Cutting the Bunk: Comparing the Solo and Aggregate Effects of Prebunking and Debunking Covid-19 Vaccine Misinformation

Abstract

An online experiment among a nationally representative YouGov sample of unvaccinated U.S. adults (N = 540) leverages inoculation theory as a preliminary step in uniting the prebunking and debunking literature. By testing how prior attitudes toward Covid-19 vaccines interact with varying message interventions, the study finds that specific inoculation messages protect against misinformation, but only among those with preexisting healthy attitudes. Generic inoculation messages have wider application, offering both prophylactic and therapeutic benefits. However, the therapeutic benefits of generic inoculations disappear when debunking messages are present. Nonetheless, generic inoculations do not appear to have detrimental effects on those infected with unhealthy attitudes, unlike specific inoculation messages. Whether the messages are truly a form of inoculation by generating threat merits further research.

Keywords

misinformation inoculation theory corrections experiment Covid-19

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amazeen

M. A.

(2021). Resisting covert persuasion in digital news: Comparing inoculation and reactance in the processing of native advertising disclosures and in article engagement intentions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 98, 1129–1156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699020952131

Amazeen

M. A.

Muddiman

A. R.

(2018). Saving media or trading on trust? The effects of native advertising on audience perceptions of legacy and online news publishers. Digital Journalism, 6(2), 176–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1293488

Amazeen

M. A.

Vargo

C. J.

(2021). Sharing native advertising on Twitter: Content analyses examining disclosure practices and their inoculating influence. Journalism Studies, 22(7), 916–933. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2021.1906298

Banas

J. A.

Miller

(2013). Inducing resistance to conspiracy theory propaganda: Testing inoculation and metainoculation strategies. Human Communication Research, 39, 184–207.

Banas

J. A.

Richards

A. S.

(2017). Apprehension or motivation to defend attitudes? Exploring the underlying threat mechanism in inoculation-induced resistance to persuasion. Communication Monographs, 84(2), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1307999

Begg

I. M.

Anas

Farinacci

(1992). Dissociation of processes in belief: Source recollection, statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 446–458.

Bode

Vraga

E. K.

(2018). See something, say something: Correction of global health misinformation on social media. Health Communication, 33(9), 1131–1140.

Bolsen

Druckman

J. N.

(2015). Counteracting the politicization of science. Journal of Communication, 65(5), 745–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12171

Brehm

J. W.

(1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.

10.

Burgoon

Chase

L. J.

(1973). The effects of differential linguistic patterns in messages attempting to induce resistance to persuasion. Speech Monographs, 40(1), 1–8.

11.

Chaiken

Liberman

Eagly

A. H.

(1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In Uleman

J. S.

Bargh

J. A.

(Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). Guilford Press.

12.

Clark

R. P.

(2020, August 18). How to serve up a tasty “truth sandwich?” Poynter. https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/how-to-serve-up-a-tasty-truth-sandwich/

13.

Compton

(2013). Inoculation theory. In Dillard

J. P.

Shen

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (2nd ed.; pp. 220–236). SAGE.

14.

Compton

(2020). Prophylactic versus therapeutic inoculation treatments for resistance to influence. Communication Theory, 30(3), 330–343. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtz004

15.

Compton

(2021). Threat and/in inoculation theory. International Journal of Communication, 15, 4294–4306. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/17634

16.

Compton

Ivanov

(2012). Untangling threat during inoculation-conferred resistance to influence. Communication Reports, 25, 1–13.

17.

Compton

J. A.

Pfau

(2004). Use of inoculation to foster resistance to credit card marketing targeting college students. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 343–364.

18.

Compton

J. A.

Pfau

(2005). Inoculation theory of resistance to influence at maturity: Recent progress in theory development and application and suggestions for future research. In Kalbfleisch

P. J.

(Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol.29, pp. 97–145). Lawrence Erlbaum.

19.

Cook

(2016). Countering climate science denial and communicating scientific consensus. In Oxford research encyclopedia of climate science. https://oxfordre.com/climatescience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-314

20.

Cook

Lewandowsky

Ecker

U. K. H.

(2017). Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLOS ONE, 12(5), Article e0175799. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799

21.

