Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing

Testing messaging strategies to correct beliefs about nicotine and relative harm perceptions of non-cigarette tobacco products compared to cigarettes: A 2 × 2 factorial experiment of factsheets

INTRODUCTION

The misperception that nicotine is a major cause of cancer is common and may relate to inaccurate relative harm perceptions about tobacco products. To assess if messaging can correct these misperceptions, we tested factsheets that manipulated presences vs absence of (1) a causal alternative (i.e., combustion, not nicotine, causes disease) and/or (2) a reason for the misinformation (i.e., nicotine is the focus of many health messages).

METHODS

We used an online 2 × 2 factorial experiment of n = 193 adults who smoke and believe nicotine causes cancer to assess the effect of different message strategies on perceptions of tobacco products and switch intention. Pre-post differences and between-condition differences were assessed.

RESULTS

Strength of agreement with the statement that nicotine is a major cause of cancer decreased and switch intentions increased after message exposure. The proportion of participants with low relative harm perceptions increased for e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco (p <.0001) and decreased for very low nicotine cigarettes compared to cigarettes. The message with both strategies decreased agreement that nicotine causes cancer more than the message with only the causal alternative. There was no significant effect of condition on relative harm beliefs or switch intentions.

CONCLUSIONS

Messages with both corrective strategies can reduce the belief that nicotine causes cancer to a greater extent than messaging that only contains a causal alternative. Belief accuracy increased after any message exposure, but these findings should be interpreted cautiously given the study design. Combined strategies should be further investigated in larger samples.

The Spread of Beliefs in Partially Modularized Communities

Many life-influencing social networks are characterized by considerable informational isolation. People within a community are far more likely to share beliefs than people who are part of different communities. The spread of useful information across communities is impeded by echo chambers (far greater connectivity within than between communities) and filter bubbles (more influence of beliefs by connected neighbors within than between communities). We apply the tools of network analysis to organize our understanding of the spread of beliefs across modularized communities and to predict the effect of individual and group parameters on the dynamics and distribution of beliefs. In our Spread of Beliefs in Modularized Communities (SBMC) framework, a stochastic block model generates social networks with variable degrees of modularity, beliefs have different observable utilities, individuals change their beliefs on the basis of summed or average evidence (or intermediate decision rules), and parameterized stochasticity introduces randomness into decisions. SBMC simulations show surprising patterns; for example, increasing out-group connectivity does not always improve group performance, adding randomness to decisions can promote performance, and decision rules that sum rather than average evidence can improve group performance, as measured by the average utility of beliefs that the agents adopt. Overall, the results suggest that intermediate degrees of belief exploration are beneficial for the spread of useful beliefs in a community, and so parameters that pull in opposite directions on an explore-exploit continuum are usefully paired.

A Network Approach to Investigate the Dynamics of Individual and Collective Beliefs: Advances and Applications of the BENDING Model

Changing entrenched beliefs to alter people's behavior and increase societal welfare has been at the forefront of behavioral-science research, but with limited success. Here, we propose a new framework of characterizing beliefs as a multidimensional system of interdependent mental representations across three cognitive structures (e.g., beliefs, evidence, and perceived norms) that are dynamically influenced by complex informational landscapes: the BENDING (Beliefs, Evidence, Norms, Dynamic Information Networked Graphs) model. This account of individual and collective beliefs helps explain beliefs' resilience to interventions and suggests that a promising avenue for increasing the effectiveness of misinformation-reduction efforts might involve graph-based representations of communities' belief systems. This framework also opens new avenues for future research with meaningful implications for some of the most critical challenges facing modern society, from the climate crisis to pandemic preparedness.

Sexualization of Children or Human Rights? Attitudes Toward Addressing Sexual-Orientation Diversity in School

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) adolescents are more likely to experience mental health problems than their heterosexual peers because they are victimized more often or fear discrimination. Governmental plans to improve this situation by addressing sexual diversity in German schools have been accompanied by public resistance and misinformation, e.g., that they aim to sexualize children. The present study assessed how widespread negative attitudes toward such plans really are and how they can be explained. A random sample of 2,013 German residents was surveyed by phone. Only 10% opposed promoting acceptance of LGB in school. Approval of such plans was predominantly predicted by respondents' beliefs about sexual orientation and the plans' aim, and only marginally by societal values. Respondents who knew that the plans' aim was to promote acceptance of LGB and not to sexualize children and that children with same-sex parents are just as well off as those with heterosexual parents showed higher approval, whereas respondents who believed that homosexuality is affected by socialization showed higher opposition.

Enhancing misinformation correction: New variants and a combination of awareness training and counter-speech to mitigate belief perseverance bias

Belief perseverance bias refers to individuals' tendency to persevere in biased opinions even after the misinformation that initially shaped those opinions has been retracted. This study contributes to research on reducing the negative impact of misinformation by mitigating the belief perseverance bias. The study explores the previously proposed awareness-training and counter-speech debiasing techniques, further developing them by introducing new variants and combining them. We investigate their effectiveness in mitigating the belief perseverance bias after the retraction of misinformation related to a real-life issue in an experiment involving N = 876 individuals, of whom 364 exhibit belief perseverance bias. The effectiveness of the debiasing techniques is assessed by measuring the difference between the baseline opinions before exposure to misinformation and the opinions after exposure to a debiasing technique. Our study confirmed the effectiveness of the awareness-training and counter-speech debiasing techniques in mitigating the belief perseverance bias, finding no discernible differences in the effectiveness between the previously proposed and the new variants. Moreover, we observed that the combination of awareness training and counter-speech is more effective in mitigating the belief perseverance bias than the single debiasing techniques.

Undermining support for COVID-19 public health policies: an analysis of the impact of subversive conspiracy narratives on Czech General Practitioners

BACKGROUND

Limited knowledge exists regarding the impact of COVID-19 conspiracy theories on the professional practice of general practitioners (GPs). This study aimed to identify the basic characteristics of GPs who endorse COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and compare their level of support for COVID-19 health policies with GPs who do not believe in conspiracies.

METHODS

Between January and February 2021, a representative online survey was conducted among 1163 GPs in the Czech Republic. The sample was designed to be representative of members of The Association of GPs of the Czech Republic.

RESULTS

The survey revealed that nearly 14% of the GPs surveyed believed in one or more COVID-19 conspiracies. The average age of GPs who endorsed conspiracies was 58, which was higher than the rest of the sample (average age of 50). GPs who believed in conspiracies were less likely to support COVID-19 public health policies and therapy recommendations, including vaccination. Logistic and linear regression analyses indicated that doctors who believed in conspiracies were 2.62 times less likely to have received a COVID-19 vaccine. Mediation analysis showed that approximately one-quarter (23.21%) of the total effect of trust in government information on support for public health policies was indirectly mediated by the endorsement of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs.

CONCLUSIONS

The study findings suggest a concerning association between belief in COVID-19 conspiracies and a reduced level of support for public health policies among GPs. These results underscore the importance of incorporating the 'conspiracy agenda' into medical authorities' more effective public health communication strategies.

