Why do people believe health misinformation and who is at risk? A systematic review of individual differences in susceptibility to health misinformation

Nan, Xiaoli; Wang, Yuan; Thier, Kathryn

doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115398

Cited by 84 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 102 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conversely, the lowest nutrition-health misinformation scores were found in respondents who more frequently relied on advice from their own medical doctors, nutrition scientists, PhDs and academics, and nutrition professionals for making dietary changes. This corresponds with other research that highlights that higher trust in medical and health professionals and scientists is associated with a lower susceptibility to COVID-19 misinformation [ 136 , 147 , 148 , 149 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…held more misinformed views across all 25 statements ( Figure 2 ). Aside from these sources being commonly held responsible for spreading misinformation and for amplified misinformation vulnerability [ 1 , 15 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 ], personal factors such as lower levels of health literacy cannot be discounted [ 142 , 143 ]. Research has indicated that individuals with health literacy deficiencies are more prone to use non-scientific sources such as television, social media, blogs, or celebrity webpages [ 144 , 145 ] and more susceptible to health misinformation [ 136 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A major concern is how misinformation may detrimentally affect personal decisions related to health, food, and diet, potentially leading to adverse outcomes [ 136 ]. The greater influence on eating behavior change from poorer quality sources amongst the most misinformed participants (i.e., those participants who also held more nutrition-health misinformation) suggests disparities in the health risks and safety of the changes performed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Susceptibility to COVID-19 Nutrition Misinformation and Eating Behavior Change during Lockdowns: An International Web-Based Survey

Ruani

Reiß

2023

Nutrients

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To understand the susceptibility to nutrition-health misinformation related to preventing, treating, or mitigating the risk of COVID-19 during the initial lockdowns around the world, the present international web-based survey study (15 April–15 May 2020) gauged participants’ (n = 3707) level of nutrition-health misinformation discernment by presenting them with 25 statements (including unfounded or unproven claims circulated at the time), alongside the influence of information sources of varying quality on the frequency of changes in their eating behavior and the extent of misinformation held, depending on the source used for such changes. Results revealed widespread misinformation about food, eating, and health practices related to COVID-19, with the 25 statements put to participants receiving up to 43% misinformed answers (e.g., ‘It is safe to eat fruits and vegetables that have been washed with soap or diluted bleach’). Whereas higher quality information sources (nutrition scientists, nutrition professionals) had the biggest influence on eating behavior change, we found greater misinformation susceptibility when relying on poor quality sources for changing diet. Appropriate discernment of misinformation was weakest amongst participants who more frequently changed their eating behavior because of information from poor quality sources, suggesting disparities in the health risks/safety of the changes performed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Susceptibility to COVID-19 Nutrition Misinformation and Eating Behavior Change during Lockdowns: An International Web-Based Survey

Ruani

Reiß

2023

Nutrients

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, our findings highlight the critical role of trust in scientists in impacting people's support for COVID-19 vaccination mandates. Scientists and institutions should prioritize maintaining the integrity of the scientific community and elevating the public's trust in scientists [Nan, Wang & Thier, 2022]. In addition, scientists can work with science journalists to interpret facts and scientific findings for the general public in a timely manner [Brüggemann, Lörcher & Walter, 2020].…”

Section: Implications For Science Communication and Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Support for COVID-19 mandatory vaccination in the United States: examining the role of cultural worldviews, risk-benefit perceptions, and trust in scientists

Wang¹,

Leach²,

Kim³

et al. 2023

Journal of Science Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study sets out to understand the role of cultural worldviews, risk perceptions, and trust in scientists in impacting U.S. participants' support for COVID-19 mandatory vaccination. Results from an online survey (“N” = 594) suggest that stronger individualistic and hierarchical worldviews are associated with more perceived COVID-19 vaccination risks, less perceived COVID-19 vaccination benefits, and lower support for COVID-19 mandatory vaccination. Perceived benefits mediate the impact of cultural worldviews on support for COVID-19 mandatory vaccination. Trust in scientists moderates the relationship between cultural worldviews and perceived benefits of COVID-19 vaccination. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

show abstract

“…In the context of the illusory truth effect, it has been found that the effects of repeated exposure to misinformation on perceptions of accuracy disappeared when the receiver knew the actual truth and that people were more likely to believe misinformation when they were unfamiliar with the issue at hand (18). Other studies have shown that knowledge is key to buffering against misinformation exposure (39)(40)(41).…”

Section: Misinformation and Online Mental Health Communitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Buffering Against Exposure to Mental Health Misinformation in Online Communities: The Interplay of Depression Literacy and Expert Moderation

Bizzotto

Bruijn

Schulz

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The proliferation of health misinformation on social media is a growing public health concern. Online communities for mental health (OCMHs) are also considered an outlet for exposure to misinformation. This study explored the impact of the self-reported volume of exposure to mental health misinformation in misinformation agreement and the moderating effects of Depression literacy and Type of OCMHs participation (expert vs. peer-led). Methods Participants (n = 403) were recruited in Italian-speaking OCMHs on Facebook. We conducted regression analyses using PROCESS macro (moderated moderation, Model 3). Measures included: the Depression Literacy Questionnaire (Griffiths et al., 2004), the Self-reported Misinformation Exposure in the OCMHs (3 items), and Misinformation Agreement with the exposure items (3 items). Whether participants were members of expert or peer-led OCMHs was also investigated. Results The final model explained the 12% variance in the Agreement. There was a positive and significant relationship between Misinformation Exposure and Misinformation Agreement (β = .3221, p < 0.001), a significant two-way interaction between Misinformation Exposure and Depression Literacy (β = -.2179, p < 0.01), and between Self-reported Misinformation Exposure and type of OCMH (β = -.2322, p < 0.05), such that at higher levels of Depression Literacy and in case of participation to in expert-led OCMHs, the relationship Misinformation Exposure-Misinformation Agreement was weaker. Finally, a three-way interaction was found (β =.2497, p < 0.05) that showed that Depression Literacy moderated the positive relationship between Misinformation Exposure and Misinformation Agreement such that the more misinformation participants were exposed to, the more they agreed with it unless they had higher levels of Depression Literacy; this, however, occurred only if they participated in peer-led groups. Conclusions Results provide evidence that the more members reported being exposed to mental health misinformation, the more they tended to agree with it, however this was only visible when participants had lower depression literacy and were participating in peer-led OMCH. Results of this study suggest that both internal factors (i.e., high depression literacy) and external factors (the type of online community individuals were participating to) can buffer about the negative effects of misinformation exposure. It also suggests that increasing depression literacy and expert community moderation could curb the negative consequences of misinformation exposure related to mental health. Results will guide interventions to mitigate the effects of misinformation in OCMHs, including encouraging health professionals in their administration and implementing health education programs.

show abstract

Why do people believe health misinformation and who is at risk? A systematic review of individual differences in susceptibility to health misinformation

Cited by 84 publications

References 102 publications

Susceptibility to COVID-19 Nutrition Misinformation and Eating Behavior Change during Lockdowns: An International Web-Based Survey

Susceptibility to COVID-19 Nutrition Misinformation and Eating Behavior Change during Lockdowns: An International Web-Based Survey

Support for COVID-19 mandatory vaccination in the United States: examining the role of cultural worldviews, risk-benefit perceptions, and trust in scientists

Buffering Against Exposure to Mental Health Misinformation in Online Communities: The Interplay of Depression Literacy and Expert Moderation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About