Fighting the Infodemic on Two Fronts: Reducing False Beliefs Without Increasing Polarization

Abstract

Actors aiming to remedy the effects of health misinformation often issue corrections focused on individual outcomes (i.e., promoting individual health behaviors) rather than societal outcomes (i.e., reducing issue polarization). Yet, for highly politicized health crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, such interventions run the risk of exacerbating societal cleavages, driving those holding opposing views further apart from one another. Interventions yielding individual benefits but causing societal harm are certainly not ideal. But is the design of such dual-focus corrections even possible? We believe this to be the case. Here, we delineate an agenda for future research that should help social scientists in identifying the characteristics of corrections that might reduce false beliefs without increasing polarization.

Positive Attribute Framing Increases COVID-19 Booster Vaccine Intention for Unfamiliar Vaccines

“…Further experimental research is needed to test this theory, while considering alternative explanations, such as the role of potential backfire effects in persuasive or corrective messaging, which participants with low intent may have considered positive framing to be, particularly when the vaccine was familiar or more likely to be received. Such effects are known to impact attitudes surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic [45] and have been demonstrated to lower intentions for other vaccine types at high levels of concern [46]. However, when assessed in conjunction, current results highlight the fact that any intervention that strives to apply positive framing across all vaccine types, irrespective of familiarity, should be treated with caution.…”

Positive attribute framing increases COVID-19 booster vaccine intention for unfamiliar vaccines

“…Further experimental research is needed to test this theory, while considering alternative explanations, such as the role of potential backfire effects in persuasive or corrective messaging. Such effects are known to impact attitudes surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic 44 and have been demonstrated to lower intentions for other vaccine types at high levels of concern 45 . However, when assessed in conjunction, current results highlight the fact that any intervention that strives to apply positive framing across all vaccine types, irrespective of familiarity, should be treated with caution.…”

Promoting COVID-19 Vaccination: The Interplay of Message Framing, Psychological Uncertainty, and Public Agency as a Message Source

“…The theory posits that individuals tend to protect their freedom to choose (Brehm, 1966). By advocating a particular behavioral choice, persuasive messages may be perceived as a threat to freedom and elicit psychological reactance, typically in the form of counterarguing against the persuasive attempts and anger (Dan & Dixon, 2021;Dillard & Shen, 2005). Messages containing forceful language and threatening tones are especially likely to increase psychological reactance, which may significantly attenuate the effects of persuasive messages or even backfire.…”