Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing

Misinformation and COVID-19 vaccine uptake hesitancy among frontline workers in Tanzania: Do demographic variables matter?

Although COVID-19 vaccination has been widely considered as an important remedy to confront COVID-19, people remain hesitant to take it. The objective of this study was to assess the moderation effects of demographic characteristics on the relationship between forms of misinformation and COVID-19 vaccine uptake hesitancy among frontline workers in Dar es Salaam and Dodoma, Tanzania. Using a sample of 200 respondents, it assessed the differences in ratings on misinformation regarding COVID-19 vaccine based on respondents' demographics. The study used a Five-point Likert scale questionnaire distributed through snowball sampling to frontline workers from Dar es Salaam and Dodoma regions. Data was analyzed using binary logistic regression. It was found that the forms of misinformation revealed were manipulated imposters, satire, fabricated contents and false contents with their connection, which they influenced COVID-19 hesitancy significantly. With exception of age, that significantly moderated hesitancy, this study uncovers that, sex and education level moderated insignificantly in predicting those who are misinformed; misinformed individuals are not any less educated or not based on one's sex, different than individuals who are informed. The study informs policy makers on devising appropriate strategies to promote COVID-19 vaccination uptake among the different contextual demographic variables. Promotion of information, media and health literacy to the general public should be considered to deter spreading of vaccine-related misinformation.

Neural mechanisms of the continued influence effect of misinformation: Analysis based on fMRI causal connectivity

The continued influence effect of misinformation (CIEM) can negatively affect individuals' reasoning and judgment processes. This research aims to enhance the correction of misinformation and foster rational judgement by investigating the internal brain mechanisms involved in the processing of the CIEM through the use of task-based functional magnetic resonance imaging combined with Granger causality analysis. Our findings demonstrate notable effective interactions in varying directions between the left inferior frontal gyrus and middle temporal gyrus during the encoding phase, and between the right anterior cingulate gyrus and left inferior occipital gyrus in the retrieval phase. These insights elucidate the roles of mental model updating and retrieval failure in the processing of CIEM, offering more granular evidence to support the differentiation in processing phases.

Navigating persuasive strategies in online health misinformation: An interview study with older adults on misinformation management

Online health misinformation commonly includes persuasive strategies that can easily deceive lay people. Yet, it is not well understood how individuals respond to misinformation with persuasive strategies at the moment of exposure. This study aims to address the research gap by exploring how and why older adults fall into the persuasive trap of online health misinformation and how they manage their encounters of online health misinformation. Using a think-aloud protocol, semi-structured interviews were conducted with twenty-nine older adults who were exposed to articles employing twelve groups of common persuasive strategies in online health misinformation. Thematic analysis of the transcripts revealed that some participants fell for the persuasive strategies, yet the same strategies were detected by others as cues to pin down misinformation. Based on the participants' own words, informational and individual factors as well as the interplay of these factors were identified as contributors to susceptibility to misinformation. Participants' strategies to manage misinformation for themselves and others were categorized. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Mitigating the influence of message features on health misinformation sharing intention in social media: Experimental evidence for accuracy-nudge intervention

RATIONALE

The escalating dissemination of health misinformation on social media platforms poses a significant threat to users' well-being. It is imperative to identify the types of health misinformation that are more susceptible to widespread dissemination and to explore strategies to curb its spread.

METHOD

This study designed a 2 (emotional appeal type: positive vs. negative) × 2 (fabricated source type: pseudo-common vs. pseudo-authoritative) × 2 (accuracy-nudge label: No vs. Yes) online between-subjects experiment controlling for factors such as e-health literacy, prior sharing experience, and personal involvement. A snowball sampling approach was used to recruit 1952 participants through social media, resulting in a final sample of 1393 valid responses.

RESULTS

Compared to positive emotional appeal and pseudo-common sources, negative emotional appeal and pseudo-authoritative sources resulted in higher levels of sharing intention. Under the condition of negative emotional appeal, the promotion effect of pseudo-authoritative sources on sharing intention was intensified. The accuracy-nudge intervention could significantly mitigate this tendency. The underlying mechanisms revealed more details: both negative emotional appeals and pseudo-authoritative sources increased the perceived credibility of health misinformation, thereby increasing users' sharing intention. However, in contrast to pseudo-authoritative sources, excessive negative emotional appeal induced vigilant verification behavior among users, which reduced sharing to some extent. Adding an accuracy-nudge label to health misinformation reduced users' misguided trust in health misinformation features and stimulated information verification, ultimately reducing health misinformation sharing intention.

CONCLUSIONS

Negative emotional appeal and pseudo-authoritative sources can enhance the perceived credibility of health misinformation, thereby strengthening the sharing intention of social media users. Therefore, health misinformation with negative emotional appeal and pseudo-authoritative sources is more likely to be widely shared. The accuracy nudge intervention can trigger users' information verification behavior, suppress the persuasive effects of the misinformation features mentioned above, and help prevent the spread of health misinformation on social media.

