This study investigates how science belief enhances perceived threat and efficacy, which affect four types of corrective behaviors: public correction, private correction, verification, and refutation. A total of 1,392 participants in China completed a survey for this study. Results indicate that science belief significantly predicts both perceived threat and efficacy, which subsequently elicit the four correction behaviors. Multigroup analysis further revealed that the proposed science belief model varies by levels of interdependent self-construal. Among individuals with high interdependence, science belief exerted a stronger influence on perceived threat and efficacy, and efficacy more strongly predicted public correction and refutation behaviors.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
2.
BautistaJ. R.ZhangY.GwizdkaJ. (2022). Predicting healthcare professionals’ intention to correct health misinformation on social media. Telematics and Informatics, 73, 101864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2022.101864
3.
BierhoffH. W. (2002). Prosocial behavior. Psychology Press.
BronsteinM. V.PennycookG.BearA.RandD. G.CannonT. D. (2019). Belief in fake news is associated with reduced analytic thinking. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(1), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.09.005
7.
BuchananT. (2020). Why do people spread false information online? The effects of message and personality. Social Media + Society, 6(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120965519
8.
ChaikenS. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 39, 752–766.
9.
ChanM. P. S.JonesC. R.Hall JamiesonK.AlbarracínD. (2017). The nature and origins of misperceptions: Understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology, 38(S1), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12394
10.
ChenL.FuL. (2022). Let’s fight the infodemic: The third-person effect process of misinformation during public health emergencies. Internet Research, 32(4), 1357–1377. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-03-2021-0194
11.
ChenL.LiD.FuL. (2025, July). Developing and validating a four-dimensional misinformation correction scale: A mixed-methods approach [Paper presentation]. 75th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Denver, CO, United States.
12.
ChenL.TangH. (2022). Examining the persuasion process of narrative fear appeals on health misinformation correction. Information, Communication & Society, 26(15), 2923–2941. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2022.2128849
13.
ChenL.TangH. (2023). Intention of health experts to counter health misinformation in social media: Effects of perceived threat to online users, correction efficacy, and self-affirmation. Public Understanding of Science, 32(3), 284–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221138357
14.
ChenL.ZhengW.FuL. (2023). Examining factors influencing public knowledge, risk perception, and policy support for waste classification: A multigroup comparison of the cognitive mediation model based on gender differences. Environmental Communication, 17(7), 759–774.
15.
CookJ.LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. (2017). Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLOS ONE, 12(5), e0175799. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799
16.
CrossS. E.HardinE. E.Gercek-SwingB. (2010). The what, how, why, and where of self-construal. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(2), 142–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310373752
17.
DengY.WangC. S.ChengG. D.WhitsonJ. A.DowB. J.LeeA. Y. (2025). The role of interdependent self-construal in mitigating the effect of conspiratorial beliefs on vaccine acceptance. British Journal of Social Psychology, 64(1), e12836.
18.
DuffH.VignolesV. L.BeckerM.MilfontT. L. (2022). Self-construals and environmental values in 55 cultures. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 79, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101722
19.
EckerU. K. H.LewandowskyS.CookJ.SchmidP.FazioL. K.BrashierN.KendeouP. (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
20.
FariasM.NewheiserA. K.KahaneG.de ToledoZ. (2013). Scientific faith: Belief in science increases in the face of stress and existential anxiety. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1210–1213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.05.008
21.
FloydD. L.Prentice-DunnS.RogersR. W. (2000). A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(2), 407–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02323.x
22.
FlynnD. J.NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2017). The nature and origins of misperceptions: Understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology, 38(Suppl. 1), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12394
23.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
24.
FuL.LeiL.ChenL. (2024). Text, short video, or long video? Effects of attention to various types of social media on public knowledge of dual carbon: A multigroup comparison based on environmental concern levels. Environmental Communication, 18(5), 610–627.
25.
FunkC.KennedyB.HefferonM. (2019). Trust in science and scientists: Public perceptions and beliefs. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org
26.
HanH.KimW.LeeS.KimH.-R. (2018). How image congruity and satisfaction impact customer retention at luxury restaurants: A moderated mediation framework. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46(6), 891–904. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6767
27.
Jones-JangS. M.MortensenT.LiuJ. (2021). Does media literacy help identification of fake news? Information literacy helps, but other literacies don’t. American Behavioral Scientist, 65(2), 371–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219869406
28.
KimA.DennisA. R. (2019). Says who? The effects of presentation format and source rating on fake news in social media. MIS Quarterly, 43(3), 1025–1039. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2987866
29.
