Using Expert Sources to Correct Health Misinformation in Social Media

Science Communication

Volumn 39, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 621-645

  Vraga, Emily K ^a   Bode, Leticia ^b  

^a GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

CDC; credibility; health communication; misinformation; social media

Indexed keywords

EID: 85031506301     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547017731776     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. 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, 596-618.
2. Aikin K. J., Southwell B. G., Paquin R. S., Rupert D. J., O’Donoghue A. C., Betts K. R., Lee P. K., (2017). Correction of misleading information in prescription drug television advertising: The roles of advertisement similarity and time delay. Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy, 13, 378-388.
3. Allgaier J., Dunwoody S., Brossard D., Lo Y. Y., Peters H. P., (2013). Journalism and social media as means of observing the contexts of science. Bioscience, 63, 284-287. doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.4.8
4. Al-Qahtani A. A., Nazir N., Al-Anazi M. R., Rubino S., Al-Ahdal M. N., (2016). Zika virus: A new pandemic threat. Journal of Infection in Developing Countries, 10, 201-207.
5. Amazeen M. A., Thorson E., Muddiman A., Graves L., (2016). Correcting political and consumer misperceptions: The effectiveness and effects of rating scale versus contextual correction formats. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1077699016678186
6. Austin E. W., Dong Q., (1994). Source v. content effects on judgments of news credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 71, 973-983.
7. Bessi A., Coletto M., Davidescu G. A., Scala A., Caldarelli G., Quattrociocchi W., (2015). Science vs. conspiracy: Collective narratives in the age of misinformation. PLoS One, 10, e0118093.
8. Bode L., (2016). Political news in the news feed: Learning politics from social media. Mass Communication and Society, 19, 24-48.
9. Bode L., 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, 619-638.
10. Bravo C. A., Hoffman-Goetz L., (2016). Tweeting about prostate and testicular cancers: Do Twitter conversations and the 2013 November Canada campaign objectives align? Journal of Cancer Education, 31, 236-243.
11. Brossard D., (2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 14096-14101.
12. Castillo C., Mendoza M., Polete B., (2011). Information credibility on twitter. In WWW ‘11 Proceedings of the 20th international conference on world wide web (pp. 675-684). New York, NY: ACM.
13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Key messages: Zika virus disease. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/zika/pdfs/zika-key-messages.pdf
14. Chaiken S., (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
15. Chaiken S., Maheswaran D., (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, 460-473.
16. Chen X., Sin S. J., Theng Y., Lee C. S., (2015). Why students share misinformation on social media: Motivation, gender, and study-level differences. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41, 583-592.
17. Choi J., (2016). News internalizing and externalizing: The dimensions of news sharing on online social networking sites. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 93, 816-835.
18. Chung J. E., (2016). A smoking cessation campaign on Twitter: Understanding the use of Twitter and identifying major players in a health campaign. Journal of Health Communication, 21, 517-526.
19. Dalrymple K. E., Young R., Tully M., (2016). “Facts, not fear”: Negotiating uncertainty on social media during the 2014 Ebola crisis. Science Communication, 38, 442-467. doi:10.1177/1075547016655546.
20. Davies S., (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29, 413-434. doi:10.1177/1075547008316222.
21. Diehl T., Weeks B. E., gil de, Zuniga H., (2016). Political persuasion on social media: Tracing direct and indirect effects of news use and social interaction. New Media & Society, 18, 1875-1895.
22. Dredze M., Broniatowski D. A., Hilyard K. M., (2016). Zika vaccine misconceptions: A social media analysis. Vaccine, 34, 3441-3442.
23. Duke J. C., Hansen H., Kim A. E., Curry L., Allen J., (2014). The use of social media by state tobacco control programs to promote smoking cessation: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16, e169.
24. Eastin M. S., (2001). Credibility assessments of online health information: The effects of source expertise and knowledge of content. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00126.x/full
25. Ellison N. B., Steinfield C., Lampe C., (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143-1168.
