The differential effects of a governmental debunking campaign concerning COVID-19 vaccination misinformation

References

• Cinelli M, Quattrociocchi W, Galeazzi A, Valensise CM, Brugnoli E, Schmidt AL, et al. The COVID-19 social media infodemic. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. An ad hoc WHO technical consultation managing the COVID-19 infodemic: call for action. 7–8 April 2020. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020; 2020. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240010314.
   Google Scholar
• Bonnevie E, Gallegos-Jeffrey A, Goldbarg J, Byrd B, Smyser J. Quantifying the rise of vaccine opposition on twitter during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Commun Healthc. 2021;14(1):12–19. doi:10.1080/17538068.2020.1858222.
   Google Scholar
• Puri N, Coomes EA, Haghbayan H, Gunaratne K. Social media and vaccine hesitancy: new updates for the era of COVID-19 and globalized infectious diseases. Hum Vaccines Immunother. 2020;16(11):2586–2593. doi:10.1080/21645515.2020.1780846.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror AA, Eisenbach N, Taiber S, Morozov NG, Mizrachi M, Zigron A, et al. Vaccine hesitancy: the next challenge in the fight against COVID-19. Eur J Epidemiol. 2020;35(8):775–779. doi:10.1007/s10654-020-00671-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Islam MS, Sarkar T, Khan SH, Mostofa Kamal A-H, Hasan SMM, Kabir A, et al. COVID-19-related infodemic and its impact on public health: a global social media analysis. ASTMH. 2020;103(4):1621–1629. doi:10.4269/ajtmh.20-0812.
   Google Scholar
• Brennen JS, Simon FM, Howard PN, Nielsen RK. (2020). Types, sources, and claims of COVID-19 misinformation. PrimaOnline. http://www.primaonline.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/COVID-19_reuters.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Chan M-PS, Jones CR, Hall Jamieson K, Albarracín D. Debunking: a meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychol Sci. 2017;28(11):1531–1546. doi:10.1177/0956797617714579.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky S, Cook J, Lombardi D. (2020). Debunking handbook 2020. Databrary. [Cited 2021 April 30]. doi:10.17910/b7.1182.
   Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky S, Cook J, Schmid P, Holford DL, Finn A, Leask J, et al. (2021). The COVID-19 vaccine communication handbook. A practical guide for improving vaccine communication and fighting misinformation. SciBeh. Available from: https://sks.to/c19vax.
   Google Scholar
• Walter N, Murphy ST. How to unring the bell: a meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation. Commun Monogr. 2018;85(3):423–441. doi:10.1080/03637751.2018.1467564.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swire-Thompson B, DeGutis J, Lazer D. Searching for the backfire effect: measurement and design considerations. JARMAC. 2020;9(3):286–299. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.06.006.
   Google Scholar
• MacFarlane D, Tay LQ, Hurlstone MJ, Ecker UKH. Refuting spurious COVID-19 treatment claims reduces demand and misinformation sharing. JARMAC. 2020;Advance online publication, doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.12.005.
   Google Scholar
• Haglin K. The limitations of the backfire effect. Res Polit. 2017;4(3):205316801771654. doi:10.1177/2053168017716547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyhan B, Reifler J, Richey S, Freed GL. Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial. Pediatrics. 2014;133(4):e835–e842. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-2365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyhan B, Porter E, Reifler J, Wood TJ. Taking fact-checks literally but not seriously? The effects of journalistic fact-checking on factual beliefs and candidate favorability. Political Behav. 2020;42(3):939–960. doi:10.1007/s11109-019-09528-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyhan B, Reifler J. Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine. 2015;33(3):459–464. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.11.017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swire B, Berinsky AJ, Lewandowsky S, Ecker UKH. Processing political misinformation: comprehending the trump phenomenon. R Soc Open Sci. 2017;4(3):160802. doi:10.1098/rsos.160802.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter E, Velez Y, Wood T. (2021). Factual corrections eliminate false beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines. http://nypoliticalpsychology.site44.com/velez.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky S, Ecker UKH, Seifert CM, Schwarz N, Cook J. Misinformation and its correction: continued Influence and successful debiasing. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2012;13(3):106–131. doi:10.1177/1529100612451018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunda Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol Bull. 1990;108(3):480–498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taber CS, Lodge M. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Am J Pol Sci. 2006;50(3):755–769. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells C, Reedy J, Gastil J, Lee C. Information distortion and voting choices: the origins and effects of factual beliefs in initiative elections. Polit Psychol. 2009;30(6):953–969. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00735.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ecker UKH, Ang LC. Political attitudes and the processing of misinformation corrections. Polit Psychol. 2019;40(2):241–260. doi:10.1111/pops.12494.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pluviano S, Watt C, Della Sala S. Misinformation lingers in memory: failure of three pro-vaccination strategies. PloS One. 2017;12(7):e0181640. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181640.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pluviano S, Watt C, Ragazzini G, Della Sala S. Parents’ beliefs in misinformation about vaccines are strengthened by pro-vaccine campaigns. Cogn Process. 2019;20(3):325–331. doi:10.1007/s10339-019-00919-w.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang R, Lagakos SW, Ware JH, Hunter DJ, Drazen JM. Statistics in medicine–reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. NEJM. 2007;357(21):2189–2194. doi:10.1056/NEJMsr077003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood T, Porter E. The elusive backfire effect: mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Polit Behav. 2019;41(1):135–163. doi:10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmid P, Betsch C. Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions. Nat Hum Behav. 2019;3(9):931–939. doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0632-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peter C, Koch T. When debunking scientific myths fails (and when it does not). Sci Commun. 2016;38(1):3–25. doi:10.1177/1075547015613523.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herrmann C. (2021, April 21). Vakzin-Skepsis und Kulturkämpfe: Die USA rennen in eine Impfwand. N-Tv NACHRICHTEN. Available from: https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Die-USA-rennen-in-eine-Impfwand-article22504693.html?utm_source = pocket-newtab-global-de-DE.