The Online Misinformation Engagement Framework

Research on online misinformation has evolved rapidly, but organizing its results and identifying open research questions is difficult without a systematic approach. We present the Online Misinformation Engagement Framework, which classifies people's engagement with online misinformation into four stages: selecting information sources, choosing what information to consume or ignore, evaluating the accuracy of the information and/or the credibility of the source, and judging whether and how to react to the information (e.g., liking or sharing). We outline entry points for interventions at each stage and pinpoint the two early stages-source and information selection-as relatively neglected processes that should be addressed to further improve people's ability to contend with misinformation.

Misinformation, Risk Perceptions, and Intention to Seek Information About Masks: The Moderating Roles of Gender and Reflective Judgment

The current study has three main purposes: to examine 1) the impact of theory-driven corrective messages using individual vs. collective frames on information-seeking intention 2) the mediating role of risk perceptions and 3) the moderating role of reflection and gender. Our findings from a randomized experimental study and Hayes' moderated, moderated mediation model show collective frames were associated with high-risk perceptions among women, which in turn led to higher information seeking intention. The second moderator reveals that people who scored higher on reflection were more willing to seek information. Our findings have critical implications for misinformation research by demonstrating the importance of theoretically driven messages in understanding misperceptions as well as people's information seeking behavior.

The impact of implicit narrator reliability on production of information

Previous research established that readers acquire accurate and inaccurate information from fiction. The current study explored factors that might moderate these effects. Participants read fictional stories that each contained three assertions. The first two assertions in each story were either correct information or implausible misinformation, allowing a manipulation of the (implicit) credibility of the narrator. The last assertion in each story was the critical one, and was correct information, implausible misinformation, or plausible misinformation. After reading, participants answered general knowledge questions that were related to the critical assertions they encountered during reading. Encountering misinformation led to lower accuracy than being presented with correct information, and being presented with plausible misinformation led to higher production of that misinformation. The narrator credibility manipulation interacted with the type of critical assertion: When the critical assertion was presented accurately in a story, credible narrators presenting true critical assertions led to greater accuracy on the general knowledge test than when noncredible narrators presented this same information. These findings are discussed with respect to theories of validation during language comprehension.

Order Matters When Using Two-Sided Messages to Influence Morally Based Attitudes

Contrary to common beliefs, sometimes downplaying or even undermining one's case can enhance impact, especially for people with strong attitudes. Across four studies (N = 1,548), we demonstrate that the placement of the undermining information within a two-sided message matters. By manipulating message order within a two-sided message, Study 1 showed that the relative effectiveness of two- over one-sided messages for people with a moral attitude primarily occurred when the two-sided message acknowledged the recipient's side at the end rather than at the beginning of the message. Studies 2A/B showed that this effect was associated with positive source perceptions, such that placing the acknowledgment at the end results in people with a higher moral basis perceiving the source as more thoughtful and sincere. Furthermore, this inference process was more likely to occur when motivation to think was relatively high. Study 3, a preregistered experiment, replicated these findings using a different topic.

Consumer objective and subjective knowledge about healthy foods: An approach to promote healthy lifestyle choices in South Africa

Unhealthy food choices and consumption, coupled with sedentary lifestyles among consumers, intensify public health concerns regarding the quadruple disease burden, despite Primary Health Care (PHC) policy. However, the current relationship between consumer knowledge about healthy foods and following a healthy lifestyle needs to be explored. Our study, therefore, aimed to determine the association between consumers' subjective and objective knowledge about healthy foods and various healthy lifestyle choices. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among employed consumers (N = 157) from South African corporate settings. We used structural equation modelling (SEM) to determine associations between subjective and objective knowledge about healthy foods and healthy lifestyle choices. Our findings showed that most participants scored high on making healthy lifestyle choices relating to avoiding smoking (69.5%) and limiting drinking alcohol (68.7%) but less so for food and sleep (44.4%) while neglecting exercise, relaxation (13.7%), and choices that require dedicated effort (25.2%). On average, participants had high levels of subjective (mean = 3.59; 5-point Likert scale) knowledge and objective knowledge about healthy foods (88.4-95.9% correct responses). However, their objective knowledge about weight and cholesterol had severe deficiencies (36.7%). SEM confirmed an association between subjective knowledge and most healthy lifestyle choice categories, while income contributed to dedicated effort lifestyle choices. By contrast, objective knowledge did not associate with such choices. Our structural model suggests that subjective knowledge about healthy foods contributes to healthy lifestyle choices. Therefore, subjective knowledge and the objective knowledge deficiencies we identified among corporate consumers can serve as a valuable starting point for informed education to promote PHC policy and healthy lifestyle choices.

Rumors in Retweet: Ideological Asymmetry in the Failure to Correct Misinformation

We used supervised machine-learning techniques to examine ideological asymmetries in online rumor transmission. Although liberals were more likely than conservatives to communicate in general about the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings (Study 1, N = 26,422) and 2020 death of the sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein (Study 2, N = 141,670), conservatives were more likely to share rumors. Rumor-spreading decreased among liberals following official correction, but it increased among conservatives. Marathon rumors were spread twice as often by conservatives pre-correction, and nearly 10 times more often post-correction. Epstein rumors were spread twice as often by conservatives pre-correction, and nearly, eight times more often post-correction. With respect to ideologically congenial rumors, conservatives circulated the rumor that the Clinton family was involved in Epstein's death 18.6 times more often than liberals circulated the rumor that the Trump family was involved. More than 96% of all fake news domains were shared by conservative Twitter users.

Let's call! Using the phone to increase vaccine acceptance

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, we develop and test experimentally three phone-based interventions to increase vaccine acceptance in Mozambique. The first endorses the vaccine with a simple positive message. The second adds the activation of social memory on the country's success in eradicating wild polio with vaccination campaigns. The third further adds a structured interaction with the participant to develop a critical view toward misleading information and minimize the sharing of fake news. We find that combining the endorsement with the stimulation of social memory and the structured interaction increases vaccine acceptance and trust in institutions.

Initiation of oral hepatitis C virus treatment: Which barriers are pertinent for ambulatory individuals with a history of illicit substance use? A qualitative interview study

Background and Aims

The World Health Organization has set a goal to eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) by the year 2030. Nonadherence to HCV treatment has substantial economic implications due to high treatment costs, among others. Barriers to start HCV treatment may be critical. The aim of this study was to assess pertinent barriers to HCV treatment in ambulatory patients with a history of illicit substance use and to compare them to the literature.

Methods

Barriers to HCV treatment mentioned by the key risk group (i.e., people who inject drugs) were retrieved from literature through a pragmatic literature search. From 34 published articles, we identified 80 modifiable barriers that were bundled in 23 items within the four topics "Personal difficulties and barriers to treatment," "Personal motivation to be treated," "Knowledge about the disease," and "Received information about the medicine." In-depth semistructured interviews were performed face-to-face with ambulatory patients from the University Psychiatric Clinics in Basel, Switzerland. Transcripts were coded inductively.

Results

Interviews were performed with seven individuals (mean age: 48.3 years; range: 38-63 years; one woman) treated with oral direct-acting antivirals between 2014 and 2022. Thirteen barriers to start HCV treatment were mentioned that corresponded to the five categories: information, attitudes, swallowing difficulties, social environment, and unfavorable lifestyle. The barrier "swallowing difficulties" emerged exclusively from the statements provided by the interviewees.