Detection of ChatGPT fake science with the xFakeSci learning algorithm

Generative AI tools exemplified by ChatGPT are becoming a new reality. This study is motivated by the premise that "AI generated content may exhibit a distinctive behavior that can be separated from scientific articles". In this study, we show how articles can be generated using means of prompt engineering for various diseases and conditions. We then show how we tested this premise in two phases and prove its validity. Subsequently, we introduce xFakeSci, a novel learning algorithm, that is capable of distinguishing ChatGPT-generated articles from publications produced by scientists. The algorithm is trained using network models driven from both sources. To mitigate overfitting issues, we incorporated a calibration step that is built upon data-driven heuristics, including proximity and ratios. Specifically, from a total of a 3952 fake articles for three different medical conditions, the algorithm was trained using only 100 articles, but calibrated using folds of 100 articles. As for the classification step, it was performed using 300 articles per condition. The actual label steps took place against an equal mix of 50 generated articles and 50 authentic PubMed abstracts. The testing also spanned publication periods from 2010 to 2024 and encompassed research on three distinct diseases: cancer, depression, and Alzheimer's. Further, we evaluated the accuracy of the xFakeSci algorithm against some of the classical data mining algorithms (e.g., Support Vector Machines, Regression, and Naive Bayes). The xFakeSci algorithm achieved F1 scores ranging from 80 to 94%, outperforming common data mining algorithms, which scored F1 values between 38 and 52%. We attribute the noticeable difference to the introduction of calibration and a proximity distance heuristic, which underscores this promising performance. Indeed, the prediction of fake science generated by ChatGPT presents a considerable challenge. Nonetheless, the introduction of the xFakeSci algorithm is a significant step on the way to combating fake science.

HAPI: An efficient Hybrid Feature Engineering-based Approach for Propaganda Identification in social media

Social media platforms serve as communication tools where users freely share information regardless of its accuracy. Propaganda on these platforms refers to the dissemination of biased or deceptive information aimed at influencing public opinion, encompassing various forms such as political campaigns, fake news, and conspiracy theories. This study introduces a Hybrid Feature Engineering Approach for Propaganda Identification (HAPI), designed to detect propaganda in text-based content like news articles and social media posts. HAPI combines conventional feature engineering methods with machine learning techniques to achieve high accuracy in propaganda detection. This study is conducted on data collected from Twitter via its API, and an annotation scheme is proposed to categorize tweets into binary classes (propaganda and non-propaganda). Hybrid feature engineering entails the amalgamation of various features, including Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF), Bag of Words (BoW), Sentimental features, and tweet length, among others. Multiple Machine Learning classifiers undergo training and evaluation utilizing the proposed methodology, leveraging a selection of 40 pertinent features identified through the hybrid feature selection technique. All the selected algorithms including Multinomial Naive Bayes (MNB), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Decision Tree (DT), and Logistic Regression (LR) achieved promising results. The SVM-based HaPi (SVM-HaPi) exhibits superior performance among traditional algorithms, achieving precision, recall, F-Measure, and overall accuracy of 0.69, 0.69, 0.69, and 69.2%, respectively. Furthermore, the proposed approach is compared to well-known existing approaches where it overperformed most of the studies on several evaluation metrics. This research contributes to the development of a comprehensive system tailored for propaganda identification in textual content. Nonetheless, the purview of propaganda detection transcends textual data alone. Deep learning algorithms like Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) offer the capability to manage multimodal data, incorporating text, images, audio, and video, thereby considering not only the content itself but also its presentation and contextual nuances during dissemination.

Understanding the "Infodemic" Threat: A Case Study of the COVID-19 Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is notable among infectious diseases for its distinctive impact, which has halted millions of livelihoods owing to strict social distancing rules and lockdowns. Consequently, millions of individuals have turned to online sources, particularly social media, to remain informed about the virus. The transition to digital sources has resulted in an abundance of information, including both accurate and misleading or false content being shared and consumed on online platforms, contributing to what is commonly referred to as an "infodemic." Although these platforms have been valuable tools for healthcare professionals and public health authorities in disseminating crucial public health messages, they have also aided in the spread of misleading and false information. The widespread dissemination of false information has been instrumental in propagating harmful beliefs and behaviors such as vaccine hesitancy, promoting discriminatory attitudes, and endorsing false beliefs about the efficacy of certain therapeutic products for treating COVID-19. False information has undoubtedly become a challenge and burden for governments, health professionals, and the general population. This review has three main objectives: (1) to assess the scope of the "infodemic" issue, including investigating the factors contributing to the spread of false information online; (2) to examine the multifaceted consequences resulting from false information; and (3) to argue that an interdisciplinary, multi-layered approach, encompassing a focus on prevention, deterrence, and education, should be adopted to prevent the conception and dissemination of false information in this modern digital age.

