Promoting COVID-19 vaccine confidence through public responses to misinformation: The joint influence of message source and message content

Don’t Believe Them! Reducing Misinformation Influence Through Source Discreditation

“…By contrast, a recent study found that labelling a piece of misinformation as the result of either intentional deception or accidental error had no impact on correction effectiveness (Connor Desai & Reimers, 2023). Likewise, Wood et al (2023) found that debunking COVID-19 misinformation reduced misperceptions (as long as the correction source was credible) but that directly discrediting sources of vaccine misinformation (i.e., anti-vaxxers) had no effect on participants' misperceptions. Overall, there is therefore tentative but somewhat inconclusive evidence regarding the efficacy of source discreditation as a debunking tool, especially when used as a stand-alone intervention in the absence of a content-focussed correction targeting the misinformation directly.…”

“…Therefore, if a person has a documented motivation to deny such facts, or a track record of doing so, it is arguably legitimate to point this out in the interest of open, candid, good-faith debate, especially in situations where misleading claims have the potential to cause harm (Jacques et al, 2008;Lewandowsky et al, 2024;Oreskes & Conway, 2010;Proctor, 2011; also see Tay et al, 2024). Naturally, care needs to be taken during implementation to ensure that the discreditations themselves are based on verified information and delivered in an appropriate and targeted manner, as disparaging statements are likely to be ineffective (Wood et al, 2023) and it would be inappropriate to discredit generally reliable sources on the basis of infrequent or unintentional past errors. When message veracity is known, using source discreditations to bolster message-focussed corrections (also see Westbrook et al, 2023) is perhaps more straightforwardly applied, as using multi-faceted interventions echoes existing recommendations (Ecker et al, 2022;Lewandowsky et al, 2020;Paynter et al, 2019).…”

“…In line with this, substantial evidence suggests that source credibility affects initial belief in true and false information (e.g., Nadarevic et al, 2020;Swire et al, 2017;Zhu et al, 2010). It is also known that the impact of retracted misinformation on people's reasoning is diminished when they are suspicious of the misinformation source's motives (Fein et al, 1997;Lewandowsky et al, 2005), and that credibility of the correction source influences correction effectiveness, (Amazeen & Krishna, 2023;Ecker & Antonio, 2021;Guillory & Geraci, 2013;van der Meer & Jin, 2020;Vraga & Bode, 2017Wood et al, 2023). Source credibility also features prominently in theoretical models of continued influence that focus on the rationality of belief updating in light of new evidence.…”

Prospective Attitudes towards Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Vaccination: Validation of a Survey Instrument among Young Females in Jordan Pending Vaccine Authorization

“…The “Advice” sub-scale emphasizes the key role that healthcare institutions, such as local ministries involved in health and welfare, as well as international organizations (e.g., the World Health Organization), play in serving as credible sources that enhance confidence in vaccination and shape individuals’ perceptions of vaccines [ 74 , 75 ]. Therefore, building confidence in a newly available vaccine is not only influenced by the content of communication messages but also by the source of advice, since it addresses the natural need for legitimacy in information conveyed [ 76 ]. This finding is consistent with previous evidence highlighting the significant role of trusted advice to shape attitude and beliefs towards vaccination [ 77 , 78 ].…”

COVID-19: efectos, estrategias de salida y una luz al final del túnel

“…La humanidad estuvo expuesta a varios mitos e imprecisiones sobre el proceso de vacunación contra la COVID-19 (Wood et al, 2023). Esto se constató en medios no regulados y en las redes sociales, creando una desaceleración relativa en los procesos de vacunación con escepticismo e incertidumbre.…”