Conclusion

Barriers to the initiation of HCV treatment indicated by our interviewees clearly differed from the literature. Notably, the challenge of swallowing medicines may be particularly relevant for physicians prescribing and pharmacists dispensing HCV medication.

Communicative Practices Clinicians Use to Correct Patient Misconceptions in Primary Care Visits

To investigate how clinicians correct patient misconceptions, we analyzed 23 video recordings of primary care visits. Analysis focused on operationalizing, identifying, and characterizing clinician corrections, integrating two inductive approaches: microanalysis of clinical interaction and conversation analysis. According to our definition, patient misconception-clinician correction episodes met three essential criteria: (1) the clinician refuted something the patient had said, (2) which the patient had presented without uncertainty, and (3) which contained a proposition that was factually incorrect. We identified 59 such episodes; the patient misconceptions most commonly related to medication issues; fewer than half had foreseeable implications for patients' future actions. We identified seven clinician correction practices: Three direct practices (displaying surprise, marking disagreement, contradicting the patient) and four indirect practices (presenting the correct proposition, providing explanations, invoking an outside authority, demonstrating with evidence). We found an almost equal distribution of these direct and indirect practices.

"I Think This News Is Accurate": Endorsing Accuracy Decreases the Sharing of Fake News and Increases the Sharing of Real News

Accuracy prompts, nudges that make accuracy salient, typically decrease the sharing of fake news, while having little effect on real news. Here, we introduce a new accuracy prompt that is more effective than previous prompts, because it does not only reduce fake news sharing, but it also increases real news sharing. We report four preregistered studies showing that an "endorsing accuracy" prompt ("I think this news is accurate"), placed into the sharing button, decreases fake news sharing, increases real news sharing, and keeps overall engagement constant. We also explore the mechanism through which the intervention works. The key results are specific to endorsing accuracy, rather than accuracy salience, and endorsing accuracy does not simply make participants apply a "source heuristic." Finally, we use Pennycook et al.'s limited-attention model to argue that endorsing accuracy may work by making people more carefully consider their sharing decisions.

Trust in public health institutions moderates the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine discussion groups on Facebook

BACKGROUND

Distrust and partisan identity are theorized to undermine health communications. We examined the role of these factors on the efficacy of discussion groups intended to promote vaccine uptake.

METHOD

We analyzed survey data from unvaccinated Facebook users (N = 371) living in the US between January and April 2022. Participants were randomly assigned to Facebook discussion groups (intervention) or referred to Facebook's COVID-19 Information Center (control). We used Analysis of Covariance to test if the intervention was more effective at changing vaccination intentions and beliefs compared to the control in subgroups based on participants' partisan identity, political views, and information trust views.

RESULTS

We found a significant interaction between the intervention and trust in public health institutions (PHIs) for improving intentions to vaccinate (P = .04), intentions to encourage others to vaccinate (P = .03), and vaccine confidence beliefs (P = .01). Among participants who trusted PHIs, those in the intervention had higher posttest intentions to vaccinate (P = .008) and intentions to encourage others to vaccinate (P = .002) compared to the control. Among non-conservatives, participants in the intervention had higher posttest intentions to vaccinate (P = .048). The intervention was more effective at improving intentions to encourage others to vaccinate within the subgroups of Republicans (P = .03), conservatives (P = .02), and participants who distrusted government (P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Facebook discussion groups were more effective for people who trusted PHIs and non-conservatives. Health communicators may need to segment health messaging and develop strategies around trust views.

Effects of communicating lifetime risks and screening rates of colorectal cancer and breast cancer

Colorectal cancer and breast cancer are among the most common types of cancer in the United States, and cancer screening is an effective way to detect and treat these cancers early. Health news stories, medical websites, and media campaigns regularly highlight the national lifetime risks of specific cancers and their screening rates, but recent research suggests that people tend to overestimate the prevalence of health problems but underestimate the prevalence of disease prevention behaviors in the absence of numerical information. This study featured two online experiments, one focused on breast cancer (N = 632) and one focused on colorectal cancer (N = 671), to examine the effects of communicating national cancer lifetime risks and screening rates among samples of screening-eligible adults in the United States. Findings confirmed prior work in showing that people overestimated colorectal/breast cancer lifetime risks but underestimated colorectal/breast cancer screening rates. Communicating the national lifetime risk of dying from colorectal/breast cancer lowered people's national risk estimates, which in turn was associated with lower perceived cancer risks for themselves. In contrast, communicating the national colorectal/breast cancer screening rate increased people's estimates of the prevalence of cancer screening, which in turn was associated with higher perceived self-efficacy to engage in cancer screening and greater screening intentions. We conclude that efforts to promote cancer screening may benefit from messages that include data on national cancer screening rates but may not benefit from including national rates of lifetime cancer risks.

Public Perceptions Of COVID-19 Lockdown Policies In Europe: Socioeconomic Status And Trust Were Factors

During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments worldwide implemented nonpharmaceutical lockdown policies to mitigate the impact of the virus. The effectiveness of these policies depended on public support, and they came with serious consequences for the population. Given that people's perceptions can influence their support for lockdown policies, we aimed to elicit perceptions of policy stringency among people in Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, and the United Kingdom in early 2021 as part of the European Covid Survey. We examined the extent to which objective measures of policy stringency and other factors were associated with these perceptions, focusing on disadvantaged populations. We found that objective measures of stringency did not accurately capture the impact of lockdown policies on people. Moreover, we found that socioeconomically disadvantaged people perceived policies as stricter than did less disadvantaged people and that trust in information sources greatly influenced such perceptions. Our findings underscore the importance of understanding factors influencing policy perception to help policy makers develop more effective and equitable infection containment strategies.

"It Frustrates Me Beyond Words That I Can't Fix that": Health Misinformation Correction on Facebook During COVID-19

This study investigated the experiences of communication officials at local health departments (LHD) in the US Midwest regarding the correction of health misinformation on Facebook during the COVID-19 pandemic. Through interviews with communication officials, this study examined how and why they corrected health misinformation, the challenges they encountered during the correction process, and the importance of having fact-checkers within LHDs. The analysis of the data revealed four major themes: factors influencing misinformation correction on Facebook, perceived effectiveness of health misinformation correction, the intersection of the First Amendment and health misinformation, and the role of fact-checking in LHDs. The LHD communication officials often faced conflicts and public rebuttals when directly correcting misinformation leading them to adopt the strategy of addressing misinformation through future posts instead of direct correction. These findings provide significant insights for communication officials to identify and correct health misinformation and emphasize the need for healthcare organizations to provide essential resources to information and communication professionals during times of crises.

Nursing Documentation Practices and Related Factors in Patient Care in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Ineffective nursing documentation practices have been reported to negatively impact patient outcomes and health professional efficiency. On the prevalence of nurses' documentation practices in Ethiopia, several separate studies have been carried out. However, there is no pooled prevalence of nurses' documentation practice. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the overall prevalence of nursing care documentation practice and related factors in Ethiopia.

Methods and Materials

This review only included articles that were published. The main databases were Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus, Ethiopian University Repository Online, and the Cochrane Library. Cross-sectional studies that satisfy the criteria and are written in English are included in the review. Using a random effects model, the pooled prevalence of nurses' documentation practices was determined. The funnel plot and the Eggers test were also used to look into publication bias. All statistical analyses were done with STATA version 14.

