Vaccine rumors on social media endanger public health. This study examined how evidence types influenced perceived persuasiveness and relevance and engagement intentions of vaccine rumors. We conducted a 2 (evidence type: anecdotes vs. anecdotal statistics) × 2 (stance: pro-vaccine rumor vs. anti-vaccine rumor) online experiment (N = 551) and surveyed participants’ health literacy and vaccine knowledge. Anecdotal statistics were perceived as more relevant than anecdotes and indirectly influenced perceived persuasiveness and behavior intentions. This finding was confirmed when vaccine rumors were pro-attitudinal. Health literacy positively predicted perceived persuasiveness; health knowledge negatively predicted relevance and behavior intentions. Practical implications and future research directions are discussed.
AjzenIFishbeinM (1977) Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin84(5): 888–918.
2.
AllenMPreissRW (1997) Comparing the persuasiveness of narrative and statistical evidence using meta-analysis. Communication Research Reports14(2): 125–131.
3.
AllportGWPostmanL (1947) The Psychology of Rumor. New York: Henry Holt.
4.
AntinJShawA (2012) Social desirability bias and self-reports of motivation: A study of Amazon Mechanical Turk in the US and India. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings. 2925–2934. DOI: 10.1145/2207676.2208699
5.
AyersMSRederLM (1998) A theoretical review of the misinformation effect: Predictions from an activation-based memory model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review5(1): 1–21.
6.
BaeslerEJBurgoonJK (1994) The temporal effects of story and statistical evidence on belief change. Communication Research21(5): 582–602.
7.
BakerDW (2006) The meaning and the measure of health literacy. Journal of General Internal Medicine21(8): 878–883.
8.
BerkmanNDDavisTCMcCormackL (2010) Health literacy: What is it?Journal of Health Communication15(Suppl. 2): 9–19.
9.
CalvilloDPRossBJGarciaRJB, et al. (2020) Political ideology predicts perceptions of the threat of COVID-19 (and susceptibility to fake news about it). Social Psychological and Personality Science11(8): 1119–1128.
10.
ChaikenSLedgerwoodA (2012) A theory of heuristic and systematic information processing. In: Van LangePKruglanskiAHigginsE (eds) Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. London: Sage Publications, pp.246–266.
11.
ChenMBellRATaylorLD (2017) Persuasive effects of point of view, protagonist competence, and similarity in a health narrative about type 2 diabetes. Journal of Health Communication22(8): 702–712.
12.
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (2015) Play ‘Just the Vax’ vaccine trivia game.
13.
CrookBStephensKKPastorekAE, et al. (2016) Sharing health information and influencing behavioral intentions: The role of health literacy, information overload, and the internet in the diffusion of healthy heart information. Health Communication31(1): 60–71.
14.
DifonzoNBordiaP (2007) Rumor Psychology: Social and Organizational Approaches. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
15.
DivianiNvan Den PutteBGianiS, et al. (2015) Low health literacy and evaluation of online health information: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Medical Internet Research17(5): e112.
16.
DruckmanJNBolsenT (2011) Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication61(4): 659–688.
17.
EdgerlySMourãoRRThorsonE, et al. (2020) When do audiences verify? How perceptions about message and source influence audience verification of news headlines. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly97(1): 52–71.
18.
EdwardsKSmithEE (1996) A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology71(1): 5–24.
19.
EllisJMullanJWorsleyA, et al. (2012) The role of health literacy and social networks in arthritis patients’ health information-seeking behavior: A qualitative study. International Journal of Family Medicine2012: 397039.
20.
FrelingTHYangZSainiR, et al. (2020) When poignant stories outweigh cold hard facts: A meta-analysis of the anecdotal bias. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes160: 51–67.
21.
GreeneKCampoSBanerjeeSC (2010) Comparing normative, anecdotal, and statistical risk evidence to discourage tanning bed use. Communication Quarterly58(2): 111–132.
22.
GuessAMLernerMLyonsB, et al. (2020) A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117(27): 15536–15545.
