cmn112 Featherstone & Zhang reading

vaccine misinformation circulated on social media has negatively impacted people's vaccine beliefs and behaviors. Communication strategies to address misinformation (fact-checking and warning labels) have shown conflicting effects. This study examined how short-term exposure to vaccine misinformation impacted vaccination attitude through both cognitive and affective routes and tested whether and how two-sided refutational messages could negate the misinformation's impact.

Online experiment with 5 message conditions:

2 misinformation messages (one conspiracy frame and one uncertainty fram)

2 corresponding two-sided refutational messages

1 control group

Results of experiment:

-Both conspiracy and uncertainty framed misinformation messages decreased pro-vaccination attitude in comparison to the control

-The two refutational messages increased pro-vaccination attitude in comparison to the corresponding misinformation messages

-These effects were mediated by the emotion of anger

-Parental status and conspiracy beliefs did not moderate effects of the messages on vaccination attitude

-Two-sided retuational messages can be a promising strategy to combat vaccine misinformation

Misinformation can impact vaccination beliefs and attitude through several mechanisms:

-Exposure to vaccine misinformation increased perceptions of vaccine risks, which resulted in more negative attitude toward vaccination

-Beyond cognitive evaluations, negative emotions (specifically fear and anger) have been shown to generate vaccine hesitancy

Based on the classical proposition of inoculation theory, refutational messages have been shown to be successful in reverting unhealthy behaviors as they can directly tackle false claims with reasoning

Although some studies suggest repeating misinformation in corrections may backfire and reinforce false beliefs, one study identified that a two-sided conspiracy-refuting message significantly reduced the false perception of dangers of vaccines

Misinformation:

information that has received a consensus of rejection from either the public or experts

Vaccine misinformation

information about vaccines that have been falsified by the scientific community at the moment of the study

-Mostly refers to anti-vaccine misinformation that is associated with increased public fear and loss in vaccine confidence

Uncertainty frame:

Takes advantage of the public's lack of scientific knowledge and focuses on uncertainties around the safety and effectiveness of vaccines

Ex: vaccines cause illnesses and vaccine ingredients cause adverse effects

These beliefs are supported by a generic frame that argues scientists or medical professionals cannot be trusted because of potential sceintific uncertainties and disagreements

Conspiracy theory frame:

-Makes use of the public's declining trust in authorities and leverages conspiracy theories regarding the establishment

-Focuses on how governments and pharmaceutical companies cover up the "truth of vaccines" to reap profit from the public

-Strong relationship between distrust toward authorities and anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs

Misinformation can negatively impact attitude through both cognitive and affective mechanisms

Attitudes are shaped by both thoughts (cognitive) and feelings (emotional/affective)

Misinformation increases:

-Safety concerns about vaccines

-Fear (uncertainty or vulnerability)

-Anger (perceived deception)

(Hypothesizes that misinformation worsens attitudes by increasing fear and anger)

Anger arises because people feel frustrated or feel fooled by the establishment

Two-Sided Refutational persuasion

Studies suggested that providing more elaborated refutational messages can reduce misperceptions because they help people understand the flaws of misinformation

-More persuasive than one-sided corrections

-Refutational messages reversed effects of anger.

Two-sided refutational approach:

persuasive strategy that directly attacks the plausability of opposing claims, criticizes the reasoning of opposing arguments, and offers evidence to undermine opposing claims

-Presents two opposing sides while favoring one side by providing supporting arguments and evidence

-This strategy is supported by the inoculation theory (presenting the arguments against the object and then counter-arguing or refuting them can enhance attention and motivation for message processing, reduce possible counterarguments and negative responses, and ultimately enhance positive attitudes toward the object)

-two-sided conspiracy-refuting message significantly reduced participants' perceived danger of vaccines in comparison to a conspiracy misinformation message.

This strategy is supported by the inoculation theory (presenting the arguments against the object and then counter-arguing or refuting them can enhance attention and motivation for message processing, reduce possible counterarguments and negative responses, and ultimately enhance positive attitudes toward the object)

Two-Sided Refutational persuasion

Effects:

-Misinformation decreased positive attitudes and increased anger (and fear, for conspiracy frame).

-Refutational messages reversed these effects by reducing anger.

-No effect of any message on vaccine safety concerns.

Mediation:

Anger mediated the negative effects of misinformation and the positive effects of refutational messages

Fear was less consistent and did not influence attitude

No moderation by parental status

Both parents and non-parents showed similar changes in attitude, anger, fear, and safety concern after viewing misinformation or refutational messages.

not more susceptible to misinformation.

Did not respond more strongly to emotional cues like anger or fear.

refutational strategies are equally effective for parents and non-parents — at least in terms of immediate emotional and attitudinal reactions.

Conspiracy beliefs affected the mechanism, not the outcome —high believers were not influenced through the anger pathway

-Anger plays a central role in how misinformation shapes negative attitudes

-Refutational messages work not by changing beliefs directly, but by reducing emotional reactions, especially anger

-Fear had a weaker and inconsistent effect

-Refutational messages didn't backfire, even among people with low trust in scientists

-Combating misinformation should focus on emotional responses, particularly anger

-Two-sided refuational messages are a promising tool to promote positive vaccination attitudes

-Health campaigns should leverage these strategies to counteract misinformation effectively