False news about vaccination shared in digital spaces is a major problem that harms informed health choices. Drawing from processing fluency theory, we propose that an infographic – a visual representation of information – reduces cognitive load, thereby helping people retain and process the necessary information to discern truth from falsehood in health news.
Design:
Web-administered experiment.
Setting:
US web-based experiment on Qualtrics.
Method:
A national sample of participants was randomly assigned to one of the three conditions: a news literacy infographic, the same information but text-only, or a control group (a blank page). After the short intervention, study participants were shown false news about vaccinations and asked to make judgements about this news.
Results:
Our study found that people in the infographic condition were better able to verify false news than others. They also showed lower trust in false news articles and higher confidence in their judgement than those in the control condition.
Conclusion:
Findings further our understanding of how visuals accompanied by text, such as an infographic, can improve the quality of health education. During the current problem of digital spaces filled with misinformation, using a short intervention with visuals can help audiences determine the credibility of information they encounter about vaccines.
AustinEWPinkletonBEAustinBW, et al. (2012) The relationships of information efficacy and media literacy skills to knowledge and self-efficacy for health-related decision making. Journal of American College Health60(8): 548–554.
2.
AustinEWPinkletonBEHustSJ, et al. (2005) Evaluation of an American Legacy Foundation/Washington state department of health media literacy pilot study. Health Communication18(1): 75–95.
3.
BanduraA (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
4.
BanduraA (2010) Self-efficacy. In: WeinerIBCraigheadWE (eds) The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 1534–1536.
5.
BerinskyAJHuberGALenzGS (2012) Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis20(3): 351–368.
6.
Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention (2019) National Update on Measles Cases and Outbreaks-Unites States, January 1-October 1, 2019. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6840e2.htm
7.
ClaytonKDavisJHinckleyK, et al. (2019) Partisan motivated reasoning and misinformation in the media: Is news from ideologically uncongenial sources more suspicious?Japanese Journal of Political Science20(3): 129–142.
8.
ComelloMLGQianXDealAM, et al. (2016) Impact of game-inspired infographics on user engagement and information processing in an eHealth program. Journal of Medical Internet Research18(9): e237.
9.
Del VicarioMBessiAZolloF, et al. (2016) The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113(3): 554–559.
10.
DibFMayaudPChauvinP, et al. (2021) Online mis/disinformation and vaccine hesitancy in the era of COVID-19: Why we need an eHealth literacy revolution. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics. Epub ahead of print 4 January. DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2021.1874218.
11.
DixonGNMcKeeverBWHoltonAE, et al. (2015) The power of a picture: Overcoming scientific misinformation by communicating weight-of-evidence information with visual exemplars. Journal of Communication65(4): 639–659.
12.
DominickGMFriedmanDBHoffman-GoetzL (2009) Do we need to understand the technology to get to the science? A systematic review of the concept of computer literacy in preventive health programs. Health Education Journal68(4): 296–313.
13.
EdgerlySMouraoRRThorsonE, et al. (2020) When do audiences verify? How perceptions about message and source influence audience verification of news headlines. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly97: 52–71.
14.
EskolaJDuclosPSchusterM, et al. (2015) How to deal with vaccine hesitancy?Vaccine33(34): 4215–4217.
15.
FarmerL (2019) News literacy and fake news curriculum: School librarians’ perceptions of pedagogical practices. Journal of Media Literacy Education11(3): 1–11.
16.
FlemingJ (2015) What do facts have to do with it? Exploring instructional emphasis in the Stony Brook news literacy curriculum. Journal of Media Literacy Education7(3): 73–92.
17.
GeogheganSO’CallaghanKPOffitPA (2020) Vaccine safety: Myths and misinformation. Frontiers in Microbiology11: 372.
GoodmanJKCryderCECheemaA (2013) Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making26(3): 213–224.
20.
HobbsR (2010) Digital and Media Literacy: A Plan of Action. A White Paper on the Digital and Media Literacy Recommendations of the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
IyengarSSLepperMR (2000) When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology79(6): 995.
24.
JacksonCCheaterFMPeacockR, et al. (2010) Evaluating a web-based MMR decision aid to support informed decision-making by UK parents: A before-and-after feasibility study. Health Education Journal69(1): 74–83.
25.
JahanSAl-SaigulAMAlharbiAM (2020) Assessment of health education infographics in Saudi Arabia. Health Education Journal80: 3–15.
26.
JeongSHChoHHwangY (2012) Media literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication62(3): 454–472.
27.
KuruOPasekJTraugottMW (2017) Motivated reasoning in the perceived credibility of public opinion polls. Public Opinion Quarterly81(2): 422–446.
28.
LazardAAtkinsonL (2015) Putting environmental infographics center stage: The role of visuals at the elaboration likelihood model’s critical point of persuasion. Science Communication37(1): 6–33.
LewandowskySEckerUKCookJ (2017) Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition6(4): 353–369.
32.
LewandowskySEckerUKSeifertCM, et al. (2012) Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest13(3): 106–131.
33.
LowRCJinPCSwellerJC (2011) Cognitive Load Theory, Attentional Processes and Optimized Learning Outcomes in a Digital Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
MajooniAMasoodMAkhavanA (2018) An eye-tracking study on the effect of infographic structures on viewer’s comprehension and cognitive load. Information Visualization17(3): 257–266.
35.
MakslACraftSAshleyS, et al. (2017) The usefulness of a news media literacy measure in evaluating a news literacy curriculum. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator72(2): 228–241.
MartinLJTurnquistAGrootB, et al. (2019) Exploring the role of infographics for summarizing medical literature. Health Professions Education5(1): 48–57.
PennycookGCannonTDRandDG (2018) Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General147(12): 1865–1880.
40.
PennycookGMcPhetresJZhangY, et al. (2020) Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychological Science31(7): 770–780.
41.
PuriNCoomesEAHaghbayanH, et al. (2020) Social media and vaccine hesitancy: New updates for the era of COVID-19 and globalized infectious diseases. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics16: 2586–2593.
42.
ReberRSchwarzNWinkielmanP (2004) Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience?Personality and Social Psychology Review8(4): 364–382.
43.
RidoutTNFowlerEF (2018) Fake news: What is the influence of fabricated stories and efforts to undermine media credibility? In: RidoutTN (ed.) New Directions in Media and Politics. New York: Routledge, pp. 274–292.
44.
SchnotzWKürschnerC (2007) A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review19(4): 469–508.
45.
SmiciklasM (2012) The Power of Infographics: Using Pictures to Communicate and Connect with Your Audiences. Indianapolis, IN: Que Biz-Tech Publishing.
TullyMVragaEKBodeL (2020) Designing and testing news literacy messages for social media. Mass Communication and Society23(1): 22–46.
48.
VragaEKTullyM (2016) Effectiveness of a non-classroom news media literacy intervention among different undergraduate populations. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator71(4): 440–452.
49.
WalterNBrooksJJSaucierCJ, et al. (2020) Evaluating the impact of attempts to correct health misinformation on social media: A meta-analysis. Health Communication. Epub ahead of print 6 August. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2020.1794553.
50.
WangYMcKeeMTorbicaA, et al. (2019) Systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media. Social Science & Medicine240: 112552.
51.
WineburgSMcGrewSBreakstoneJ, et al. (2016) Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning. Stanford Digital Repository. Available at: http://purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934
52.
WinkielmanPSchwarzNFazendeiroT, et al. (2003) The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. In: MuschJKlauerKC (eds) The Psychology of Evaluation: Affective Processes in Cognition and Emotion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 189–217.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