KimH. S.ShermanD. K. (2007). “Express yourself”: Culture and the effect of self-expression on choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.1
LewandowskyS.CookJ.EckerU.AlbarracinD.AmazeenM. A.KendouP.ZaragozaM. (2020). The debunking handbook 2020. https://sks.to/db2020
32.
LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. H.CookJ. (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
33.
LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. H.SeifertC. M.SchwarzN.CookJ. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018
34.
LewandowskyS.GignacG. E.OberauerK. (2013). The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLOS ONE, 8(10), e75637. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075637
35.
LewandowskyS.van der LindenS. (2021). Countering misinformation and fake news through inoculation and prebunking. European Review of Social Psychology, 32(2), 348–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983
36.
LiZ.YanJ. (2024). Does a perceptual gap lead to actions against digital misinformation? A third-person effect study among medical students. BMC Public Health, 24(1), 1291. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18763-9
37.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
38.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.).
39.
NaJ.GrossmannI.VarnumM. E.KarasawaM.ChoY.KitayamaS.NisbettR. E. (2020). Culture and personality revisited: Behavioral profiles and within-person stability in interdependent (vs. independent) social orientation and holistic (vs. analytic) cognitive style. Journal of Personality, 88(5), 908–924.
40.
O’BrienT. C.PalmerR.AlbarracinD. (2021). Misplaced trust: When trust in science fosters belief in pseudoscience and the benefits of critical evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 96, 104184.
41.
OreskesN.ConwayE. M. (2011). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Publishing.
42.
PennycookG.BearA.CollinsE. T.RandD. G. (2020). The implied truth effect: Attaching warnings to a subset of fake news headlines increases perceived accuracy of headlines without warnings. Management Science, 66(11), 4944–4957. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3478
43.
PennycookG.CannonT. D.RandD. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(12), 1865–1880. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000465
44.
PennycookG.EpsteinZ.MoslehM.ArecharA. A.EcklesD.RandD. G. (2021). Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature, 592(7855), 590–595. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03344-2
45.
PennycookG.RandD. G. (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011
RoozenbeekJ.van der LindenS.NygrenT. (2020). Prebunking interventions based on “inoculation” theory can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. The Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-008
48.
RutjensB. T.SenguptaN.Der LeeR. V.Van KoningsbruggenG. M.MartensJ. P.RabeloA.SuttonR. M. (2022). Science skepticism across 24 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(1), 102–117.
49.
RutjensB. T.SuttonR. M.van der LeeR. (2018). Not all skepticism is equal: Exploring the ideological antecedents of science acceptance and rejection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(3), 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217741314
50.
RutjensB. T.van der LeeR. (2020). Spiritual skepticism? Heterogeneous science skepticism in the Netherlands. Public Understanding of Science, 29(3), 335–352.
51.
SingelisT. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205014
52.
Swire-ThompsonB.CookJ.ButlerL. H.LewandowskyS. (2021). Correction format has a limited role when debunking misinformation. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 6(1), 83. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00346-6
TangH.FuL.ChenL.ShiJ. J. (2024). A longitudinal process from media to climate change knowledge: A multigroup comparison of cognitive mediation model based on risk perception. Journal of Risk Research, 27(11), 1324–1340.
55.
TriandisH. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Westview Press.
56.
van der LindenS.LeiserowitzA.RosenthalS.MaibachE. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008
57.
VećkalovB.van StekelenburgA.van HarreveldF.RutjensB. T. (2023). Who is skeptical about scientific innovation? Examining worldview predictors of artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, and human gene editing attitudes. Science Communication, 45(3), 337–366.
58.
VragaE. K.KimS. C.CookJ.BodeL. (2020). Testing the effectiveness of correction placement and type on Instagram. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(4), 632–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220919082
59.
WalterN.TukachinskyR. (2020). A meta-analytic examination of the continued influence of misinformation in the face of correction: How powerful is it, why does it happen, and how to stop it?Communication Research, 47(2), 155–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219854600
60.
WeeksB. 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
61.
WeeksB. E.GarrettR. K. (2014). Electoral consequences of political rumors: Motivated reasoning, candidate rumors, and vote choice during the 2008 U.S. presidential election. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26(4), 401–422. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edu005
62.
WitteK. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59(4), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276
63.
WitteK.AllenM. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27(5), 591–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019810002700506
64.
YbarraO.TrafimowD. (1998). How priming the private self or collective self affects the relative weights of attitudes and subjective norms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(4), 362–370 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298244003
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.
