The effects of self-generated and other-generated eWOM in inoculating against misinformation

Dai, Yue; Jia, Wufan; Fu, Lunrui; Sun, Mengru; Crystal, Jiang Li

doi:10.1016/j.tele.2022.101835

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Major misinformation themes included health (k=15) and climate change (k=7), the mean participant age distribution was 18 to 48 years, and most studies were conducted in the United States (k=28). A total of 31 studies reported misinformation credibility assessment [ 7 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 22 - 24 , 26 - 28 , 39 - 48 ], 26 reported real information credibility assessment [ 1 , 7 , 14 - 16 , 22 - 24 , 27 , 41 - 43 , 49 - 54 ], 12 reported credibility discernment [ 7 , 23 , 24 , 27 , 41 ], 12 reported misinformation sharing intention [ 7 , 13 , 23 , 40 , 45 , 50 ], 11 reported real information sharing intention [ 7 , 23 , 51 , 55 ], and 8 studies reported sharing discernment [ 7 , 23 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Psychological Inoculation for Credibility Assessment, Sharing Intention, and Discernment of Misinformation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lü

et al. 2023

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The prevalence of misinformation poses a substantial threat to individuals’ daily lives, necessitating the deployment of effective remedial approaches. One promising strategy is psychological inoculation, which pre-emptively immunizes individuals against misinformation attacks. However, uncertainties remain regarding the extent to which psychological inoculation effectively enhances the capacity to differentiate between misinformation and real information. Objective To reduce the potential risk of misinformation about digital health, this study aims to examine the effectiveness of psychological inoculation in countering misinformation with a focus on several factors, including misinformation credibility assessment, real information credibility assessment, credibility discernment, misinformation sharing intention, real information sharing intention, and sharing discernment. Methods Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a meta-analysis by searching 4 databases (Web of Science, APA PsycINFO, Proquest, and PubMed) for empirical studies based on inoculation theory and outcome measure–related misinformation published in the English language. Moderator analyses were used to examine the differences in intervention strategy, intervention type, theme, measurement time, team, and intervention design. Results Based on 42 independent studies with 42,530 subjects, we found that psychological inoculation effectively reduces misinformation credibility assessment (d=–0.36, 95% CI –0.50 to –0.23; P<.001) and improves real information credibility assessment (d=0.20, 95% CI 0.06-0.33; P=.005) and real information sharing intention (d=0.09, 95% CI 0.03-0.16; P=.003). However, psychological inoculation does not significantly influence misinformation sharing intention (d=–0.35, 95% CI –0.79 to 0.09; P=.12). Additionally, we find that psychological inoculation effectively enhances credibility discernment (d=0.20, 95% CI 0.13-0.28; P<.001) and sharing discernment (d=0.18, 95% CI 0.12-0.24; P<.001). Regarding health misinformation, psychological inoculation effectively decreases misinformation credibility assessment and misinformation sharing intention. The results of the moderator analyses showed that content-based, passive inoculation was more effective in increasing credibility and sharing intention. The theme of climate change demonstrates a stronger effect on real information credibility. Comparing intervention types showed that pre-post interventions are more effective for misinformation credibility assessment, while post-only interventions are better for credibility discernment. Conclusions This study indicated that psychological inoculation enhanced individuals’ ability to discern real information from misinformation and share real information. Incorporating psychological inoculation to cultivate an informed public is crucial for societal resilience against misinformation threats in an age of information proliferation. As a scalable and cost-effective intervention strategy, institutions can apply psychological inoculation to mitigate potential misinformation crises.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Articles published by the same author in the same year are distinguished by a and b . Different studies in the same article are distinguished by an underscore and the numbers 1 to 6 [ 1 , 7 , 14 - 16 , 22 - 24 , 27 , 41 - 43 , 49 - 54 ]. SMD: standardized mean difference.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological Inoculation for Credibility Assessment, Sharing Intention, and Discernment of Misinformation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lü

et al. 2023

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One experiment further showed that partisans exposed to ingroup media (media held the same political preference as participants) perceived debunking messages as more credible and held higher engagement [125]. For inoculation messages, 2 experiments found that simple inoculation message/video could protect people from misinformation [119,127], while the remaining 1 found it had no significant effect, but was useful when combined with viewing or writing comments on the inoculation message [128]. In terms of warning tag/cover, interstitial warnings or cover warnings, which require individuals to click through to continue, were found to be more effective to help participants identify misinformation while warning tags showed no effect [104].…”

Section: Disseminating Trustworthy Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Prevalence, Features, Influencing Factors, and Solutions for COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation: Systematic Review

Zhao¹,

Hu²,

Zhou³

et al. 2023

JMIR Public Health Surveill

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, infodemic spread even more rapidly than the pandemic itself. The COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has been prevalent worldwide and hindered pandemic exiting strategies. Misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines is a vital contributor to vaccine hesitancy. However, no evidence systematically summarized COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. Objective This review aims to synthesize the global evidence on misinformation related to COVID-19 vaccines, including its prevalence, features, influencing factors, impacts, and solutions for combating misinformation. Methods We performed a systematic review by searching 5 peer-reviewed databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCO). We included original articles that investigated misinformation related to COVID-19 vaccines and were published in English from January 1, 2020, to August 18, 2022. We excluded publications that did not cover or focus on COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. The Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies, version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2), and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist were used to assess the study quality. The review was guided by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021288929). Results Of the 8864 studies identified, 91 observational studies and 11 interventional studies met the inclusion criteria. Misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines covered conspiracy, concerns on vaccine safety and efficacy, no need for vaccines, morality, liberty, and humor. Conspiracy and safety concerns were the most prevalent misinformation. There was a great variation in misinformation prevalence, noted among 2.5%-55.4% in the general population and 6.0%-96.7% in the antivaccine/vaccine hesitant groups from survey-based studies, and in 0.1%-41.3% on general online data and 0.5%-56% on antivaccine/vaccine hesitant data from internet-based studies. Younger age, lower education and economic status, right-wing and conservative ideology, and having psychological problems enhanced beliefs in misinformation. The content, format, and source of misinformation influenced its spread. A 5-step framework was proposed to address vaccine-related misinformation, including identifying misinformation, regulating producers and distributors, cutting production and distribution, supporting target audiences, and disseminating trustworthy information. The debunking messages/videos were found to be effective in several experimental studies. Conclusions Our review provides comprehensive and up-to-date evidence on COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and helps responses to vaccine infodemic in future pandemics. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42021288929; https://tinyurl.com/2prejtfa

show abstract

From whispers to warriors: Public atmosphere’s role in mobilizing social media users against rumors

Shen,

2024

Telematics and Informatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of self-generated and other-generated eWOM in inoculating against misinformation

Cited by 3 publications

References 67 publications

Psychological Inoculation for Credibility Assessment, Sharing Intention, and Discernment of Misinformation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Psychological Inoculation for Credibility Assessment, Sharing Intention, and Discernment of Misinformation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The Prevalence, Features, Influencing Factors, and Solutions for COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation: Systematic Review

From whispers to warriors: Public atmosphere’s role in mobilizing social media users against rumors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About