Intellectual humility as a tool to combat false beliefs: An individual-based approach to belief revision

False beliefs pose significant societal threats, including health risks, political polarization and even violence. In two studies (N = 884) we explored the efficacy of an individual-based approach to correcting false beliefs. We examined whether the character virtue of intellectual humility (IH)-an appreciation of one's intellectual boundaries-encourages revising one's false beliefs in response to counter-information. Our research produced encouraging but also mixed findings. Among participants who held false beliefs about the risks of vaccines (Study 1) and the 2020 US Election being rigged (Study 2), those with higher IH explored more information opposing these false beliefs. This exploration of opposing information, in turn, predicted updating away from these inaccurate health and political beliefs. IH did not directly predict updating away from false beliefs, however, suggesting that this effect-if it exists-may not be particularly powerful. Taken together, these results provide moderate support for IH as a character trait that can foster belief revision but, simultaneously, suggest that alternate pathways to combat false beliefs and misinformation may be preferred.

Credibility of misinformation source moderates the effectiveness of corrective messages on social media

To examine how different features of corrective messages moderate individuals' attitudes toward misinformation on social media, a 2 (misinformation source credibility: high vs low) × 2 (corrective message source: algorithmic vs peer correction) × 2 (correction type: factual elaboration vs simple rebuttal) between-subjects experiment was conducted. To reduce perceived credibility and respondents' attitudes toward the misinformation, peer corrections were more effective than algorithmic corrections for misinformation from a source with lower credibility; for misinformation from a highly credible source, the superiority effect of peer corrections was still significant on perceived credibility but not on respondents' attitudes toward the misinformation. For the fact-checking tendency, we did not find a robust effect about how different features of corrective messages interacted. Our findings provide important insights into message design in combatting misinformation on social media.

Non-STEM majors COVID-19 vaccine impressions improve, and misconceptions resolve, after podcast assignment

Misinformation regarding vaccine science decreased the receptiveness to COVID-19 vaccines, exacerbating the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on society. To mitigate the negative societal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, impactful and creative science communication was needed, yet little research has explored how to encourage COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and address misconceptions held by non-Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics majors (referred to as non-majors). We have previously demonstrated that including expert guest lectures in the vaccine module in the non-major introductory biology course helps combat students' vaccine hesitancy. In the present study, we further address how learning about vaccines impacts student knowledge and impressions of the COVID-19 vaccines through a podcast assignment. As a part of this assignment, non-majors created podcasts to address COVID-19 vaccine misconceptions of their choice. We coded pre and post, open-ended essay reflections (n = 40) to assess non-majors' knowledge and impressions of the COVID-19 vaccines. Non-majors' impressions of the vaccines improved following the podcast assignment with more than three times as many students reporting a positive view of the assignment than negative views. Notably, eight of the nine interviewed students still ended the course with misconceptions about the COVID-19 vaccines, such as the vaccines being unnecessary or causing fertility issues. In a post semi-structured interview following this assignment, students (n = 7) discussed the impact of looking into the specific misconceptions related to COVID-19 vaccines themselves, including improved science communication skills and understanding of different perspectives. Thus, podcasts can provide opportunities for students to improve engagement in valuable societal topics like vaccine literacy in the non-majors classroom.

Masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review

SUMMARYThis narrative review and meta-analysis summarizes a broad evidence base on the benefits-and also the practicalities, disbenefits, harms and personal, sociocultural and environmental impacts-of masks and masking. Our synthesis of evidence from over 100 published reviews and selected primary studies, including re-analyzing contested meta-analyses of key clinical trials, produced seven key findings. First, there is strong and consistent evidence for airborne transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and other respiratory pathogens. Second, masks are, if correctly and consistently worn, effective in reducing transmission of respiratory diseases and show a dose-response effect. Third, respirators are significantly more effective than medical or cloth masks. Fourth, mask mandates are, overall, effective in reducing community transmission of respiratory pathogens. Fifth, masks are important sociocultural symbols; non-adherence to masking is sometimes linked to political and ideological beliefs and to widely circulated mis- or disinformation. Sixth, while there is much evidence that masks are not generally harmful to the general population, masking may be relatively contraindicated in individuals with certain medical conditions, who may require exemption. Furthermore, certain groups (notably D/deaf people) are disadvantaged when others are masked. Finally, there are risks to the environment from single-use masks and respirators. We propose an agenda for future research, including improved characterization of the situations in which masking should be recommended or mandated; attention to comfort and acceptability; generalized and disability-focused communication support in settings where masks are worn; and development and testing of novel materials and designs for improved filtration, breathability, and environmental impact.

More familiar, more credible? Distinguishing two types of familiarity on the truth effect using the drift-diffusion model

Familiar information is more likely to be accepted as true. This illusory truth effect has a tremendous negative impact on misinformation intervention. Previous studies focused on the familiarity from repeated exposure in the laboratory, ignoring preexisting familiarity with real-world misinformation. Over three studies (total N = 337), we investigated the cognitive mechanisms behind the truth biases from these two familiarity sources, and whether fact-checking can curb such biased truth perceptions. Studies 1 and 2 found robust truth effects induced by two sources of familiarity but with different cognitive processes. According to the cognitive process model, repetition-induced familiarity reduced decision prudence. Preexisting familiarity instead enhanced truth-congruent evidence accumulation. Study 3 showed that pre-exposing statements with warning flags eliminated the bias to truth induced by repetition but not that from preexisting familiarity. These repeated statements with warning labels also reduced decision caution. These findings furthered the understanding of how different sources of familiarity affect truth perceptions and undermine the intervention through different cognitive processes.