Dillard

J. P.

Shen

(2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72, 144–168.

22.

Duke Reporter’s Lab. (n.d.). Global fact-checking sites. https://reporterslab.org/fact-checking/

23.

Eagly

A. H.

Chaiken

(1993). The psychology of attitudes. Wadsworth Group/Thompson Learning.

24.

Ecker

U. K. H.

Lewandowsky

Cook

Schmid

Fazio

L. K.

Brashier

Kendeou

Vraga

E. K.

Amazeen

M. A.

(2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1, 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y

25.

Eschmann

Groshek

Toraif

Thompson

J. G.

(2021). Bigger than sports: Identity politics, Colin Kaepernick, and concession making in# BoycottNike. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, Article 106583.

26.

Fazio

L. K.

Rand

D. G.

Pennycook

(2019). Repetition increases perceived truth equally for plausible and implausible statements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 1705–1710.

27.

Friggeri

Adamic

Eckles

Cheng

. (2014). Rumor Cascades. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 8(1), 101–110. https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/14559

28.

Graves

Amazeen

M. A.

(2019). Fact-checking as idea and practice in journalism. In Nussbaum

(Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of communication. Oxford University Press. http://oxfordre.com/communication/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-808

29.

Hasher

Goldstein

Toppino

(1977). Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 107–112.

30.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. Guilford Press.

31.

Ivanov

Rains

S. A.

Dillingham

L. L.

Parker

K. A.

Geegan

S. A.

Barbati

J. L.

(2022). The role of threat and counterarguing in therapeutic inoculation. Southern Communication Journal, 87(1), 15–27.

32.

Ivanov

Rains

S. A.

Geegan

S. A.

Vos

S. C.

Haarstad

N. D.

Parker

K. A.

(2017). Beyond simple inoculation: Examining the persuasive value of inoculation for audiences with initially neutral or opposing attitudes. Western Journal of Communication, 81(1), 105–126.

33.

Jamieson

K. H.

Albarracin

(2020). The relation between media consumption and misinformation at the outset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the US. The Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 1(2). https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/the-relation-between-media-consumption-and-misinformation-at-the-outset-of-the-sars-cov-2-pandemic-in-the-us/

34.

Johnson

H. M.

Seifert

C. M.

(1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(6), 1420–1436.

35.

Jolley

Douglas

K. M.

(2017). Prevention is better than cure: Addressing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(8), 459–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12453

36.

Krishna

(2017). Motivation with misinformation: Conceptualizing lacuna individuals and publics as knowledge deficient, issue-negative activists. Journal of Public Relations Research, 29, 176–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2017.1363047

37.

Krishna

(2021). Lacuna publics: Advancing a typology of disinformation susceptibility using the motivation-attitude-knowledge framework. Journal of Public Relations Research, 33, 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2021.1944155

38.

Kunda

(1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.

39.

Lasswell

(1927). Propaganda technique in the World War. Peter Smith.

40.

Lazer

Green

Ognyanova

Baum

Lin

Druckman

Perlis

R. H.

Santillana

Uslu

(2021, July 27). The COVID States Project #57: Social media news consumption and COVID-19 vaccination rates. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/uvqbs

41.

Lewandowsky

Cook

Ecker

U. K. H.

Albarracín

Amazeen

M. A.

Kendeou

Lombardi

Newman

E. J.

Pennycook

Porter

Rand

D. G.

Rapp

D. N.

Reifler

Roozenbeek

Schmid

Seifert

C. M.

Sinatra

G. M.

Swire-Thompson

van der Linden

. . . Zaragoza

M. S.

(2020). The debunking handbook 2020. https://sks.to/db2020

42.

Lewandowsky

Cook

Schmid

Holford

D. L.

Finn

Leask

Thomson

Lombardi

Al-Rawi

A. K.

Amazeen

M. A.

Anderson

E. C.

Armaos

K. D.

Betsch

Bruns

H. H. B.

Ecker

U. K. H.

Gavaruzzi

Hahn

Herzog

Juanchich

. . . Vraga

E. K.

(2021). The COVID-19 vaccine communication handbook. A practical guide for improving vaccine communication and fighting misinformation. https://sks.to/c19vax

43.

