Debunking Misinformation About Genetically Modified Food Safety on Social Media: Can Heuristic Cues Mitigate Biased Assimilation?

Abstract

Focusing on debunking misinformation about genetically modified (GM) food safety in a social media context, this study examines whether source cues and social endorsement cues interact with individuals’ preexisting beliefs about GM food safety in influencing misinformation correction effectiveness. Using an experimental design, this study finds that providing corrective messages can effectively counteract the influence of misinformation, especially when the message is from an expert source and receives high social endorsements. Participants evaluate misinformation and corrective messages in a biased way that confirms their preexisting beliefs about GM food safety. However, their initial misperceptions can be reduced when receiving corrective messages.

Do Bandwagon Cues Affect Credibility Perceptions? A Meta-Analysis of the Experimental Evidence

“…As noted by Bellur and Sundar (2014), cues vary in intensity, and different manipulations of cues may affect “the intensity, accessibility or frequency of the heuristics they trigger” (p. 119). Several studies compared conditions with bandwagon cues to conditions without any bandwagon cues (Bode et al, 2021; Chung, 2017), while other studies compared conditions in which cues indicated low versus high levels of popularity (e.g., 40 retweets vs. 40,000 retweets; Shen et al, 2019; Wang, 2021). Additionally, some scholars manipulated bandwagon cues at three levels (e.g., low vs. medium vs. high) and demonstrated a curvilinear (inverted U-shaped) relationship between the level of cues and credibility perceptions.…”

Support for COVID-19 mandatory vaccination in the United States: examining the role of cultural worldviews, risk-benefit perceptions, and trust in scientists

“…Trust in scientists, as a form of institutional trust, denotes "beliefs in the expertise and honesty of people working within scientific institutions" [Kossowska, Szwed & Czarnek, 2021, p. 721]. People rely on their trust in scientists as an important heuristic when forming opinions on science-related topics [Hmielowski, Feldman, Myers, Leiserowitz & Maibach, 2014;Wang, 2021]. In a public health emergency, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, people often report increased level of trust in scientists as they rely on the scientific community to interpret risks and navigate uncertainty [Bromme, Mede, Thomm, Kremer & Ziegler, 2022].…”

Is Health Misinformation Harmful? A Systematic Review of the Psychological and Behavioral Impact of Beliefs in and Exposure to Health Misinformation

“…Most studies (36 out of 57, 53.2%) did not clarify the source they relied on for verifying health misinformation (see Figure 5). Twelve studies relied on public health organizations as sources for verifying health misinformation, including the World Health Organization (Barua et al, 2020;Lee et al, 2020;Roozenbeek et al, 2020, study 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Wang, 2021), the American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute (Tan et al, 2015), and general health organizations (Loomba et al, 2021, study 1 and 2; Neely et al, 2021). Fact-checking websites were the second most frequently cited source, as mentioned in seven studies (Hornik et al, 2021;Loomba et al, 2021, study 1 and 2; Porter & Wood, 2021, study 1, 2, 3 and 4).…”

“…Beliefs in Misinformation. The most frequently examined outcome variable was beliefs in misinformation, with eight studies finding a positive relationship between exposure to health misinformation and beliefs in misinformation (Lee et al, 2020;Lyons et al, 2019;Porter & Wood, 2021, study 1, 2 and 3;Russo et al, 1981;Tan et al, 2015;Wang, 2021), one study finding a null relationship (Porter & Wood, 2021, study 4), and one study finding a mixed relationship (Mercincavage et al, 2017).…”