Using Expert Sources to Correct Health Misinformation in Social Media. (October 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Vraga, Emily K.; Bode, Leticia
• Other Names: Davies Sarah R. guest-editor.; Hara Noriko guest-editor.
• Is Part Of: Science communication. Volume 39:Number 5(2017:Oct.)
• Page Start: 621
• Page End: 645
• Publication Date: 2017-10
• Subjects: misinformation -- social media -- health communication -- credibility -- CDC; Social sciences -- Periodicals; Knowledge, Sociology of -- Periodicals; Communication in science -- Periodicals; Communication of technical information -- Periodicals; Communication in medicine -- Periodicals; Information scientifique -- Périodiques; Information technique -- Périodiques; Communication en sciences sociales -- Périodiques; Communication en médecine -- Périodiques; 300.14
• DOI: 10.1177/1075547017731776
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1075-5470

Abstract

This study tests whether the number (1 vs. 2) and the source (another user vs. the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]) of corrective responses affect successful reduction of misperceptions. Using an experimental design, our results suggest that while a single correction from another user did not reduce misperceptions, the CDC on its own could correct misinformation. Corrections were more effective among those higher in initial misperceptions. Notably, organizational credibility was not reduced when correcting misinformation, making this a low-cost behavior for public health organizations. We recommend that expert organizations like the CDC immediately and personally rebut misinformation about health issues on social media.