Factors Influencing COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence and Uptake in Australian Adults

In January 2021, Australia initiated a national COVID-19 vaccine rollout strategy but faced setbacks, leading to negative press and media controversy, which may have diminished vaccine confidence. This study aimed to assess the factors influencing vaccine confidence in Australian adults (≥18 years of age) following the administration of a COVID-19 vaccine. Conducted at Blacktown Hospital, Sydney, a cross-sectional survey with 1053 respondents gauged vaccine confidence and influencing factors. The results showed overall high confidence (mean score 33/40). Trusted sources included the Australian Department of Health (77.8%), NSW Health (76.7%), and general practitioners (53.7%), while social media was distrusted (5.9%). The motivations for vaccination varied: university-educated individuals prioritised personal health (X2 = 17.81; p < 0.001), while religious and/or older respondents (≥50 years of age) emphasised community (X2 = 11.69; p < 0.001) and family protection (X2 = 17.314; p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression revealed use of the Australian Department of Health website as a trusted source of COVID-19 information as the strongest predictor of high confidence (>30; OR 1.43; p = 0.041), while exposure to fake news decreased confidence (OR 0.71; p = 0.025). The study underscores the importance of reliable health information sources in bolstering vaccine confidence and highlights the detrimental effects of misinformation. Promoting awareness of trustworthy health channels is crucial to combat vaccine hesitancy in Australia.

Knowledge revision processes during reading: How pictures influence the activation of outdated information

Outdated information (i.e., information that is not or no longer accurate) continues to be automatically activated during reading and can hinder learning processes. Thus, it is important to understand which factors influence the activation of outdated information and, therefore, knowledge revision processes. In three online experiments, we investigated how illustrating updated or outdated information via pictures influences the activation of outdated information. In Experiments 1 (N = 421) and 2 (N = 422), we varied whether participants read texts containing outdated information that was later updated (outdated text) or texts containing only updated information (consistent text). In addition, the updated information was or was not illustrated by a picture. In Experiment 3 (N = 441), participants read outdated texts, and we varied whether the outdated, the updated, or no information was illustrated. In all experiments, we measured reading times for a target sentence referring to the updated information and the sentence following the target sentence. Results showed that target sentences' reading times were faster for illustrated than for non-illustrated texts (Experiments 1 and 2). Moreover, reading times were longer when the outdated information was illustrated than when the updated information was illustrated (Experiment 3). These results suggest that pictures overall facilitate cognitive processes during reading, but their content matters: Pictures showing the updated information had a greater impact on reading times than pictures showing the outdated information. The results extend existing theories on knowledge revision but also reading comprehension, by demonstrating how pictures might influence cognitive processes during reading.

Overcoming resistance to belief revision and correction of misinformation beliefs: psychophysiological and behavioral effects of a counterfactual mindset

In a series of experiments involving beliefs and misinformation beliefs, we find that individuals who are prompted with a counterfactual mindset are significantly more likely to change their existing beliefs when presented with evidence that contradicts their beliefs. While research finds that beliefs that are considered part of one's identity are highly resistant to change in the face of evidence that challenges these beliefs, four experiments provide evidence that counterfactual generation causes individuals to adjust beliefs and correct misinformation beliefs in response to contradicting evidence. Indeed, we find that a counterfactual mindset was effective in promoting incorporation of accurate facts and causing individuals to revise misinformation beliefs about COVID vaccination safety for a large sample of individuals who have rejected COVID vaccinations. Finally, the results of the psychophysiological experiment reveal that counterfactual generation alters decision makers' search strategies, increases their cognitive arousal in response to evidence that challenges their beliefs, and increases their desire to seek out disconfirming evidence. Overall, the four experiments indicate that counterfactual generation can effectively activate mindsets that increase individuals' willingness to evaluate evidence that contradicts their beliefs and adjust their beliefs in response to evidence.

Virtual lab coats: The effects of verified source information on social media post credibility

Social media platform's lack of control over its content made way to the fundamental problem of misinformation. As users struggle with determining the truth, social media platforms should strive to empower users to make more accurate credibility judgements. A good starting point is a more accurate perception of the credibility of the message's source. Two pre-registered online experiments (N = 525;N = 590) were conducted to investigate how verified source information affects perceptions of Tweets (study 1) and generic social media posts (study 2). In both studies, participants reviewed posts by an unknown author and rated source and message credibility, as well as likelihood of sharing. Posts varied by the information provided about the account holder: (1) none, (2) the popular method of verified source identity, or (3) verified credential of the account holder (e.g., employer, role), a novel approach. The credential was either relevant to the content of the post or not. Study 1 presented the credential as a badge, whereas study 2 included the credential as both a badge and a signature. During an initial intuitive response, the effects of these cues were generally unpredictable. Yet, after explanation how to interpret the different source cues, two prevalent reasoning errors surfaced. First, participants conflated source authenticity and message credibility. Second, messages from sources with a verified credential were perceived as more credible, regardless of whether this credential was context relevant (i.e., virtual lab coat effect). These reasoning errors are particularly concerning in the context of misinformation. In sum, credential verification as tested in this paper seems ineffective in empowering users to make more accurate credibility judgements. Yet, future research could investigate alternative implementations of this promising technology.

