Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

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.

Keywords

misinformation GM food safety social media biased assimilation heuristics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahluwalia

(2000). Examination of psychological processes underlying resistance to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 217-232. https://doi.org/10.1086/314321

Aikin

K. J.

Betts

K. R.

O’Donoghue

A. C.

Rupert

D. J.

Lee

P. K.

Amoozegar

J. B.

Southwell

B. G.

(2015). Correction of overstatement and omission in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 596-618. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12167

Austin

E. W.

Dong

(1994). Source v. content effects on judgments of news believability. Journalism Quarterly, 71(4), 973-983. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909407100420

Bessi

Coletto

Davidescu

G. A.

Scala

Caldarelli

Quattrociocchi

(2015). Science vs conspiracy: Collective narratives in the age of misinformation. PLOS ONE, 10(2), Article e0118093. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118093

Bode

Vraga

E. K.

(2015). In related news, that was wrong: The correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 619-638. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12166

Bond

R. M.

Settle

J. E.

Fariss

C. J.

Jones

J. J.

Fowler

J. H.

(2017). Social endorsement cues and political participation. Political Communication, 34(2), 261-281. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1226223

Carnahan

Hao

Jiang

Lee

(2018). Feeling fine about being wrong: The influence of self-affirmation on the effectiveness of corrective information. Human Communication Research, 44(3), 274-298. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqy001

Catherine

(2019, March 11). FDA lifts import restrictions on genetically engineered salmon. The Scientist. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/fda-lifts-import-restrictions-on-genetically-engineered-salmon-65583

Chaiken

Maheswaran

(1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460-473. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460

10.

Chou

W. Y. S.

Klein

W. M.

(2018). Addressing health-related misinformation on social media. Jama, 320(23), 2417-2418. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.16865

11.

Cohen

Weimann-Saks

Mazor-Tregerman

(2018). Does character similarity increase identification and persuasion? Media Psychology, 21(3), 506-528. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2017.1302344

12.

Corner

Whitmarsh

Xenias

(2012). Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: Biased assimilation and attitude polarization. Climatic Change, 114(3-4), 463-478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0424-6

13.

Del Vicario

Bessi

Zollo

Petroni

Scala

Caldarelli

Stanley

Quattrociocchi

. (2016). The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(3), 554-559. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517441113

14.

Dixon

(2016). Applying the gateway belief model to genetically modified food perceptions: New insights and additional questions. Journal of Communication, 66(6), 888-908. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqy001

15.

Druckman

J. N.

Kam

C. D.

(2011). Students as experimental participants: A defense of the “narrow data base.” In Druckman

J. N.

Green

D. P.

Kuklinski

J. H.

Lupia

(Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science (pp. 41-57). Cambridge University Press.

16.

Ecker

U. K.

Ang

L. C.

(2019). Political attitudes and the processing of misinformation corrections. Political Psychology, 40(2), 241-260. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12494

17.

Ecker

U. K.

Lewandowsky

Cheung

C. S.

Maybery

M. T.

(2015). He did it! She did it! No, she did not! Multiple causal explanations and the continued influence of misinformation. Journal of Memory and Language, 85(November), 101-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.09.002

18.

Fransen

M. L.

Smit

E. G.

Verlegh

P. W.

(2015). Strategies and motives for resistance to persuasion: an integrative framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1201. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01201

19.

Funk

(2015). 5 Key findings on what Americans and scientists think about science. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/29/5-key-findings-science/ft_science1-gmo/

20.

Funk

(2020). About half of U.S. adults are wary of health effects of genetically modified foods, but many also see advantages. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/18/about-half-of-u-s-adults-are-wary-of-health-effects-of-genetically-modified-foods-but-many-also-see-advantages/

21.

Garrett

R. K.

Nisbet

E. C.

Lynch

E. K.

(2013). Undermining the corrective effects of media-based political fact checking? The role of contextual cues and naïve theory. Journal of Communication, 63(4), 617-637. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12038

22.

Hallman

W. K.

Cuite

C. L.

Morin

X. K.

(2016). Public perceptions of animal-sourced genetically modified food products. Journal of Animal Science, 94(Suppl. 5), 216-216. https://doi.org/10.2527/jam2016-0452

23.

Hamby

Ecker

Brinberg

(2020). How stories in memory perpetuate the continued influence of false information. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30(2), 240-259. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1135

24.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

25.

Hilverda

Kuttschreuter

Giebels

(2018). The effect of online social proof regarding organic food: Comments and likes on Facebook. Frontiers in Communication, 3(30), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm

26.

Jang

S. M.

Mckeever

B. W.

Mckeever

Kim

J. K.

(2019). From social media to mainstream news: The information flow of the vaccine-autism controversy in the US, Canada, and the UK. Health Communication, 34(1), 110-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1384433

27.

