Search

In recent years, many kinds of interventions have been developed that seek to reduce susceptibility to misinformation. In two preregistered longitudinal studies (N1 = 503, N2 = 673), we leverage two previously validated "inoculation" interventions (a video and a game) to address two important questions in misinformation interventions research: (1) whether displaying additional stimuli (such as videos unrelated to misinformation) alongside an intervention interferes with its effectiveness, and (2) whether administering an immediate posttest (in the form of a social media post evaluation task after the intervention) plays a role in the longevity of the intervention. We find no evidence that other stimuli interfere with intervention efficacy, but strong evidence that immediate posttests strengthen the learnings from the intervention. In study 1, we find that 48 h after watching a video, participants who received an immediate posttest continued to be significantly better at discerning untrustworthy social media posts from neutral ones than the control group (d = 0.416, p =.007), whereas participants who only received a posttest 48 h later showed no differences with a control (d = 0.010, p =.854). In study 2, we observe highly similar results for a gamified intervention, and provide evidence for a causal mechanism: immediate posttests help strengthen people's memory of the lessons learned in the intervention. We argue that the active rehearsal and application of relevant information are therefore requirements for the longevity of learning‐based misinformation interventions, which has substantial implications for their scalability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health communicators are faced with the challenge that people can hesitate vaccines for different reasons. Our aim was to identify and describe the qualities of distinct COVID-19 and influenza vaccine-hesitancy subgroups to facilitate the development of tailored vaccine-hesitancy communication. In two studies, we used agglomerative hierarchical cluster analysis to identify COVID-19 (N = 554) and influenza (N = 539) vaccine-hesitancy subgroups in the general population based on nine vaccine hesitancy-related variables (intent to get vaccinated, perceived vaccine safety, perceived vaccine efficacy, perceived disease threat, perceived vaccination responsibility, perceived vaccination convenience, distrust in authorities, conspiracy mentality, and reliance on anecdotal testimonies). We identified and described six distinct COVID-19 vaccine-hesitancy subgroups (the Vaccination Positive, the Ambivalent, the Fearing Skeptic, the Unconvinced, the Constrained Skeptic, and the Vaccination Opponent), and three influenza vaccine-hesitancy subgroups (the Vaccination Positive, the Complacent, and the Vaccination Opponent), with different levels of hesitancy. We discuss the implications of the results for health communicators. Our results shed light on the (dis)similarities between people who hesitate COVID-19 and influenza vaccines and suggest that there is greater variety in hesitancy concerning COVID-19 vaccinations than influenza vaccinations. These findings can be used to design and test tailored vaccination messages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) can play an important role in encouraging patients and their caregivers to be vaccinated. The objective of this qualitative study was to investigate HCPs' perspectives on challenges in vaccine communication and unmet training needs in this domain. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 41 HCPs (mainly nurses and physicians) with vaccination roles (23 in England; 18 in France), gathering information on: (1) HCPs' approach to vaccine conversations with patients; (2) Challenges of communicating about vaccines; (3) Vaccine-related training and learning resources available to HCPs, and; (4) HCPs' training needs around vaccine communication. Results: HCPs described a range of communication experiences that indicated insufficient time, information, and skills to confidently navigate difficult conversations with vaccine-hesitant patients. Communication skills were especially important to avoid conflict that could potentially damage the patient-provider relationship. Some HCPs interviewed had received communication training, but for most, this training was not specific to vaccination. Although general communication skills were transferable to vaccine conversations, most HCPs welcomed specific training and informational resources to support countering patients' misconceptions or misinformation about vaccines. Conclusions: HCPs would benefit from training tailored to address vaccine communication with patients, and this should be part of a systemic approach that also provides time and space to have effective vaccine conversations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People's negative attitudes to vaccines can be motivated by psychological factors—such as fears, ideological beliefs, and cognitive patterns—known as 'attitude roots'. This study had two primary objectives: (1) to identify which of 11 known attitude roots are featured in individuals' self-expressed reasons for negative vaccine attitudes (i.e., a linguistic analysis); (2) to explore how attitude roots present in self-expressed texts are linked to specific psychological measures. To achieve Objective 1, our study collected data from December 2022 to January 2023 from 556 participants from the US, who wrote texts to explain the reasons for their negative vaccine attitudes. The texts encompassed 2327 conceptually independent units of anti-vaccination argumentation, that were each coded for its attitude root(s) by at least two psychological experts. By allowing participants to spontaneously express their attitudes in their own words, we were able to observe how this differed from what participants reported to endorse when presented with a list of arguments. We found that there were four groups of attitude roots based on linguistic similarity in self-expression. In addition, latent class analysis of participants' coded texts identified three distinct groups of participants that were characterised by their tendency to express combinations of arguments related to (1) fears, (2) anti-scientific conceptions, and (3) politicised perspectives. To achieve Objective 2, we collected participants' responses to 11 validated measures of psychological constructs expected to underlie the respective 11 attitude roots, and used a correlational design to investigate how participants' self-expressed attitude roots were linked to these measures. Logistic regressions showed that an expected psychological construct was the strongest, and significant, predictor for expression of three out