23.
HartPSNisbetEC (2012) Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research39(6): 701–723.
24.
HoekenHHustinxL (2009) When is statistical evidence superior to anecdotal evidence in supporting probability claims? The role of argument type. Human Communication Research35(4): 491–510.
25.
HornikxJ (2005) A review of experimental research on the relative persuasiveness of anecdotal, statistical, causal, and expert evidence. Studies in Communication Sciences5(1): 205–216.
26.
KimJW (2018) Rumor has it: The effects of virality metrics on rumor believability and transmission on Twitter. New Media & Society20(12): 4807–4825.
27.
KrugerJDunningD (1999) Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology77(6): 1121–1134.
28.
KundaZ (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin108(3): 480–498.
29.
MohammadiGParkSSagaeK, et al. (2013) Who is persuasive? The role of perceived personality and communication modality in social multimedia. In: ICMI 2013 - Proceedings of the 2013 ACM international conference on multimodal interaction, 2013, pp. 19–25. ACM Press. DOI: 10.1145/2522848.2522857.
30.
MoormanCMatulichE (1993) A model of consumers’ preventive health behaviors: The role of health motivation and health ability. Journal of Consumer Research20(2): 208.
31.
NickersonRS (1998) Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology2(2): 175–220.
32.
NutbeamD (2008) The evolving concept of health literacy. Social Science & Medicine67(12): 2072–2078.
33.
OhHJLeeH (2019) When do people verify and share health rumors on social media? The effects of message importance, health anxiety, and health literacy. Journal of Health Communication24(11): 837–847.
34.
OhOKwonKHRaoHR, et al. (2010) An exploration of social media in extreme events: Rumor theory and twitter during the Haiti earthquake 2010. In: Proceedings of the international conference on information systems. Available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2010_submissions/231 (accessed 5 October 2021).
35.
PaigeSRStellefsonMKriegerJL, et al. (2019) Transactional eHealth literacy: Developing and testing a multi-dimensional instrument. Journal of Health Communication24(10): 737–748.
36.
QazvinianVRosengrenERadevDR, et al. (2011) Rumor has it: Identifying misinformation in microblogs. In: Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, 2011, pp.1589–1599. Available at: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D11-1147.pdf (accessed 5 October 2021).
37.
SchaewitzLKluckJPKlöstersL, et al. (2020) When is disinformation (in)credible? Experimental findings on message characteristics and individual differences. Mass Communication & Society23(4): 484–509.
38.
SchmidtALZolloFScalaA, et al. (2018) Polarization of the vaccination debate on Facebook. Vaccine36(25): 3606–3612.
39.
ShelbyAErnstK (2013) Story and science: How providers and parents can utilize storytelling to combat anti-vaccine misinformation. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics9(8): 1795–1801.
40.
ShenCKasraMPanW, et al. (2019) Fake images: The effects of source, intermediary, and digital media literacy on contextual assessment of image credibility online. New Media & Society21(2): 438–463.
41.
SommarivaSVamosCMantzarlisA, et al. (2018) Spreading the (fake) news: Exploring health messages on social media and the implications for health professionals using a case study. American Journal of Health Education49(4): 246–255.
42.
StricklandAATaberCSLodgeM (2011) Motivated reasoning and public opinion. Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law36(6): 935–944.
43.
ThorsonE (2016) Belief echoes: The persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Communication33(3): 460–480.
44.
TingleyDYamamotoTHiroseK, et al. (2014) mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software59(5): 1–38.
45.
VickerstaffVOmarRZAmblerG (2019) Methods to adjust for multiple comparisons in the analysis and sample size calculation of randomised controlled trials with multiple primary outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology19: 1–13.
46.
WalterNTukachinskyR (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 Research47(2): 155–177.
47.
ZebregsSvan Den PutteBNeijensP, et al. (2015) The differential impact of statistical and narrative evidence on beliefs, attitude, and intention: A meta-analysis. Health Communication30(3): 282–289.
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.