26. Fischhoff B., (2007). Nonpersuasive communication about matters of greatest urgency: Climate change. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.365.7934&rep=rep1&type=pdf
27. Fung I. C., Fu K., Chan C., Sing B., Chan B., Cheung C... Tse Z. T., (2016). Social media’s initial reaction to information and misinformation on Ebola, August 2014: Facts and rumors. Public Health Reports, 131, 461-473.
28. 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, 617-637.
29. Giglietto F., Iannelli L., Rossi L., Valeriani A., (2016). Fakes, news and the election: A new taxonomy for the study of misleading information within the hybrid media system (Convegno AssoComPol 2016, Urbino, 15-17 Dicembre 2016). Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2878774
30. Griffiths E., (2016). Was Zika outbreak caused by release of genetically modified mosquitoes in Brazil? The Mirror. Retrieved from http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/zika-outbreak-caused-release-genetically-7281671
31. Harris J. K., Choucair B., Maier R. C., Jolani N., Bernhardt J. M., (2014). Are public health organizations tweeting to the choir? Understanding local health department Twitter followership. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(2), e31.
32. Hayes A. F., (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
33. Hermida A., Fletcher F., Korell D., Logan D., (2012). Share, like, recommend: Decoding the social media news consumer. Journalism Studies, 13, 815-824.
34. Himelboim I., Han J. Y., (2014). Cancer talk on Twitter: Community structure and information sources in breast and prostate cancer social networks. Journal of Health Communication, 19, 210-225.
35. Hovland C. I., Weiss W., (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650.
36. Jerit J., Barabas J., (2012). Partisan perceptual bias and the information environment. Journal of Politics, 74, 672-684. doi:10.1017/S0022381612000187
37. Jong W., Dückers M. L., (2016). Self-correcting mechanisms and echo-effects in social media: An analysis of the “gunman in the newsroom” crisis. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 334-341.
38. Kata A., (2010). A postmodern Pandora’s box: Anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet. Vaccine, 28, 1709-1716. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.12.022
39. Kim G., (1967). The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in the communication process. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 104-120.
40. Kotcher J., Myers T., Vraga E. K., Stenhouse N., Maibach E., (2017). Does engagement in advocacy hurt the credibility of scientists? Results from a randomized national survey experiment. Environmental Communication, 11, 415-429.
41. Lee C. S., Ma L., (2012). News sharing in social media: The effect of gratifications and prior experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 331-339.
42. Lee N. M., Van Dyke M. S., (2015). Set it and forget it: The one-way use of social media by government agencies communicating science. Science Communication, 37, 533-541. doi:10.1177/1075547015588600
43. Leiserowitz A., Maibach E., Roser-Renouf C., Hmielowski J., (2012). Global warming’s six Americas in March 2012 and November 2011. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Retrieved from http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/global-warmings-six-americas-in-march-2012-and-november-2011/
44. Lewandowsky S., Ecker U. K. H., Seifert C. M., Schwarz N., Cook J., (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 106-131.
45. Messing S., Westwood S. J., (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41, 1042-1063.
46. Metzger M. J., (2007). Making sense of credibility on the web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal for the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2078-2091.
47. Metzger M. J., Flanagin A. J., Medders R. B., (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60, 413-439.
48. Munger K., (2017). Tweetment effects on the tweeted: Experimentally reducing racist harassment. Political Behavior, 39, 629-649. doi:10.1007/s11109-016-9373-5
49. National Science Board. (2016). Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding (Science and Engineering Indicators 2016). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/uploads/1/nsb20161.pdf
50. Neiger B. L., Thackeray R., Burton S. H., Giraud-Carrier C. G., Fagen M. C., (2013). Evaluating social media’s capacity to develop engaged audiences in health promotion settings: Use of Twitter metrics as a case study. Health Promotion Practice, 14, 157-162.
51. Nelson M. P., Vucetich J. A., (2009). On advocacy by environmental scientists: What, whether, why, and how. Conservation Biology, 23, 1090-1101. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01250.x