Result

This review included nine studies with a total of 2,900 participants. The pooled prevalence of nurses' documentation practice in Ethiopia was 50.01% (95% CI: 42.59 and 57.18; I2 = 93.8%; and P ≤ 0.001). In terms of subgroup analysis, Addis Ababa had the highest prevalence of nurses' documentation practice at 84% (95% CI: 77.18 and 90.82), while Southern Ethiopia had the lowest at 40.00% (95% CI: 38.10 and 44.90). Nursing documentation practices were statistically associated with the availability of nursing documentation formats, adequate nurse-to-patient ratio, motivation, and training.

Conclusion

This review showed that one in two nurses practiced poor documentation of their daily activities in Ethiopia. Therefore, strict monitoring, evaluation, and supervision of nursing care documentation services are highly recommended for all stakeholders. We strongly recommend improving the identified factors by arranging training for nurses, motivating them, providing adequate documentation formats, and maintaining a nurse-to-patient ratio.

How to debunk misinformation? An experimental online study investigating text structures and headline formats

OBJECTIVES

Misinformation is a crucial problem, particularly online, and the success of debunking messages has so far been limited. In this study, we experimentally test how debunking text structure (truth sandwich vs. bottom-heavy) and headline format (statement vs. questions) affect the belief in misinformation across topics of the safety of COVID vaccines and GMO foods.

DESIGN

Experimental online study.

METHODS

A representative German sample of 4906 participants were randomly assigned to reading one of eight debunking messages in the experimentally varied formats and subsequently rated the acceptance of this message and the agreement to misinformation statements about the mentioned topics and an unrefuted control myth.

RESULTS

While the debunking messages specifically decreased the belief in the targeted myth, these beliefs and the acceptance of the debunking message were unaffected by the text structures and headline formats. Yet, they were less successful when addressing individuals with strong pre-existing, incongruent attitudes and distrust in science.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of backfire effects in debunking misinformation is low. Text structure and headline format are of relatively little importance for the effectiveness of debunking messages. Instead, writers may need to pay attention to the text being comprehensive, trustworthy and persuasive to maximize effectiveness.

"Beating Your Head Against the Wall": Burnout on the Rise Among Local Health Department Communication Officials

The COVID-19 pandemic posed unprecedented challenges for frontline healthcare professionals globally. Despite the varied challenges encountered by frontline healthcare professionals, the difficulties faced by public health communication officials in particular has remained an underexplored area of research. This study examined the specific challenges experienced by communication officials during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. A qualitative research design was used to conduct in-depth interviews with communication officials working in local health departments (LHDs) in 2022. A total of 14 participants were recruited through purposive sampling, coupled with a data saturation strategy, from LHDs situated in Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. Thematic analysis revealed 3 key themes: (1) main challenges faced by LHDs during the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) challenges related to information dissemination on social media, and (3) burnout experienced by communication officials. This study's findings suggest that communication officials should be provided with the necessary resources and training to effectively handle misinformation, toxic behaviors, and bullying on social media while prioritizing their mental health. In addition, federal, state, and local health agencies should provide timely, clear, and accurate information to address the challenges faced by communication officials in their bid to disseminate information effectively.

I know It's false, but I keep thinking as if it were true: A replication study of Johnson and Seifert's (1994) continued influence effect

False Information (FI) is a critical societal issue, made even more pressing by our inability to mitigate its influence through correction. Researchers Johnson and Seifert (1994, Experiment 1A) penned a seminal paper on this "Continued Influence Effect" (CIE), which they observed in English-speaking participants. In their experiments, one group read a text containing FI that was later retracted (FI group), while another read the same text without FI (control group). Interestingly, even after receiving corrections, participants who read the FI were more likely than their peers to form FI-related inferences about the text. To the best of our knowledge, this finding has never been successfully directly replicated. Given the current replicability crisis plaguing the human sciences, the influence of culture on CIE and the importance of Johnson and Seifert's paradigm in this literature, the reassessment of their findings within a non-English-speaking population appears crucial. The present research investigated the direct replicability of their study with a French-speaking sample, comparing the inferences drawn by an FI group (n = 21) to those made by a control group (n = 23). The results confirm those of the original study, supporting the validity of Johnson and Seifert's paradigm (1994) and extending its applicability to a French-speaking population.

'But wait, that isn't real': A proof-of-concept study evaluating 'Project Real', a co-created intervention that helps young people to spot fake news online

As misinformation is one of the top risks facing the world today, it is vital to ensure that young people have the confidence and skills to recognize fake news. Therefore, we used co-creation to develop an intervention (called 'Project Real') and tested its efficacy in a proof-of-concept study. One hundred and twenty-six pupils aged 11-13 completed questionnaires before and after the intervention that measured confidence and ability to recognize fake news and the number of checks they would make before sharing news. Twenty-seven pupils and three teachers participated in follow-up discussions to evaluate Project Real. Quantitative data indicated that Project Real increased participants' confidence in recognizing fake news and the number of checks they intended to make before sharing news. However, there was no change in their ability to recognize fake news. Qualitative data indicated that participants felt that they had improved their skills and confidence in recognizing fake news, supporting the quantitative data.

Co-Designing a Mobile-Based Game to Improve Misinformation Resistance and Vaccine Knowledge in Uganda, Kenya, and Rwanda

Misinformation can decrease public confidence in vaccines, and reduce vaccination intent and uptake. One strategy for countering these negative impacts comes from inoculation theory. Similar to biological vaccination, inoculation theory posits that exposure to a weakened form of misinformation can develop cognitive immunity, reducing the likelihood of being misled. Online games offer an interactive, technology-driven, and scalable solution using an active form of inoculation that engages and incentivizes players to build resilience against misinformation. We document the development of the critical thinking game Cranky Uncle Vaccine. The game applies research findings from inoculation theory, critical thinking, humor in science communication, and serious games. The game content was iterated through a series of co-design workshops in Kampala (Uganda), Kitale (Kenya), and Kigali (Rwanda). Workshop participants offered feedback on cartoon character design, gameplay experience, and the game's content, helping to make the game more culturally relevant and avoid unintended consequences in East African countries. Our co-design methodology offers an approach for further adaptation of the Cranky Uncle Vaccine game to other regions, as well as a template for developing locally relevant interventions to counter future infodemics.

Sharing Reliable COVID-19 Information and Countering Misinformation: In-Depth Interviews With Information Advocates

BACKGROUND

The rampant spread of misinformation about COVID-19 has been linked to a lower uptake of preventive behaviors such as vaccination. Some individuals, however, have been able to resist believing in COVID-19 misinformation. Further, some have acted as information advocates, spreading accurate information and combating misinformation about the pandemic.

OBJECTIVE

This work explores highly knowledgeable information advocates' perspectives, behaviors, and information-related practices.