False memories in forensic psychology: do cognition and brain activity tell the same story?

One of the most important problems in forensic psychology is the impossibility of reliably discriminating between true and false memories when the only prosecution evidence comes from the memory of a witness or a victim. Unfortunately, both children and adults can be persuaded that they have been victims of past criminal acts, usually of a sexual nature. In adults, suggestion often occurs in the context of suggestive therapies based on the belief that traumatic events are repressed, while children come to believe and report events that never occurred as a result of repeated suggestive questioning. Cognitive Researchers have designed false memory paradigms (i.e., misinformation effect, Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm, event implantation paradigm) to first form false memories and then determine whether it is possible to reliably differentiate between false and true memories. In the present study, we review the contribution of cognitive research to the formation of false memories and the neuropsychological approaches aimed to discriminate between true and false memories. Based on these results, we analyze the applicability of the cognitive and neuropsychological evidence to the forensic setting.

Epistemic language in news headlines shapes readers' perceptions of objectivity

How we reason about objectivity-whether an assertion has a ground truth-has implications for belief formation on wide-ranging topics. For example, if someone perceives climate change to be a matter of subjective opinion similar to the best movie genre, they may consider empirical claims about climate change as mere opinion and irrelevant to their beliefs. Here, we investigate whether the language employed by journalists might influence the perceived objectivity of news claims. Specifically, we ask whether factive verb framing (e.g., "Scientists know climate change is happening") increases perceived objectivity compared to nonfactive framing (e.g., "Scientists believe [...]"). Across eight studies (N = 2,785), participants read news headlines about unique, noncontroversial topics (studies 1a-b, 2a-b) or a familiar, controversial topic (climate change; studies 3a-b, 4a-b) and rated the truth and objectivity of the headlines' claims. Across all eight studies, when claims were presented as beliefs (e.g., "Tortoise breeders believe tortoises are becoming more popular pets"), people consistently judged those claims as more subjective than claims presented as knowledge (e.g., "Tortoise breeders know…"), as well as claims presented as unattributed generics (e.g., "Tortoises are becoming more popular pets"). Surprisingly, verb framing had relatively little, inconsistent influence over participants' judgments of the truth of claims. These results demonstrate how, apart from shaping whether we believe a claim is true or false, epistemic language in media can influence whether we believe a claim has an objective answer at all.

Memory and belief updating following complete and partial reminders of fake news

Fake news can have enduring effects on memory and beliefs. An ongoing theoretical debate has investigated whether corrections (fact-checks) should include reminders of fake news. The familiarity backfire account proposes that reminders hinder correction (increasing interference), whereas integration-based accounts argue that reminders facilitate correction (promoting memory integration). In three experiments, we examined how different types of corrections influenced memory for and belief in news headlines. In the exposure phase, participants viewed real and fake news headlines. In the correction phase, participants viewed reminders of fake news that either reiterated the false details (complete) or prompted recall of missing false details (partial); reminders were followed by fact-checked headlines correcting the false details. Both reminder types led to proactive interference in memory for corrected details, but complete reminders produced less interference than partial reminders (Experiment 1). However, when participants had fewer initial exposures to fake news and experienced a delay between exposure and correction, this effect was reversed; partial reminders led to proactive facilitation, enhancing correction (Experiment 2). This effect occurred regardless of the delay before correction (Experiment 3), suggesting that the effects of partial reminders depend on the number of prior fake news exposures. In all experiments, memory and perceived accuracy were better when fake news and corrections were recollected, implicating a critical role for integrative encoding. Overall, we show that when memories of fake news are weak or less accessible, partial reminders are more effective for correction; when memories of fake news are stronger or more accessible, complete reminders are preferable.

Widespread Misperceptions Among U.S. Adults About Tobacco Company Engagement in Black and African American Communities

INTRODUCTION

Menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars (MC/FC) bring profits to U.S. tobacco companies at the cost of Black/African American (B/AA) lives. This exploratory cross-sectional study describes perceptions of tobacco company engagement and activities in B/AA communities related to MC/FC.

AIMS AND METHODS

Among 2307 U.S. adults aged 18-45 surveyed in 2022, six items addressed beliefs about tobacco company funding of B/AA community organizations, payment of B/AA lobbyists to oppose public health policies, support of health equity efforts in B/AA communities, and targeted marketing of MC/FC in B/AA communities. Adjusted proportions were calculated for each belief overall and by race and cigarette smoking status.

