With the rise of age-friendly digital tools, older adults increasingly access health information online. Yet weakened gatekeeping in digital media has facilitated the spread of health rumors. Corrective efforts sometimes backfire, reinforcing belief in misinformation—a phenomenon known as the backfire effect. This study explores its formation among older adults via semi-structured interviews with 22 participants. Using grounded theory and integrating the Stressor–Strain–Outcome (SSO) framework with the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), it identifies two pathways: worldview and familiarity backfire effects. Findings reveal how cognitive dissonance, emotional defense, and individual traits shape resistance to corrections. The study proposes targeted strategies involving message design, social communication, psychological inoculation, and digital literacy. It offers insights into improving health misinformation correction for aging populations.
AïmeurEAmriSBrassardG (2023) Fake news, disinformation and misinformation in social media: A review. Social Network Analysis and Mining13(1): 30.
2.
BirksMMillsJFrancisK, et al. (2009) A thousand words paint a picture: The use of storyline in grounded theory research. Journal of Research in Nursing14(5): 405–417.
3.
ChampionVLSkinnerCS (2008) The health belief model. In: GlanzKRimerBKViswanathK (eds) Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4th edn.Jossey-Bass, pp.45–65.
4.
ChanMSJonesCRHall JamiesonK, et al. (2017) Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological Science28(11): 1531–1546.
5.
ChiaSCLuFSunY (2023) Tracking the influence of misinformation on elderly people’s perceptions and intention to accept COVID-19 vaccines. Health Communication38(5): 855–865.
6.
ChuaAYKBanerjeeS (2018) Intentions to trust and share online health rumors: An experiment with medical professionals. Computers in Human Behavior87: 1–9.
7.
DhawanDBekaluMPinnamaneniR, et al. (2021) COVID-19 news and misinformation: do they matter for public health prevention?Journal of Health Communication26(11): 799–808.
8.
DunneC (2011) The place of the literature review in grounded theory research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology14(2): 111–124.
9.
EckerUKHLewandowskySChadwickM (2020) Can corrections spread misinformation to new audiences? Testing for the elusive familiarity backfire effect. Cognitive Research Principles and Implications5(1): 41.
10.
EckerUKHSharkeyCXMSwire-ThompsonB (2023) Correcting vaccine misinformation: A failure to replicate familiarity or fear-driven backfire effects. PLoS One18(4): e0281140.
11.
FrishammarJEssénABergströmF, et al. (2023) Digital health platforms for the elderly? Key adoption and usage barriers and ways to address them. Technological Forecasting and Social Change189: 122319.
12.
JooEKononovaAKanthawalaS, et al. (2021) Smartphone users’ persuasion knowledge in the context of consumer mHealth apps: qualitative study. JMIR mhealth and uhealth9(4): e16518.
13.
KazeminiaMSalariNVaisi-RayganiA, et al. (2020) The effect of exercise on anxiety in the elderly worldwide: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes18(1): 363.
14.
KesslerSHBachmannE (2022) Debunking health myths on the internet: The persuasive effect of (visual) online communication. Journal of Public Health30(8): 1823–1835.
15.
KimJYangKMinJ, et al. (2022) Hope, fear, and consumer behavioral change amid COVID-19: Application of protection motivation theory. International Journal of Consumer Studies46(2): 558–574.
16.
KoeskeGFKoeskeRD (1993) A preliminary test of a stress-strain-outcome model for reconceptualizing the burnout phenomenon. Journal of Social Service Research17(3-4): 107–135.
17.
LiCY (2013) Persuasive messages on information system acceptance: A theoretical extension of elaboration likelihood model and social influence theory. Computers in Human Behavior29(1): 264–275.
18.
LiuJQiJ (2022) Online public rumor engagement model and intervention strategy in major public health emergencies: From the perspective of social psychological stress. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health19(4): 1988.
19.
LiuSWangXQYangBX, et al. (2022) Electronic health literacy among older adults in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Nursing Management30(6): 1949–1959.
20.
MengLLiTHuangX, et al. (2022) Lift the veil of rumors: The impact of the characteristics of information sources on the effectiveness of rumors spreading. Internet Research32(1): 90–119.
21.
MouraliMDrakeC (2022) The challenge of debunking health misinformation in dynamic social media conversations: Online randomized study of public masking during COVID-19. Journal of Medical Internet Research24(3): e34831.