METHODS

To identify participants for this study, we used outcomes of survey research of a national sample of 1498 adults to find individuals who scored a perfect or near-perfect score on COVID-19 knowledge questions and who also self-reported actively sharing or responding to news information within the past week. Among this subsample, we selected a diverse sample of 25 individuals to participate in a 1-time, phone-based, semistructured interview. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and the team conducted an inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Participants reported trusting in science, data-driven sources, public health, medical experts, and organizations. They had mixed levels of trust in various social media sites to find reliable health information, noting distrust in particular sites such as Facebook (Meta Platforms) and more trust in specific accounts on Twitter (X Corp) and Reddit (Advance Publications). They reported relying on multiple sources of information to find facts instead of depending on their intuition and emotions to inform their perspectives about COVID-19. Participants determined the credibility of information by cross-referencing it, identifying information sources and their potential biases, clarifying information they were unclear about with health care providers, and using fact-checking sites to verify information. Most participants reported ignoring misinformation. Others, however, responded to misinformation by flagging, reporting, and responding to it on social media sites. Some described feeling more comfortable responding to misinformation in person than online. Participants' responses to misinformation posted on the internet depended on various factors, including their relationship to the individual posting the misinformation, their level of outrage in response to it, and how dangerous they perceived it could be if others acted on such information.

CONCLUSIONS

This research illustrates how well-informed US adults assess the credibility of COVID-19 information, how they share it, and how they respond to misinformation. It illustrates web-based and offline information practices and describes how the role of interpersonal relationships contributes to their preferences for acting on such information. Implications of our findings could help inform future training in health information literacy, interpersonal information advocacy, and organizational information advocacy. It is critical to continue working to share reliable health information and debunk misinformation, particularly since this information informs health behaviors.

Development and validation of the COVID-19 Impact Scale in Australia

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted and continues to impact the health and well-being of Australian adults. However, there has been no instrument validated to comprehensively measure how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted adults in Australia across several domains (e.g. fear of COVID-19, attitudes towards vaccination, psychosocial impact of lockdowns).The current study conducted a rigorous psychometric process to develop and validate an instrument to measure the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, the COVID-19 Impact Scale (CIS).

METHOD

Data was obtained from the Australian population. Participants (N = 563) aged between 19 and 91 years (M = 54.50, SD = 16.16) provided online responses between June, 2021 and May, 2022. The majority of participants were female (60.9%), employed either full-time (37.7%) or part-time (22.0%), and had completed an undergraduate degree or higher (70.1%). An initial pool of 30 items was developed based on a review of the literature and input from a panel of experts including psychologists, epidemiologists, and public health experts, among others. The study used network psychometrics to examine the psychometric properties of: (1) item score distributions; (2) item redundancy; (3) dimensionality; (4) model fit; (5) measurement invariance; (6) reliability; and (7) criterion validity.

RESULTS

Following an evaluation of items for ceiling/floor effects and redundancy, the final CIS network model included eighteen nodes and displayed a three-dimensional structure. The three communities of "Fear" (consisting of three nodes; ω = 0.82), "Attitudes" (consisting of ten nodes; ω = 0.89), and "Ill-being" (consisting of five nodes; ω = 0.79) displayed adequate reliability. The evaluation of model fit indicated a good fit of the network model (RMSEA = 0.047; CFI =0.98).

CONCLUSION

The instrument is available to be used by Australian researchers and implemented to evaluate public policies, adapted for future pandemics, or used internationally.

How to activate intuitive and reflective thinking in behavior research? A comprehensive examination of experimental techniques

Experiments comparing intuitive and reflective decisions provide insights into the cognitive foundations of human behavior. However, the relative strengths and weaknesses of the frequently used experimental techniques for activating intuition and reflection remain unknown. In a large-scale preregistered online experiment (N = 3667), we compared the effects of eight reflection, six intuition, and two within-subjects manipulations on actual and self-reported measures of cognitive performance. Compared to the overall control, the long debiasing training was the most effective technique for increasing actual reflection scores, and the emotion induction was the most effective technique for increasing actual intuition scores. In contrast, the reason and the intuition recall, the reason induction, and the brief time delay conditions failed to achieve the intended effects. We recommend using the debiasing training, the decision justification, or the monetary incentives technique to activate reflection, and the emotion induction, the cognitive load, or the time pressure technique to activate intuition.

Openness to change among COVID misinformation endorsers: Associations with social demographic characteristics and information source usage

RATIONALE

Misinformation is a major concern for public health, with its presence and impact strongly felt in the COVID-19 pandemic. Misinformation correction has drawn strong research interest. In contrast, relatively little attention has been given to the likelihood of favorable behavioral change post correction (i.e., openness to change).

OBJECTIVE

This study seeks to identify the characteristics of COVID misinformation endorsers who are open to adopt more self-protective behaviors after misinformation correction.

METHODS

COVID misinformation endorsers (N = 1991) in a large, nationally representative survey (fielded in October and November 2021) were asked how likely they would adopt self-protective behaviors if a source they trusted debunked their prior misperceptions. Multiple linear regression estimated the relationships between openness to change and socio-demographics, health-related factors, and health information source usage patterns.

RESULTS

Less than half of the misinformation endorsers in the sample (41.3%) indicated any openness to change. Openness to change was positively associated with minority status and negatively associated with leaning Republican in political affiliation, higher income, being currently unvaccinated or unsure about vaccination status, better health, and a greater number of misinformation items endorsed. Past-month use of government, community, and personal sources for health information positively predicted openness. The use of online media was negatively associated with openness.

CONCLUSIONS

Openness to change is not guaranteed after misinformation correction. Targeted interventions based on openness to change are needed to enhance the public health impact of misinformation correction efforts.

Navigating the COVID-19 infodemic: the influence of metacognitive efficiency on health behaviours and policy attitudes

The COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by an infodemic of misinformation and increasing polarization around public health measures, such as social distancing and national lockdowns. In this study, I examined metacognitive efficiency-the extent to which the subjective feeling of knowing predicts the objective accuracy of knowledge-as a tool to understand and measure the assimilation of misleading misinformation in a balanced sample of Great Britain's population (N = 1689), surveyed at the end of the third national lockdown. Using a signal-detection theory approach to quantify metacognitive efficiency, I found that at the population level, metacognitive efficiency for COVID-19 knowledge was impaired compared with general knowledge, indicating a worse alignment between confidence levels and the actual ability to discern true and false statements. Crucially, individual differences in metacognitive efficiency related to COVID-19 knowledge predicted health-protective behaviours, vaccination intentions and attitudes towards public health measures, even after accounting for the level of knowledge itself and demographic covariates, such as education, income and political alignment. These results reveal the significant impact of misinformation on public beliefs and suggest that fostering confidence in accurate knowledge should be a key target for science communication efforts aimed at promoting compliance with public health and social measures.

A meta-analysis of correction effects in science-relevant misinformation

Scientifically relevant misinformation, defined as false claims concerning a scientific measurement procedure or scientific evidence, regardless of the author's intent, is illustrated by the fiction that the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine contained microchips to track citizens. Updating science-relevant misinformation after a correction can be challenging, and little is known about what theoretical factors can influence the correction. Here this meta-analysis examined 205 effect sizes (that is, k, obtained from 74 reports; N = 60,861), which showed that attempts to debunk science-relevant misinformation were, on average, not successful (d = 0.19, P = 0.131, 95% confidence interval -0.06 to 0.43). However, corrections were more successful when the initial science-relevant belief concerned negative topics and domains other than health. Corrections fared better when they were detailed, when recipients were likely familiar with both sides of the issue ahead of the study and when the issue was not politically polarized.