RESULTS

Among all adults, 37% believed that tobacco companies deny the harms of MC/FCs, 20% believed they pay Black lobbyists to oppose health policies, and 12% believed they fund Black community organizations. Compared with non-B/AA adults, a higher proportion of B/AA adults believed that tobacco companies target Black communities with MC/FC marketing (62% vs. 46%). More adult smokers (ie, menthol or non-MC) than nonsmokers thought that tobacco companies support health equity efforts and did not target Black communities with MC/FC marketing nor deny the harms of MC/FCs to B/AA communities.

CONCLUSIONS

Few B/AAs and adult smokers believed that tobacco companies used B/AA organizations and lobbyists to oppose MC/FC policies in the B/AA community as well as reject MC/FC's harmfulness. Culturally tailored and community-engaged communication efforts are needed to correct disinformation about MC/FC tobacco companies' engagement and activities in B/AA communities among B/AA and menthol cigarette smokers.

IMPLICATIONS

Tobacco companies have a history of predatory marketing that promotes flavored tobacco products to Black/African American (B/AA) individuals and more recently has spread disinformation to dissuade policy support for menthol cigarette/flavored cigar (MC/FC) bans. It is unclear what are the perceptions of tobacco company engagement and activities in B/AA communities related to MC/FC. Our study shows that B/AA adults and current cigarette smokers hold misperceptions about tobacco companies' role in spreading disinformation about MC/FC. This study identified beliefs about the industry's role in funding B/AA organizations and lobbyists who oppose policy, as well as the industry's denial of menthol cigarette and flavored cigar harms as potential messaging targets for communication efforts designed to correct disinformation about MC/FC policies among B/AA and those who currently smoke MC.

Discernment of Children's True and False Memory Reports: Police Officers and Laypersons

Adults' ability to accurately evaluate children's statements can have far-reaching consequences within the legal system. This study examined the evaluations of police officers ("experts") and laypersons ("nonexperts") when presented with videotaped interviews of children aged 3 and 5 years who provided either true or false reports or denials. Participants were drawn from several counties in the eastern United States. Children's interview statements fell within four statement types: accurate reports, false reports, accurate denials, and false denials. Both groups of participants displayed overbelief in false denials. Several control variables predicted accuracy, including children's age and children's race. A significant interaction emerged: Experts (vs. nonexperts) had greater odds of being accurate when judging false reports (vs. false denials). These findings highlight the challenges adults face when distinguishing between various types of children's statements. The results have important implications for legal contexts, emphasizing that fact finders need to be mindful of the risks associated with both overaccepting false denials and accepting false reports.

Self-Correction or Other-Correction: The Effects of Source Consistency and Ways of Correction on Sharing Intention of Health Misinformation Correction

The spread of misinformation, especially health-related misinformation has raised concerns globally. As an immediate remedy, fact-checking has been identified as an important solution. Adopting a 2 (source credibility: high vs. low) × 2 (source consistency: consistent vs. inconsistent) × 3 (ways of correction: human fact-checking vs. AI fact-checking vs. simple rebuttal) factorial design experiment (N = 754), this study examined how ways of correction and source consistency may affect individuals' intentions to share health misinformation correction on social media on two health topics: sunscreen safety and vaccine safety. Results showed that human and AI fact-checking correction elicited higher sharing intention compared to simple rebuttal. Correction coming from a different source than the original misinformation source elicited higher sharing intention, compared to correction from the same source. Perceived correction source credibility mediated the effects of ways of correction and source consistency on correction sharing intention. Theoretical and practical implications were discussed.

Optimizing self-organized study orders: combining refutations and metacognitive prompts improves the use of interleaved practice

During category learning, students struggle to create an optimal study order: They often study one category at a time (i.e., blocked practice) instead of alternating between different categories (i.e., interleaved practice). Several interventions to improve self-study of categorical learning have been proposed, but these interventions have only been tested in learning tasks where students did not create the study order themselves. Instead, they decided which type of study order to follow. This pre-registered experiment examined whether an intervention that combines refutations and metacognitive prompts can enhance students' engagement in interleaved practice, specifically when they organize the learning materials themselves. Ninety-one undergraduate students were randomized into the intervention and control condition and learned visual categories. Prior to the intervention, students used more blocked practice. After the intervention, the use of interleaved practice significantly increased in both immediate and delayed-transfer tasks. More interleaved practice was associated with better classification performance. Our findings indicate that refutations and metacognitive prompts form a strong intervention that corrects students' erroneous beliefs and increases their engagement in interleaved practice.

Using narratives to correct politically charged health misinformation and address affective belief echoes

BACKGROUND

In May 2020, news outlets reported misinformation about the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) related to COVID-19. Correcting misinformation about outbreaks and politics is particularly challenging. Affective belief echoes continue to influence audiences even after successful correction. Narrative and emotional flow scholarship suggest that a narrative corrective with a positive ending could reduce belief echoes. Therefore, this study investigated the efficacy of a narrative corrective with a relief ending for correcting misinformation about the CDC.

