“Masks do not work”: COVID-19 misperceptions and theory-driven corrective strategies on Facebook

Abstract

PurposeOne of the most prolific areas of misinformation research is examining corrective strategies in messaging. The main purposes of the current study are to examine the effects of (1) partisan media (2) credibility perceptions and emotional reactions and (3) theory driven corrective messages on people's misperceptions about COVID-19 mask wearing behaviors.Design/methodology/approachThe authors used a randomized experimental design to test the hypotheses. The data were collected via the survey firm Lucid. The number of participants was 485. The study was conducted using Qualtrics after the research project was exempt by the Institutional Research Board of a large University in the US. The authors conducted an online experiment with four conditions, narrative versus statistics and individual versus collective. The manipulation messages were constructed as screenshots from Facebook.FindingsThe findings of this study show that higher exposure to liberal media was associated with lower misperceptions, whereas higher credibility perceptions of and positive reactions toward the misinformation post and negative emotions toward the correction comment were associated with higher misperceptions. Moreover, the findings showed that participants in the narrative and collective-frame condition had the lowest misperceptions.Originality/valueThe authors tested theory driven misinformation corrective messages to understand the impact of these messages and multiple related variables on misperceptions about COVID-19 mask wearing. This study contributes to the existing misinformation correction literature by investigating the explanatory power of the two well-established media effects theories on misinformation correction messaging and by identifying essential individual characteristics that should be considered when evaluating how misperceptions about the COVID-19 crisis works and gets reduced.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-11-2021-0600

An Investigation of the Use of Theories in Misinformation Studies

“…Likewise, Park, Lee & Jeong (2022) adopted this theory in exploring how the Korean news has framed or attributed the causes of fine dust to internal and external factors. Also, Borah et al (2022) conducted an experiment guided by this theory to extend the impacts of correction messages from misperceptions to behavioral intentions and examine the conditional effects of reflection on information processing.…”

Debiasing misinformation: how do people diagnose health recommendations from AI?

“…Although several AI-based algorithms have been proposed (Epstein et al, 2021), algorithm-based misinformation detection remains unreliable. Such technologies are not yet fully mature, lack complete functionality and accuracy, and are still difficult to use, primarily because current detection methods only require the literal evaluation of text, the social network to which it belongs, and the specific domain to which such information is tied when verifying its credibility (Borah and Lorenzano, 2023). Although AI can determine the origin of sources and the pattern of health misinformation dissemination, how it assesses the actual meaning of the content in terms of veracity and credibility needs to be refined.…”

“…Because misinformation pollutes our information environment, it is detrimental to individuals and public health. The prevalence of health misinformation on social media has caused the emergence of an infodemic, increasing calls for research modeling users' engagement with misinformation and their perceptual and cognitive processes (Borah and Lorenzano, 2023) with a specific focus on whether and how misinformation can be corrected (Cheng and Chen, 2021). As a first step in addressing this issue, modeling the processes behind the spread of health misinformation has been of interest in understanding users' reasoning.…”

An experimental study of the effectiveness of fact checks: interplay of evidence type, veracity and news agreement

“…When reactance is aroused, people are motivated to restore lost freedom either by derogating the source of the threat (Rains, 2013) or by comprehending the threatened choice as more attractive (Brehm and Brehm, 1981). Further, Borah et al (2022) found that the arousal of negative emotions towards corrective messages could lead to higher levels of COVID-19 misperceptions. Since a more extreme verdict, "entirely false," indicates the original message is false to a larger degree, it is anticipated to stimulate more negative reactions than a less extreme verdict, "half false."…”