I do not believe you: how providing a source corrects health misperceptions across social media platforms

ABSTRACT

Social media are often criticized as serving as a source of misinformation, but in this study we examine how they may also function to correct misperceptions on an emerging health issue. We use an experimental design to consider social correction that occurs via peers, testing both the type of correction (i.e., whether a source is provided or not) and the platform on which the correction ocratcurs (i.e., Facebook versus Twitter). Our results suggest that a source is necessary to correct misperceptions about the causes of the Zika virus on both Facebook and Twitter, but the mechanism by which such correction occurs differs across platforms. Implications for successful social media campaigns to address health misinformation are addressed.

KEYWORDS:

• Misinformation
• Twitter
• Facebook
• social media
• health

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Emily K. Vraga (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin – Madison) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at George Mason University. Her research focuses on how individuals process news and information about contentious political, scientific, and health issues, particularly in response to disagreeable messages in digital media environments. She is interested in testing methods to limit biased processing and misinformation and to encourage attention to more diverse content online. [email: [email protected], or on Twitter at @ekvraga].

Leticia Bode (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin – Madison) is an assistant professor in the Communication, Culture, and Technology master’s program at Georgetown University. Her work lies at the intersection of communication, technology, and political behavior, emphasizing the role communication and information technologies may play in the acquisition and use of political information. She can be contacted via mail at 3520 Prospect St NW Suite 311, Washington DC 20057 [email: [email protected] or on Twitter at @leticiabode].

ORCID

Emily K. Vraga http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3016-3869

Notes

1 Three types of participants were excluded from this study. First, participants in several experimental conditions, which included a manipulation of unrelated responses to the misinformation and exposure to a Facebook algorithm for correction, were excluded from this study (N = 246). These conditions were not crossed with the experimental design examined here and are outside the scope of this study. Second, we exclude participants who do not pass an attention check (N = 93), which asked participants to select a specific answer to a question in the post-test to indicate they are paying attention. Finally, we included data only from the first time users participated in the survey to maintain internal validity (N = 43).

2 There is no main effect of platform on evaluations of the corrective responses, F(1, 185) = 1.65, p = .20.

3 Although the main effects of social correction without or a with a source compared to the control is reduced to insignificance, F(2, 101) = 1.61, p = .21, partial η²= .033, the similar effect size and pattern of results suggest it may result from a substantial reduction in power. Moreover, the interaction between platform and source remains significant for prediction evaluations of the social corrections, F(1, 71) = 6.18, p = .02, partial η²= .084.