Hope over fear: The interplay between threat information and hope appeal corrections in debunking early COVID-19 misinformation

The spreading of COVID-19 misinformation paralleled increasing fear towards the pandemic reported worldwide in its early stages. Yet research on the emotional basis for misinformation susceptibility and how emotional appeals may help reduce COVID-19 related misperceptions remains limited. To address this gap, we conducted a 2 (threat from COVID-19: yes vs. no) × 4 (correction conditions: none vs. factual correction vs. factual correction + words of optimistic outlook & individual efficacy vs. factual correction + words of optimistic outlook & collective efficacy) between-participant factorial experiment among an online sample of Chinese residents (N = 836) in June 2020. Misinformation about COVID-19 treatments and mitigation was presented in all conditions. Across five misinformation topics, threat information induced more misperceptions while all three types of corrections mitigated threat information's deleterious impact and improved belief accuracy. Importantly, corrections incorporating hope appeals showed enhanced effectiveness in improving belief accuracy when threat information was present whereas factual corrections absent hope appeals did not show similar sensitivity towards threat information. For hope appeal corrections, their indirect effects on desirable downstream behavioral intentions through corrected beliefs were stronger with than without preceding threat information. Our study thus demonstrated the potential of deploying hope appeals to fight the COVID-19 infodemic in China and beyond when threat information is prevalent, while highlighting the importance of studying the roles of emotional appeals in health misperception formation and correction.

Naturally leading: a content analysis of terms, themes and word associations in Natural American Spirit advertising, 2000-2020

BACKGROUND

Natural American Spirit (NAS) is a cigarette brand distinguished by supposed 'natural', 'additive-free' characteristics, marketing of which is tied to misperceptions of reduced harm. In 2017, NAS's manufacturer agreed (with the Food and Drug Administration) to remove 'natural'/'additive-free' from US marketing. Prior research has explored NAS marketing immediately post-agreement. This study sought to identify prominent post-agreement terms and themes and analyse how they had been used in pre-agreement ads.

METHODS

We conducted a content analysis of NAS ads from 2000 to 2020 (N=176), documenting prominent pre-agreement and post-agreement terms/themes and examining how they are used in NAS ads. We coded for descriptors, themes, imagery and promotions, and extended prior research by analysing how leading post-agreement terms were used in conjunction and thematically associated with 'additive-free' and 'natural' before the agreement.

RESULTS

Results indicated 'tobacco and water' and 'Real. Simple. Different.' increased post-agreement, as did environmental imagery. 'Organic' was prominent pre-agreement and post-agreement. The descriptors used most often in post-agreement ads almost always appeared in conjunction with (and were thematically linked to) 'natural' and 'additive-free' in pre-agreement ads.

CONCLUSIONS

In the years since the agreement, NAS ads have heavily relied on still-allowable descriptors that may invite reduced risk misperceptions. Notably, these descriptors were consistently used alongside the banned terminology before the agreement and presented as if affiliated conceptually, possibly prompting similar connotations. Findings indicate a continuing need for research into NAS advertising effects and a potential role for additional regulatory action.

Fighting the infodemic: the 4 i Framework for Advancing Communication and Trust

BACKGROUND

The proliferation of false and misleading health claims poses a major threat to public health. This ongoing "infodemic" has prompted numerous organizations to develop tools and approaches to manage the spread of falsehoods and communicate more effectively in an environment of mistrust and misleading information. However, these tools and approaches have not been systematically characterized, limiting their utility. This analysis provides a characterization of the current ecosystem of infodemic management strategies, allowing public health practitioners, communicators, researchers, and policy makers to gain an understanding of the tools at their disposal.

METHODS

A multi-pronged search strategy was used to identify tools and approaches for combatting health-related misinformation and disinformation. The search strategy included a scoping review of academic literature; a review of gray literature from organizations involved in public health communications and misinformation/disinformation management; and a review of policies and infodemic management approaches from all U.S. state health departments and select local health departments. A team of annotators labelled the main feature(s) of each tool or approach using an iteratively developed list of tags.

RESULTS

We identified over 350 infodemic management tools and approaches. We introduce the 4 i Framework for Advancing Communication and Trust (4 i FACT), a modified social-ecological model, to characterize different levels of infodemic intervention: informational, individual, interpersonal, and institutional. Information-level strategies included those designed to amplify factual information, fill information voids, debunk false information, track circulating information, and verify, detect, or rate the credibility of information. Individual-level strategies included those designed to enhance information literacy and prebunking/inoculation tools. Strategies at the interpersonal/community level included resources for public health communicators and community engagement approaches. Institutional and structural approaches included resources for journalists and fact checkers, tools for managing academic/scientific literature, resources for infodemic researchers/research, resources for infodemic managers, social media regulation, and policy/legislation.

CONCLUSIONS

The 4 i FACT provides a useful way to characterize the current ecosystem of infodemic management strategies. Recognizing the complex and multifaceted nature of the ongoing infodemic, efforts should be taken to utilize and integrate strategies across all four levels of the modified social-ecological model.

Impact of Social Reference Cues on Misinformation Sharing on Social Media: Series of Experimental Studies

BACKGROUND

Health-related misinformation on social media is a key challenge to effective and timely public health responses. Existing mitigation measures include flagging misinformation or providing links to correct information, but they have not yet targeted social processes. Current approaches focus on increasing scrutiny, providing corrections to misinformation (debunking), or alerting users prospectively about future misinformation (prebunking and inoculation). Here, we provide a test of a complementary strategy that focuses on the social processes inherent in social media use, in particular, social reinforcement, social identity, and injunctive norms.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine whether providing balanced social reference cues (ie, cues that provide information on users sharing and, more importantly, not sharing specific content) in addition to flagging COVID-19-related misinformation leads to reductions in sharing behavior and improvement in overall sharing quality.

METHODS

A total of 3 field experiments were conducted on Twitter's native social media feed (via a newly developed browser extension). Participants' feed was augmented to include misleading and control information, resulting in 4 groups: no-information control, Twitter's own misinformation warning (misinformation flag), social cue only, and combined misinformation flag and social cue. We tracked the content shared or liked by participants. Participants were provided with social information by referencing either their personal network on Twitter or all Twitter users.

RESULTS

A total of 1424 Twitter users participated in 3 studies (n=824, n=322, and n=278). Across all 3 studies, we found that social cues that reference users' personal network combined with a misinformation flag reduced the sharing of misleading but not control information and improved overall sharing quality. We show that this improvement could be driven by a change in injunctive social norms (study 2) but not social identity (study 3).

CONCLUSIONS

Social reference cues combined with misinformation flags can significantly and meaningfully reduce the amount of COVID-19-related misinformation shared and improve overall sharing quality. They are a feasible and scalable way to effectively curb the sharing of COVID-19-related misinformation on social media.

The Common Way in Which the Ministry of Health Conveys Information to the Public: A Simulation Among Israeli Parents with Different Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Vaccination During a Measles Outbreak in Israel

BACKGROUND

Despite several empirical studies that have emphasized the problematic and ineffective way in which health organizations 'correct' information which does not come from them, they have not yet found ways to properly address vaccine hesitancy.