22.
NanXWangYThierK (2022) Why do people believe health misinformation and who is at risk? A systematic review of individual differences in susceptibility to health misinformation. Social Science & Medicine314: 115398.
23.
NyhanB (2021) Why the backfire effect does not explain the durability of political misperceptions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America118(15): e1912440117.
24.
PluvianoSWattCDella SalaS (2017) Misinformation lingers in memory: Failure of three pro-vaccination strategies. PLoS One12(7): e0181640.
25.
PourrazaviSKouzekananiKAsghari JafarabadiM, et al. (2022) Correlates of older adults’ E-health information-seeking behaviors. Gerontology68(8): 935–942.
26.
PrikeTBlackleyPSwire-ThompsonB, et al. (2023) Examining the replicability of backfire effects after standalone corrections. Cognitive Research Principles and Implications8(1): 39.
27.
RodonJPastorJA (2007) Applying Grounded Theory to Study the Implementation of an Inter-Organizational Information System. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods5(2): 71–82.
28.
SavolainenR (2022) What drives people to prefer health-related misinformation? The viewpoint of motivated reasoning. Information Research27(2).
29.
SchererLDMcPhetresJPennycookG, et al. (2021) Who is susceptible to online health misinformation? A test of four psychosocial hypotheses. Health Psychology40(4): 274–284.
30.
SchutterNHolwerdaTJComijsHC, et al. (2022) Loneliness, social network size and mortality in older adults: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Ageing19(4): 1057–1076.
31.
ShangLZhouJZuoM (2020) Understanding older adults’ intention to share health information on social media: The role of health belief and information processing. Internet Research31(1): 100–122.
32.
ShiYMaDZhangJ, et al. (2021) In the digital age: A systematic literature review of the e-health literacy and influencing factors among Chinese older adults. Journal of Public Health31(5): 679–687.
33.
SiegelJTYzerMC (2025) Maximizing Mental Health Communication: The IIFF model of help seeking for depression. In: GreeneKBrashersDE (eds) The Handbook of Mental Health Communication. Wiley, pp.479–495.
34.
SongJLiYGuoX, et al. (2022) Making mobile health information advice persuasive: An elaboration likelihood model perspective. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing34(4): 1–22.
35.
SunZChengXZhangR, et al. (2020) Factors influencing rumour re-spreading in a public health crisis by the middle-aged and elderly populations. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health17(18): 6542.
36.
Swire-ThompsonBDeGutisJLazerD (2020) Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition9(3): 286–299.
37.
Swire-ThompsonBMiklaucicNWihbeyJP, et al. (2022) The backfire effect after correcting misinformation is strongly associated with reliability. Journal of Experimental Psychology General151(7): 1655–1665.
38.
TrabergCSRoozenbeekJVan der LindenS (2022) Psychological inoculation against misinformation: Current evidence and future directions. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science700(1): 136–151.
39.
van der LindenSRoozenbeekJComptonJ (2020) Inoculating against fake news about COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology11: 566790.
40.
VivionMReidVDubéE, et al. (2024) How older adults manage misinformation and information overload - A qualitative study. BMC Public Health24(1): 871.
41.
YanJ (2022) The evolution and governance of online rumors during the public health emergency: taking COVID-19 pandemic related rumors as an example. In: LiuYWangJ (eds) Big Data and Information Theory. Routledge, pp.76–84.
42.
YousufHvan der LindenSBrediusL, et al. (2021) A media intervention applying debunking versus non-debunking content to combat vaccine misinformation in elderly in the Netherlands: A digital randomised trial. EClinicalMedicine35: 100881.
43.
ZhangXZhengHZengY, et al. (2024) Exploring how health-related advertising interference contributes to the development of cyberchondria: A stressor–strain–outcome approach. Digital Health10: 20552076241233138.
44.
ZhaoYCZhaoMSongS (2022) Online health information seeking behaviors among older adults: systematic scoping review. Journal of Medical Internet Research24(2): e34790.
45.
ZhouBGuiS (2017) WeChat and distant family intergenerational communication in China: A study of online content sharing on WeChat. In: HeroldDKMaroltP (eds) New Media and Chinese Society. Springer, pp.185–206.
