurate health information, which, in an ideal world, would be error free. However, limitations of scientific institutions and scientific processes can sometimes amplify misinformation and disinformation. The current review examines four mechanisms through which this occurs: (1) predatory journals that accept publications for monetary gain but do not engage in rigorous peer review; (2) pseudoscientists who provide scientific-sounding information but whose advice is inaccurate, unfalsifiable, or inconsistent with the scientific method; (3) occasions when legitimate scientists spread misinformation or disinformation; and (4) miscommunication of science by the media and other communicators. We characterize this article as a “call to arms,” given the urgent need for the scientific information ecosystem to improve. Improvements are necessary to maintain the public’s trust in science, foster robust discourse, and encourage a well-educated citizenry.
--
Neil Pakenham-Walsh, Global Coordinator HIFA, www.hifa.org neil@hifa.org
Working in official relations with WHO