METHODS

Between 29 May and 4 June 2020, we tested the effectiveness of a narrative to correct this misinformation. Participants in the United States (N = 469) were enrolled via Qualtrics panels in an online message experiment and randomized to receive a narrative corrective, a didactic corrective or no corrective.

RESULTS

The narrative corrective resulted in lower endorsement of the misinformation compared with the control and the didactic corrective. The narrative corrective had a positive indirect effect on perceived CDC competence and mask wearing intentions for politically moderate and conservative participants via relief.

CONCLUSIONS

Public health institutions, such as the CDC, should consider utilizing narrative messaging with positive emotion endings to correct misinformation. Narratives better address affective belief echoes, particularly for counter-attitudinal audiences.

Can Invalid Information Be Ignored When It Is Detected?

With the rapid spread of information via social media, individuals are prone to misinformation exposure that they may utilize when forming beliefs. Over five experiments (total N = 815 adults, recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk in the United States), we investigated whether people could ignore quantitative information when they judged for themselves that it was misreported. Participants recruited online viewed sets of values sampled from Gaussian distributions to estimate the underlying means. They attempted to ignore invalid information, which were outlier values inserted into the value sequences. Results indicated participants were able to detect outliers. Nevertheless, participants' estimates were still biased in the direction of the outlier, even when they were most certain that they detected invalid information. The addition of visual warning cues and different task scenarios did not fully eliminate systematic over- and underestimation. These findings suggest that individuals may incorporate invalid information they meant to ignore when forming beliefs.

User correction

This paper reviews the existing literature on user correction to consider its value for combating misinformation on social media. We discuss the effectiveness of user correction in reducing misperceptions, and synthesize best practices, highlighting the dual audiences for public correction on social media. We outline how often user correction occurs across contexts, countries, and social media platforms. We pay special attention to the methodological constraints in existing research, emphasizing the need for using diverse and interdisciplinary methods, including longitudinal surveys and experiments, computational methods, realistic simulated environments, and qualitative methods. We call for a more comprehensive understanding of user correction in terms of its long-term and downstream effects on social media platforms.

Trust or distrust? Neither! The right mindset for confronting disinformation

A primary explanation for why individuals believe disinformation is the truth bias, a predisposition to accept information as true. However, this bias is context-dependent, as research shows that rejection becomes the predominant process in a distrust mindset. Consequently, trust and distrust emerge as pivotal factors in addressing disinformation. The current review offers a more nuanced perspective by illustrating that whereas distrust may act as an antidote to the truth bias, it can also paradoxically serve as a catalyst for belief in disinformation. The review concludes that mindsets other than those rooted solely in trust (or distrust), such as an evaluative mindset, may prove to be more effective in detecting and refuting disinformation.

Changing your mind about the data: Updating sampling assumptions in inductive inference

When people use samples of evidence to make inferences, they consider both the sample contents and how the sample was generated ("sampling assumptions"). The current studies examined whether people can update their sampling assumptions - whether they can revise a belief about sample generation that is discovered to be incorrect, and reinterpret old data in light of the new belief. We used a property induction task where learners saw a sample of instances that shared a novel property and then inferred whether it generalized to other items. Assumptions about how the sample was selected were manipulated between conditions: in the property sampling frame condition, items were selected because they shared a property, while in the category sampling frame condition, items were selected because they belonged to a particular category. Experiment 1 found that these frames affected patterns of property generalization regardless of whether they were presented before or after the sample data was observed: in both cases, generalization was narrower under a property than a category frame. In Experiments 2 and 3, an initial category or property frame was presented before the sample, and was later retracted and replaced with the complementary frame. Learners were able to update their beliefs about sample generation, basing their property generalization on the more recent correct frame. These results show that learners can revise incorrect beliefs about data selection and adjust their inductive inferences accordingly.

Misinformed by images: How images influence perceptions of truth and what can be done about it

We organize image types by their substantive relationship with textual claims and discuss their impact on attention, comprehension, memory, and judgment. Photos do not need to be false (altered or generated) to mislead; real photos can create a slanted representation or be repurposed from different events. Even semantically related non-probative photos, merely inserted to attract eyeballs, can increase message acceptance through increased fluency. Messages with images receive more attention and reach a wider audience. Text-congruent images can scaffold the comprehension of true and false claims and support the formation of correct and false memories. Standard laboratory procedures may underestimate the impact of images in natural media contexts: by drawing all participants' attention to a message that may be ignored without an image, they inflate message effects in the control condition. Misleading images are difficult to identify and their influence often remains outside of awareness, making it hard to curb their influence through critical-thinking interventions. Current concerns about deep fakes may reduce trust in all images, potentially limiting their power to mislead as well as inform. More research is needed to understand how knowing that an image is misleading influences inferences, impressions, and judgments beyond immediate assessments of the image's credibility.