   Google Scholar
• Uscinski JE, Enders AM, Klofstad C, Seelig M, Funchion J, Everett C, et al. Why do people believe COVID-19 conspiracy theories? HKS Misinformation Review. 2020; Advance online publication, doi:10.37016/mr-2020-015.
   Google Scholar
• Jones S, Chazan G. (2021, November 11). ‘Nein Danke’: the resistance to Covid-19 vaccines in German-speaking Europe. Financial Times. Available from: https://www.ft.com/content/f04ac67b-92e4-4bab-8c23-817cc0483df5.
   Google Scholar
• Hart PS, Nisbet EC. Boomerang effects in science communication. Communic Res. 2012;39(6):701–723. doi:10.1177/0093650211416646.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trevors GJ, Muis KR, Pekrun R, Sinatra GM, Winne PH. Identity and epistemic emotions during knowledge revision: a potential Account for the Backfire effect. Discourse Process. 2016;53(5-6):339–370. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2015.1136507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vraga EK, Bode L. Defining misinformation and understanding its bounded nature: using expertise and evidence for describing misinformation. Political Commun. 2020;37(1):136–144. doi:10.1080/10584609.2020.1716500.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• German Ministry of Health. (2021, February 1). Corona-Impfung: Mythen und Desinformation. https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/corona-informationen-impfung/mythen-impfstoff-1831898.
   Google Scholar
• Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leiner DJ. Too fast, too straight, too weird: non-reactive indicators for meaningless data in internet surveys. Surv Res Methods. 2019;13(3). doi:10.18148/srm/2019.v13i3.7403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of North Rhine-Westphalia. (2021, March 30). Corona-Schutzimpfung. Das Landesportal Wir in NRW. https://www.land.nrw/de/corona/impfung.
   Google Scholar
• Hainmueller J, Mummolo J, Xu Y. How much should we trust estimates from multiplicative interaction models? Simple tools to improve empirical practice. Political Anal. 2019;27(2):163–192. doi:10.1017/pan.2018.46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Betsch C, Schmid P, Heinemeier D, Korn L, Holtmann C, Böhm R. Beyond confidence: development of a measure assessing the 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination. PloS One. 2018;13(12):e0208601. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0208601.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walter N, Tukachinsky R. 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? Commun Res. 2020;47(2):155–177. doi:10.1177/0093650219854600.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertin P, Nera K, Delouvée S. (2020). Conspiracy beliefs, rejection of vaccination, and support for hydroxychloroquine: a conceptual replication-extension in the COVID-19 pandemic context. PsyArXiv. doi:10.31234/osf.io/rz78k.
   Google Scholar
• Brehm SS, Brehm JW. Psychological reactance: a theory of freedom and control. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1981.
   Google Scholar
• Drążkowski D, Trepanowski R. (2021). Reactance and perceived severity of a disease as the determinants of COVID-19 vaccination intention: An application of the theory of planned behavior. https://psyarxiv.com/sghmf/.
   Google Scholar
• Kim H, Seo Y, Yoon HJ, Han JY, Ko Y. The effects of user comment valence of Facebook health messages on intention to receive the flu vaccine: the role of pre-existing attitude towards the flu vaccine and psychological reactance. International Journal of Advertising. 2021: 1–22. doi:10.1080/02650487.2020.1863065.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staunton TV, Alvaro EM, Rosenberg BD. A case for directives: strategies for enhancing clarity while mitigating reactance. Curr Psychol. 2020: 1–11. doi:10.1007/s12144-019-00588-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reyna VF. A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy trace theory. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(6):850–865. doi:10.1177/0272989X08327066.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larson HJ, Broniatowski DA. Why debunking misinformation is not enough to change people's minds about vaccines. Am J Public Health. 2021;111(6):1058–1060. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2021.306293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. (2021a, January 29). WHO launches pilot of AI-powered public-access social listening tool. https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-launches-pilot-of-ai-powered-public-access-social-listening-tool.
   Google Scholar
• WHO. (2021b, November 23). Let’s flatten the infodemic curve. https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/let-s-flatten-the-infodemic-curve.
   Google Scholar
• Okan O, Bollweg TM, Berens EM, Hurrelmann K, Bauer U, Schaeffer D. Coronavirus-related health literacy: A cross-sectional study in adults during the COVID-19 infodemic in Germany. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(15):5503.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wertgen AG, Richter T, Rouet JF. The role of source credibility in the validation of information depends on the degree of (Im-) plausibility. Discourse Process. 2021;58(5-6):513–528.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landesanstalt für Medien NRW. (2017). Forsa Umfrage: Ergebnisbericht Fake News. Medienanstalt NRW. https://www.medienanstalt-nrw.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Ergebnisbericht_Fake_News.pdf.
   Google Scholar