McGuire

W. J.

(1961). The effectiveness of supportive and refutational defenses in immunizing and restoring beliefs against persuasion. Sociometry, 24, 184–197.

44.

McGuire

W. J.

(1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 191–229). Academic Press.

45.

McGuire

W. J.

Papageorgis

(1962). Effectiveness of forewarning in developing resistance to persuasion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26, 24–34.

46.

Murthy

(2021, July 15). Confronting health misinformation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on building a healthy information environment. Office of the Surgeon General. https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/reports-and-publications/health-misinformation/index.html

47.

Nyhan

Reifler

Richey

Freed

G. L.

(2014). Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. Pediatrics, 133, e835–e842.

48.

O’Keefe

D. J.

(2003). Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory, 13(3), 251–274.

49.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(1977). Forewarning, cognitive responding, and resistance to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 645–655.

50.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.19, pp. 123–205). Academic Press.

51.

Pfau

Compton

Parker

K. A.

Wittenberg

E. M.

Ferguson

Horton

Malyshev

(2004). The traditional explanation for resistance versus attitude accessibility: Do they trigger distinct or overlapping processes of resistance? Human Communication Research, 30, 329–360.

52.

Richards

A. S.

Banas

J. A.

Magid

(2017). More on inoculating against reactance to persuasive health messages: The paradox of threat. Health Communication, 32, 890–902.

53.

Roozenbeek

van der Linden

(2019). Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 1–10.

54.

Schmid

Betsch

(2019). Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 931–939. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0632-4

55.

Stecula

D. A.

Kuru

Jamieson

K. H.

(2020). How trust in experts and media use affect acceptance of common anti-vaccination claims. The Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-007

56.

Taber

C. S.

Lodge

(2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.

57.

University of Nebraska Medical Center. (2021, August 19). Were the COVID-19 vaccines rushed? Here’s how the vaccines were developed so fast. Nebraska Medicine. https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/were-the-covid-19-vaccines-rushed

58.

Unkelbach

(2007). Reversing the truth effect: Learning the interpretation of processing fluency in judgments of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 219–230.

59.

Unkelbach

Rom

S. C.

(2017). A referential theory of the repetition-induced truth effect. Cognition, 160, 110–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.12.016

60.

van der Linden

Leiserowitz

Rosenthal

Maibach

. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1(2), Article 1600008. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008

61.

van der Linden

Roozenbeek

Compton

. (2020). Inoculating against fake news about COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 566790. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566790

62.

Vargo

C. J.

Guo

Amazeen

M. A.

(2018). The agenda-setting power of fake news: A big data analysis of the online media landscape from 2014 to 2016. New Media & Society, 20(5), 2028–2049.

63.

Vraga

E. K.

Bode

(2017). Using expert sources to correct health misinformation in social media. Science Communication, 39(5), 621–645.

64.

Vraga

E. K.

Kim

S. C.

Cook

Bode

(2020). Testing the effectiveness of correction placement and type on Instagram. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(4), 632–652.

65.

Walter

Cohen

Holbert

R. L.

Morag

(2020). Fact-Checking: A meta-analysis of what works and for whom. Political Communication, 37(3), 350–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1668894

66.

Wells

G. L.

Windschitl

P. D.

(1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(9), 1115–1125.

67.

Wintersiek

A. L.

(2017). Debating the truth: The impact of fact-checking during electoral debates. American Politics Research, 45(2), 304–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X16686555

68.

Wood

M. L. M

. (2007). Rethinking the inoculation analogy: Effects on subjects with differing preexisting attitudes. Human Communication Research, 33, 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00303.x

69.

World Health Organization. (2020, September 23). Managing the Covid-19 infodemic: Promoting healthy behaviors and mitigating harm from misinformation and disinformation. https://www.who.int/news/item/23-09-2020-managing-the-covid-19-infodemic-promoting-healthy-behaviours-and-mitigating-the-harm-from-misinformation-and-disinformation

70.

YouGov. (n.d.). YouGov panel rewards. https://pk.yougov.com/en-ur/account/panelrewards/

71.

Zak

Roberts

(2022, January 27). Anthony Fauci is up against more than a virus. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/01/27/fauci-pandemic-threats

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

3.08 MB