OBJECTIVES

(1) Examining the responses of groups with different attitudes/ behaviors regarding vaccination; (2) Examining the effect of the common methods of correcting information regarding the response of subgroups, while examining issues of reliability, satisfaction, and information seeking, as well as how health organization tools aid the decision-making process regarding vaccines.

METHODS

A simulation study that included 150 parents of kindergarten children was carried out.

RESULTS

Significant difference was found among the various groups (with respect to vaccination behavior) regarding the extent of their trust in the Ministry of Health (χ2(3) = 46.33; P < 0.0001), the reliability of the Ministry of Health's response (χ2(3) = 31.56; P < 0.0001), satisfaction with the Ministry of Health's response (χ2(3) = 25.25; P < 0.0001), and the level of help they felt the Ministry of Health's tools provided them regarding vaccine-related decision making (χ2(3) = 27.76; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

It is important for health organizations to gain the public's trust, especially that of pro-vaccination groups with hesitant attitudes, while addressing the public's fears and concerns.

Scientists' deficit perception of the public impedes their behavioral intentions to correct misinformation

This paper investigates the relationship between scientists' communication experience and attitudes towards misinformation and their intention to correct misinformation. Specifically, the study focuses on two correction strategies: source-based correction and relational approaches. Source-based approaches combatting misinformation prioritize sharing accurate information from trustworthy sources to encourage audiences to trust reliable information over false information. On the other hand, relational approaches give priority to developing relationships or promoting dialogue as a means of addressing misinformation. In this study, we surveyed 416 scientists from U.S. land-grant universities using a self-report questionnaire. We find that scientists' engagement in science communication activities is positively related to their intention to correct misinformation using both strategies. Moreover, the scientists' attitude towards misinformation mediates the relationship between engagement in communication activities and intention to correct misinformation. The study also finds that the deficit model perception-that is, the assumption that scientists only need to transmit scientific knowledge to an ignorant public in order to increase understanding and support for science-moderates the indirect effect of engagement in science communication activities on behavioral intention to correct misinformation using relational strategies through attitude towards misinformation. Thus, the deficit model perception is a barrier to engaging in relational strategies to correct misinformation. We suggest that addressing the deficit model perception and providing science communication training that promotes inclusive worldviews and relational approaches would increase scientists' behavioral intentions to address misinformation. The study concludes that scientists should recognize their dual positionality as scientists and members of their community and engage in respectful conversations with community members about science.

Using social media listening to understand barriers to genomic medicine for those living with Ehlers-Danlos syndromes and hypermobility spectrum disorders

INTRODUCTION

Technological improvements alone have not led to the integration of genomic medicine across a broad range of diseases and populations. For genomic medicine to be successfully implemented across specialties and conditions, the challenges patients and caregivers experience need to be identified using a multi-faceted understanding of the context in which these obstacles occur and how they are experienced. Individuals affected by rare conditions, like Ehlers-Danlos syndromes (EDS) and hypermobility spectrum disorders (HSD), express numerous challenges with accessing genomic medicine. Many patients living with rare diseases seek information and find comfort in online health communities.

METHODS

Social media conversations facilitated through online health communities are windows into patients' and caregivers' authentic experiences. To date, no other study has examined genomic medicine barriers by analysing the content of social media posts, yet the novel methodological approach of social media listening permits the analysis of virtual, organic conversations about lived experiences.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

Using a modified social-ecological model, this study found that social-structural and interpersonal barriers most frequently impede access to genomic medicine for patients and caregivers living with EDS and HSD.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Data were retrieved through social media conversations facilitated through publicly accessible health communities through Inspire, an online health community. Social media listening permits the analysis of virtual, organic conversations about lived experiences.

Strengthening scientific credibility in the face of misinformation and disinformation: Viable solutions

Despite numerous attempts to mitigate their spread, misinformation and disinformation are rampant on social media and other public networks, posing a substantial risk to public health and individual well-being. A concerted, multi-channel approach is required to effectively tackle this evolving problem. This paper outlines potential strategies and actionable plans to improve the response to misinformation and disinformation by stakeholders from various healthcare ecosystems.

Parent-reported Barriers and Parental Beliefs Associated with Intentions to Obtain HPV Vaccination for Children in a Primary care Patient Population in Minnesota, USA

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake among adolescents remains suboptimal in the US. The COVID-19 pandemic posed new challenges to increase HPV vaccination rates. To characterize parent-reported barriers to obtain HPV vaccination for their children and to identify psychosocial factors associated with parents' intention to vaccinate their children for HPV, we administered parent surveys between April 2020 and January 2022 during a randomized pragmatic trial assessing the impact of evidence-based implementation strategies on HPV vaccination rates for adolescent patients at six Mayo Clinic primary care practices in Southeast Minnesota. A total of 342 surveys were completed (response rate 34.1%). Analyses were focused on parents of unvaccinated children (n = 133). The survey assessed the main reason the child did not receive the HPV vaccine, parental beliefs about the vaccine, and the parent's intention to vaccinate the child for HPV in the next 12 months. Frequently reported awareness and access barriers to HPV vaccination included not knowing the child was due (17.8%) and COVID-19 related delay (11.6%). Frequently reported attitudinal barriers include the belief that the child was too young for the vaccine (17.8%) and that the vaccine is not proven to be safe (16.3%). Injunctive social norm (Adjusted-OR = 3.15, 95%CI: 1.94, 5.41) and perceived harm beliefs (Adjusted-OR = 0.58, 95%CI: 0.35, 0.94) about the HPV vaccine were positively and negatively associated with HPV vaccination intention, respectively. Our findings suggest that continued efforts to overcome parental awareness, access, and attitudinal barriers to HPV vaccination are needed and underscore the importance of utilizing evidence-based health system-level interventions.

Test Experience, Direct Instruction, and Their Combination Promote Accurate Beliefs about the Testing Effect

Practice testing is a highly robust learning strategy that promotes long-term retention, especially in comparison to more passive strategies such as restudying-a finding referred to as the testing effect. However, learners do not always appreciate the memorial benefits of practice testing over restudying, which could limit their use of practice testing during self-regulated learning. The current investigation explored the extent to which learners' metacognitive judgments about the testing effect can be improved via test experience, direct instruction, or a combination of both techniques. Prolific participants underwent two learning cycles. In the first cycle, participants were randomly assigned to either (a) experience a testing effect in their own memory performance (i.e., study unrelated word pairs, practice half the pairs through restudying and half through testing with correct-answer feedback, complete a critical test on the pairs, and receive feedback regarding their performance after using each strategy); (b) imagine they had to learn word pairs and read a passage on the purported benefits of practice testing; or (c) undergo both procedures. In the second cycle, all participants learned a novel set of word pairs. Across both learning cycles, participants estimated memory performance for material learned through testing versus restudying. Both test experience and direct instruction-independently and in combination-led to more accurate memory estimates across learning cycles, but no technique was more effective than the other. In summary, people can learn about the memorial benefits of practice testing when they experience a testing effect on their own memory performance and/or when they receive instruction about its benefits.