Decoding dietary myths: The role of ChatGPT in modern nutrition

In today's world, where nutrition forms the cornerstone of human health, the potential harms of misinformation are concerning. Nutritional myths, whether originating from age-old superstitions, misinterpreted scientific findings, or commercial interests, can lead astray. In the digital age, the proliferation of such misleading information is alarmingly accelerated, thanks to the dominance of social media and search engines. Modern artificial intelligence tools, exemplified by ChatGPT, promise a potential revolution in dispelling these nutrition-related misconceptions. ChatGPT, by offering users immediate and scientifically-backed information, aids in illuminating nutritional myths and misconceptions. However, such AI models come with inherent limitations and potential ethical concerns. Therefore, while tools like ChatGPT are undoubtedly powerful, they are not a panacea. In conclusion, AI stands as a pivotal tool in the dissemination of nutritional knowledge and debunking myths, but a careful and critical approach must be adopted in its usage.

Why Do People Believe in Vaccine Misinformation? The Roles of Perceived Familiarity and Evidence Type

The proliferation of health misinformation poses a significant threat to public health, making it increasingly important to understand why misinformation is accepted. The illusory truth effect, which refers to the increased believability of a message due to repeated exposure, has been widely studied. However, there is limited research on this effect in the context of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. This paper aims to examine the role of perceived familiarity with COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on various message perceptions, including perceived accuracy, agreement, perceived message effectiveness, and determinants of vaccination, including vaccine attitude and vaccination intention. Furthermore, it explores the impact of misinformation evidence (statistical vs. narrative) on the magnitude of the effects of perceived familiarity. To investigate these factors, a between-subjects experimental study was conducted, employing a 2 (Familiarity: strong vs. weak) × 3 (Evidence type: statistical, narrative, and both evidence) + 1 (Control: a message about drinking water) design. The results revealed that perceived familiarity with COVID-19 vaccine misinformation significantly predicted perceived accuracy, which was found to be negatively correlated with vaccine attitudes and vaccination intentions. Moreover, statistical evidence presented in misinformation was perceived as more persuasive in perceived message effectiveness, compared to narrative and mixed evidence. Interestingly, the effects of perceived familiarity were not contingent on the type of evidence used in COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. These findings emphasize the importance of avoiding the repetition of misinformation, reducing the processing fluency associated with misinformation correction, and educating individuals on how to critically evaluate statistical evidence when encountering (mis)information.

Belief-consistent information is most shared despite being the least surprising

In the classical information theoretic framework, information "value" is proportional to how novel/surprising the information is. Recent work building on such notions claimed that false news spreads faster than truth online because false news is more novel and therefore surprising. However, another determinant of surprise, semantic meaning (e.g., information's consistency or inconsistency with prior beliefs), should also influence value and sharing. Examining sharing behavior on Twitter, we observed separate relations of novelty and belief consistency with sharing. Though surprise could not be assessed in those studies, belief consistency should relate to less surprise, suggesting the relevance of semantic meaning beyond novelty. In two controlled experiments, belief-consistent (vs. belief-inconsistent) information was shared more despite consistent information being the least surprising. Manipulated novelty did not predict sharing or surprise. Thus, classical information theoretic predictions regarding perceived value and sharing would benefit from considering semantic meaning in contexts where people hold pre-existing beliefs.

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.

Unringing the bell: Successful debriefing following a rich false memory study

In rich false memory studies, familial informants often provide information to support researchers in planting vivid memories of events that never occurred. The goal of the current study was to assess how effectively we can retract these false memories via debriefing - i.e., to what extent can we put participants back the way we found them? We aimed to establish (1) what proportion of participants would retain a false memory or false belief following debriefing, and (2) whether richer, more detailed memories would be more difficult to retract. Participants (N = 123) completed a false memory implantation protocol as part of a replication of the "Lost in the Mall" study (Loftus & Pickrell, Psychiatric Annals, 25, 720-725, 1995). By the end of the protocol, 14% of participants self-reported a memory for the fabricated event, and a further 52% believed it had happened. Participants were then fully debriefed, and memory and belief for the false event were assessed again. In a follow-up assessment 3 days post-debriefing, the false memory rate had dropped to 6% and false belief rates also fell precipitously to 7%. Moreover, virtually all persistent false memories were found to be nonbelieved memories, where participants no longer accepted that the fabricated event had occurred. Richer, more detailed memories were more resistant to correction, but were still mostly retracted. This study provides evidence that participants can be "dehoaxed", and even very convincing false memories can be retracted.

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.

How do forewarnings and post-warnings affect misinformation reliance? The impact of warnings on the continued influence effect and belief regression

People often continue to rely on certain information in their reasoning, even if this information has been retracted; this is called the continued influence effect (CIE) of misinformation. One technique for reducing this effect involves explicitly warning people that there is a possibility that they might have been misled. The present study aimed to investigate these warnings' effectiveness, depending on when they were given (either before or after misinformation). In two experiments (N = 337), we found that while a forewarning did reduce reliance on misinformation, retrospectively warned participants (when the warning was placed either between the misinformation and the retraction or just before testing) relied on the misinformation to a similar degree as unwarned participants. However, the protective effect of the forewarning was not durable, as shown by the fact that reliance on the misinformation increased for over 7 days following the first testing, despite continued memory of the retraction.

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.