52. Nisbet E. C., Cooper K. E., Garrett R. K., (2015). The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis) trust science. ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658, 36-66.
53. Nyhan B., Reifler J., (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303-330. doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
54. Oyeyemi S. O., Gabarron E., Wynn R., (2014). Ebola, Twitter, and misinformation: A dangerous combination? British Medical Journal, 349, g6178.
55. Papacharissi Z., (2012). Without you, I’m nothing: Performances of the self on Twitter. International Journal of Communication, 6, 1989-2006.
56. Park H., Rodgers S., Stemmle J., (2013). Analyzing health organizations’ use of Twitter for promoting health literacy. Journal of Health Communication, 18, 410-425.
57. Peters H. P., Dunwoody S., Allgaier J., Lo Y. Y., Brossard D., (2014). Public communication of science 2.0. EMBO Reports, 15, 749-753. doi:10.15252/embr.201438979
58. Peters R. G., Covello V. T., McCallum D. B., (1997). The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 17, 43-54. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00842.x
59. Pew Research Center. (2011). Health topics. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/2011/PIP_Health_Topics.pdf
60. Pew Research Center. (2013). The role of news on Facebook: The Facebook news experience. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/2013/10/24/the-facebook-news-experience/
61. Pew Research Center. (2015a). How scientists engage the public. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/02/15/how-scientists-engage-public/
62. Pew Research Center. (2015b). Most view the CDC favorably, VA’s image slips. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2015/01/22/most-view-the-cdc-favorably-vas-image-slips/
63. Pew Research Center. (2015c). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
64. Pew Research Center. (2016). Many Americans believe fake news is sowing confusion. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/2016/12/15/many-americans-believe-fake-news-is-sowing-confusion/
65. Sharma M., Yadav K., Yadav N., Ferdinand K. C., (2017). Zika virus pandemic: Analysis of Facebook as a social media health information platform. American Journal of Infection Control, 45, 301-302.
66. Southwell B. G., Thorson E. A., (2015). The prevalence, consequence, and remedy of misinformation in mass media systems. Journal of Communication, 65, 589-595.
67. Starbird K., Maddock J., Orand M., Achterman P., Mason R. M., (2014). Rumors, false flags, and digital vigilantes: Misinformation on Twitter after the 2013 Boston marathon bombing. In iConference 2014 Proceedings (pp. 654-662). Retrieved from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/47257/308_ready.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
68. Stefanidis A., Vraga E., Lamprianidis G., Radzikowski J., Delamater P. L., Jacobsen K. H...Crooks A., (2017). Zika in Twitter: Temporal variations of locations, actors, and concepts. JMIR: Public Health Surveillance, 3(2), e22.
69. Thorson E., (2016). Belief echoes: The persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Communication, 33, 460-480.
70. Vraga E. K., Bode L., (2017). I do not believe you: How providing a source corrects health misperceptions across social media platforms. Information, Communication & Society. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2017.1313883
71. Vraga E. K., Thorson K., Kligler-Vilenchik N., Gee E., (2015). How individual sensitivities to disagreement shape youth political expression on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 281-289. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.025
72. Winter S., Bruckner C., Kramer N. C., (2015). They came, they liked, they commented: Social influence on Facebook news channels. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 431-436.
73. Winter S., Kramer N. C., (2016). Who’s right: The author or the audience? Effects of user comments and ratings on the perception of online science articles. Communications, 41, 339-360. doi:10.1515/commun-2016-0008.
74. Wood T., Porter E., (2016). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2819073
75. World Health Organization. (2016). Dispelling rumours around Zika and complications. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/emergencies/zika-virus/articles/rumours/en/
76. Worth K., (2016, February). As Brazil confronts Zika, vaccine rumors shape perceptions. Frontline. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/as-brazil-confronts-zika-vaccine-rumors-shape-perceptions/
77. Yeo S. K., Cacciatore M. A., Brossard D., Scheufele D. A., Xenos M. A., (2014, May). Twitter as the social media of choice for sharing science. Paper presented at the 13th International Public Communication of Science and Technology conference, Salvador, Brazil.