of the four attitude root groups. We discuss the implications of these findings for health communicators and practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anti‐science attitudes can be resilient to scientific evidence if they are rooted in psychological motives. One such motive is trait reactance, which refers to the need to react with opposition when one's freedom of choice has been threatened. In three studies, we investigated trait reactance as a psychological motivation to reject vaccination. In the longitudinal studies (n = 199; 293), we examined if trait reactance measured before the COVID‐19 pandemic was related to people's willingness to get vaccinated against COVID‐19 up to 2 years later during the pandemic. In the experimental study (n = 398), we tested whether trait reactance makes anti‐vaccination attitudes more resistant to information and whether this resistance can be mitigated by framing the information to minimize the risk of triggering state reactance. The longitudinal studies showed that higher trait reactance before the COVID‐19 pandemic was related to lower willingness to get vaccinated against COVID‐19. Our experimental study indicated that highly reactant individuals' willingness to vaccinate was unaffected by the amount and framing of the information provided. Trait reactance has a strong and durable impact on vaccination willingness. This highlights the importance of considering the role of trait reactance in people's vaccination‐related decision‐making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Political misinformation poses a major threat to democracies worldwide, often inciting intense disputes between opposing political groups. Despite its central role for informed electorates and political decision making, little is known about how aware people are of whether they are right or wrong when distinguishing accurate political information from falsehood. Here, we investigate people's metacognitive insight into their own ability to detect political misinformation. We use data from a unique longitudinal study spanning 12 waves over 6 months that surveyed a representative U.S. sample (N = 1,191) on the most widely circulating political (mis)information online. Harnessing signal detection theory methods to model metacognition, we found that people from both the political left and the political right were aware of how well they distinguished accurate political information from falsehood across all news. However, this metacognitive insight was considerably lower for Republicans and conservatives—than for Democrats and liberals—when the information in question challenged their ideological commitments. That is, given their level of knowledge, Republicans' and conservatives' confidence was less likely to reflect the correctness of their truth judgments for true and false political statements that were at odds with their political views. These results reveal the intricate and systematic ways in which political preferences are linked to the accuracy with which people assess their own truth discernment. More broadly, by identifying a specific political asymmetry—for discordant relative to concordant news—our findings highlight the role of metacognition in perpetuating and exacerbating ideological divides. Public Significance Statement: This preregistered study suggests that people from both the political left and the political right are aware of how well they distinguish accurate political information from falsehood across all news. However, this metacognitive insight was considerably lower for Republicans and conservatives—than for Democrats and liberals—when they faced statements that challenged their ideological commitments. People's awareness of the accuracy and fallibility of their own knowledge thus partly differs across ideological divides, which may fuel broader societal trends such as political polarization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research has found that vaccine-promoting messages can elicit state reactance (i.e., negative emotions in response to a perceived threat to behavioral freedom), especially among individuals with high trait reactance (i.e., proneness to experiencing reactance). This can result in a lower willingness to accept vaccines. We investigated whether inoculation against reactance - that is, forewarning individuals about potentially experiencing reactance - can reduce the effects of trait reactance on vaccination willingness. Participants ( N  = 710) recruited through Facebook were randomly allocated to be either inoculated or not. They were then shown a message promoting a fictitious vaccine, which included either a low, medium, or high threat to freedom. Contrary to research on other health topics, inoculation was ineffective at reducing state reactance toward the vaccination message. Inoculation also did not mitigate the effects of trait reactance on vaccination willingness, and was even counterproductive in some cases. High-reactant individuals were less willing to get vaccinated than low-reactant ones, especially at high freedom threat. Conversely, high freedom threat resulted in increased vaccination willingness among low-reactant individuals. Further research is needed to understand why inoculation against reactance produces different results with vaccination, and to develop communication strategies that mitigate reactance to vaccination campaigns without compromising the positive effects of vaccine recommendations for low-reactant individuals.

The increasing availability of microtargeted advertising and the accessibility of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT, have raised concerns about the potential misuse of large language models in scaling microtargeting efforts for political purposes. Recent technological advancements, involving generative AI and personality inference from consumed text, can potentially create a highly scalable "manipulation machine" that targets individuals based on their unique vulnerabilities without requiring human input. This paper presents four studies examining the effectiveness of this putative "manipulation machine." The results demonstrate that personalized political ads tailored to individuals' personalities are more effective than nonpersonalized ads (studies 1a and 1b). Additionally, we showcase the feasibility of automatically generating and validating these personalized ads on a large scale (studies 2a and 2b). These findings highlight the potential risks of utilizing AI and microtargeting to craft political messages that resonate with individuals based on their personality traits. This should be an area of concern to ethicists and policy makers., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of National Academy of Sciences.)