Influencing recommendation algorithms to reduce the spread of unreliable news by encouraging humans to fact-check articles, in a field experiment

Society often relies on social algorithms that adapt to human behavior. Yet scientists struggle to generalize the combined behavior of mutually-adapting humans and algorithms. This scientific challenge is a governance problem when algorithms amplify human responses to falsehoods. Could attempts to influence humans have second-order effects on algorithms? Using a large-scale field experiment, I test if influencing readers to fact-check unreliable sources causes news aggregation algorithms to promote or lessen the visibility of those sources. Interventions encouraged readers to fact-check articles or fact-check and provide votes to the algorithm. Across 1104 discussions, these encouragements increased human fact-checking and reduced vote scores on average. The fact-checking condition also caused the algorithm to reduce the promotion of articles over time by as much as -25 rank positions on average, enough to remove an article from the front page. Overall, this study offers a path for the science of human-algorithm behavior by experimentally demonstrating how influencing collective human behavior can also influence algorithm behavior.

Combatting rumors around the French election: the memorability and effectiveness of fact-checking articles

Across four studies, we examined the how design decisions influenced the effectiveness of fact-checking articles created by CrossCheck France during the 2017 French election. We measured both memory for the article and belief in the false rumor. We saw no difference in fact check efficacy based on the type of headline (question vs negation) or the number of newsroom logos present around the article (one, four, or seven). In addition, informative design features such as an icon identifying the type of misinformation were ignored by readers. Participants failed to remember many of the details from the article, but retrieval practice was beneficial in reducing forgetting over a 1-week delay. In both US and French samples, reading the fact check decreased belief in the false information, even 1 week later. However, the articles were much more effective in the US sample, who lacked relevant prior knowledge and political beliefs. Overall, fact-checking articles can be effective at reducing belief in false information, but readers tend to forget the details and ignore peripheral information.

Examining the replicability of backfire effects after standalone corrections

Corrections are a frequently used and effective tool for countering misinformation. However, concerns have been raised that corrections may introduce false claims to new audiences when the misinformation is novel. This is because boosting the familiarity of a claim can increase belief in that claim, and thus exposing new audiences to novel misinformation-even as part of a correction-may inadvertently increase misinformation belief. Such an outcome could be conceptualized as a familiarity backfire effect, whereby a familiarity boost increases false-claim endorsement above a control-condition or pre-correction baseline. Here, we examined whether standalone corrections-that is, corrections presented without initial misinformation exposure-can backfire and increase participants' reliance on the misinformation in their subsequent inferential reasoning, relative to a no-misinformation, no-correction control condition. Across three experiments (total N = 1156) we found that standalone corrections did not backfire immediately (Experiment 1) or after a one-week delay (Experiment 2). However, there was some mixed evidence suggesting corrections may backfire when there is skepticism regarding the correction (Experiment 3). Specifically, in Experiment 3, we found the standalone correction to backfire in open-ended responses, but only when there was skepticism towards the correction. However, this did not replicate with the rating scales measure. Future research should further examine whether skepticism towards the correction is the first replicable mechanism for backfire effects to occur.

Curiosity, Surprise, and the Recall of Tobacco-Related Health Information in Adolescents

A key goal of health communications designed to prevent smoking initiation during adolescence is for the tobacco-related information to be retained in memory beyond immediate message exposure. Here, we test the role for epistemic emotions, specifically curiosity and surprise, in facilitating memory for tobacco-related health information. Participants (n = 294 never-smoking adolescents, ages 14-16 years) performed a trivia guessing task wherein they guessed the answers to general trivia and smoking-related trivia questions. A subset of participants (n = 154) completed a surprise trivia memory task one week later and answered the previously viewed questions. Results indicate that curiosity about the answers to smoking-related trivia is associated with more accurate recall of smoking-related trivia answers one week later. Surprise also facilitated memory for smoking-related trivia, but the association was limited to cases where confidence in prior knowledge was low. Indeed, when participants had high confidence in their prior knowledge, surprise about the answer to trivia questions was associated with worse recall. Findings suggest that engendering states of curiosity for smoking-related information may facilitate retention of that information in never-smoking adolescents and highlight the need to examine both surprise and confidence in health communications to avoid low message recall.

If you express it in the form of a negation, you can expect an effect similar to misinformation

The primary goal of the presented research was to investigate how processing post-event information affects memory of details in an event viewed on video. We used two forms of post-event information: classic misinformation (changing or implanting new information into memory) and a new form that involves a correct explicit or implicit negation of the existence of an object in the video. We followed the three-step procedure used in studies on the misinformation effect, with a final memory test that was either immediate or delayed by a week and consisted in indicating which objects appeared in the video. We replicated the misinformation effect. More importantly, in the delayed test condition, both explicitly and implicitly negated objects were falsely recalled more often than unmentioned objects. These results indicate that it is possible to induce negation-related false memories; they also show that memory is impaired by negated post-event information or misleading post-event information.

Television News Media Consumption and Misperceptions about COVID-19 among US Populations at High Risk for Severe Health Outcomes Early in the Pandemic

Research indicates that misperceptions that become part of people's initial mental models about an issue tend to persist and influence their attitudes even after the misperception has been corrected. Recent work on evolving mental models suggests that communication efforts about the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath may be improved by crafting messages that acknowledge biases and misunderstandings about the virus and other infectious diseases that may remain among members of the target audience. This study was designed to provide insight into such biases by: (1) establishing salient categories of COVID-related misperceptions in the earliest months of the pandemic in the United States among (a) the general population, and (b) demographic sub-populations at high risk of severe health outcomes; (2) identifying demographic predictors of misperceptions; and (3) examining the relationship between consumption of different television news outlets and agreement with misperceptions about COVID-19. A national sample of 1,000 adults in the United States (48.1% male; M age = 47.32, SD = 18.01; 72.9% White/Caucasian, 14.3% Black/African American, 15.9% Hispanic/Latinx) completed a survey between March 19 and March 25, 2020. Results identify prevalent classes of salient early COVID-19 misperceptions. Adjusting for numerous covariates, data indicated individuals over the age of 60 held the fewest COVID-related misperceptions among various demographic sub-populations, misperceptions were most prevalent among Black respondents, and increased consumption of television network news was associated with lower levels of misperception. Consumption of some 24-hour news networks (FOX and MSNBC) were significant positive correlates of misperceptions.

Intentions to be Vaccinated Against COVID-19: The Role of Prosociality and Conspiracy Beliefs across 20 Countries

Understanding the determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake is important to inform policy decisions and plan vaccination campaigns. The aims of this research were to: (1) explore the individual- and country-level determinants of intentions to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, and (2) examine worldwide variation in vaccination intentions. This cross-sectional online survey was conducted during the first wave of the pandemic, involving 6697 respondents across 20 countries. Results showed that 72.9% of participants reported positive intentions to be vaccinated against COVID-19, whereas 16.8% were undecided, and 10.3% reported they would not be vaccinated. At the individual level, prosociality was a significant positive predictor of vaccination intentions, whereas generic beliefs in conspiracy theories and religiosity were negative predictors. Country-level determinants, including cultural dimensions of individualism/collectivism and power distance, were not significant predictors of vaccination intentions. Altogether, this study identifies individual-level predictors that are common across multiple countries, provides further evidence on the importance of combating conspiracy theories, involving religious institutions in vaccination campaigns, and stimulating prosocial motives to encourage vaccine uptake.