Kahan

D. M.

Braman

Cohen

G. L.

Gastil

Slovic

(2010). Who fears the HPV vaccine, who doesn’t, and why? An experimental study of the mechanisms of cultural cognition. Law and Human Behavior, 34(6), 501-516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9201-0

28.

Kennedy

Hefferon

Funk

(2018). Americans are narrowly divided over health effects of genetically modified foods. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/19/americans-are-narrowly-divided-over-health-effects-of-genetically-modified-foods/

29.

Kobayashi

(2016). Relational processing of conflicting arguments: Effects on biased assimilation. Comprehensive Psychology, 5. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165222816657801

30.

Kumar

K. K.

Geethakumari

(2014). Detecting misinformation in online social networks using cognitive psychology. Human-Centric Computing and Information Sciences, 4(1), Article 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13673-014-0014-x

31.

Lewandowsky

Ecker

U. K.

Cook

(2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008

32.

Lord

C. G.

Ross

Lepper

M. R.

(1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098

33.

Lord

C. G.

Taylor

C. A.

(2009). Biased assimilation: Effects of assumptions and expectations on the interpretation of new evidence. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(5), 827-841. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00203.x

34.

McFadden

B. R.

Lusk

J. L.

(2015). Cognitive biases in the assimilation of scientific information on global warming and genetically modified food. Food Policy, 54(July), 35-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.04.010

35.

Messing

Westwood

S. J.

(2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41(8), 1042-1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212466406

36.

Metzger

M. J.

Flanagin

A. J.

Medders

R. B.

(2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413-439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x

37.

Munro

G. D.

Ditto

P. H.

(1997). Biased assimilation, attitude polarization, and affect in reactions to stereotype-relevant scientific information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(6), 636-653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297236007

38.

Nan

Daily

(2015). Biased assimilation and need for closure: Examining the effects of mixed blogs on vaccine-related beliefs. Journal of Health Communication, 20(4), 462-471. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2014.989343

39.

Nyhan

Reifler

(2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2

40.

Pasek

Sood

Krosnick

J. A.

(2015). Misinformed about the Affordable Care Act? Leveraging certainty to assess the prevalence of misperceptions. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 660-667. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12165

41.

Scheufele

D. A.

Krause

N. M.

(2019). Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), 7662-7669. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805871115

42.

Shao

Ciampaglia

G. L.

Varol

Yang

K. C.

Flammini

Menczer

(2018). The spread of low-credibility content by social bots. Nature Communications, 9(1), Article 4787. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06930-7

43.

Southwell

B. G.

Thorson

E. A.

(2015). The prevalence, consequence, and remedy of misinformation in mass media systems. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 589-595. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12168

44.

Suhay

Erisen

(2018). The role of anger in the biased assimilation of political information. Political Psychology, 39(4), 793-810. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12463

45.

Sundar

S. S.

(2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In Metzger

Flanagin

(Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73-100). MIT Press.

46.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2019). Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on continued efforts to advance safe biotechnology innovations, and the deactivation of an import alert on genetically engineered salmon. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-fda-commissioner-scott-gottlieb-md-continued-efforts-advance-safe-biotechnology

47.

van der Meer

T. G.

Jin

. (2020). Seeking formula for misinformation treatment in public health crises: The effects of corrective information type and source. Health Communication, 35(5), 560-575. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1573295

48.

Vraga

E. K.

Bode

(2017). Using expert sources to correct health misinformation in social media. Science Communication, 39(5), 621-645. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017731776

49.

Vraga

E. K.

Kim

S. C.

Cook

(2019). Testing logic-based and humor-based corrections for science, health, and political misinformation on social media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 63(3), 393-414. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2019.1653102

50.

Walter

Brooks

J. J.

Saucier

C. J.

Suresh

(2020). Evaluating the impact of attempts to correct health misinformation on social media: A meta-analysis. Health Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1794553

51.

Walter

Murphy

S. T.

(2018). How to unring the bell: A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation. Communication Monographs, 85(2), 423-441, https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2018.1467564

52.

Weeks

B. E.

(2015). Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: How anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 699-719. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12164

53.

Huang

Bortree

D. S.

Yang

Xiao

Wang

(2016). A tale of two sources in native advertising: Examining the effects of source credibility and priming on content, organizations, and media evaluations. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(12), 1492-1509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764216660139

54.

(2013). Social recommendation, source credibility, and recency: Effects of news cues in a social bookmarking website. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90(4), 757-775. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699013503158

55.

Yuan

Besley

J. C.

(2019). Should scientists talk about GMOs nicely? Exploring the effects of communication styles, source expertise, and preexisting attitude. Science Communication, 41(3), 267-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019837623

Supplementary Material

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.

0.00 MB

0.65 MB

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

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material