Dataset Information

Collateral damage from debunking mRNA vaccine misinformation.

ABSTRACT: Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the scientific community has been understandably eager to combat misinformation about issues such as vaccine safety. In highly polarized information environments, however, even well-intentioned messages have the potential to produce adverse effects. In this study, we connect different disciplinary strands of social science to derive and experimentally test the novel hypothesis that although particular efforts to debunk misinformation about mRNA vaccines will reduce relevant misperceptions about that technology, these correctives will harm attitudes toward other types of vaccines. We refer to this as the "collateral damage hypothesis." Our study specifically examines a corrective message stating that "mRNA vaccines do not contain live virus," and our results offer some support for our hypothesis, with the corrective triggering increased societal risk perceptions of live vaccines. We also find that the effect is, predictably, most evident among those whose vaccine acceptance is low. Building on the theoretical grounding we outline, we test a "damage control" adjustment to the corrective message and present evidence supporting that it mitigates the collateral damage.

SUBMITTER: Krause NM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9858741 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Collateral damage from debunking mRNA vaccine misinformation.

Krause Nicole M NM Beets Becca B Howell Emily L EL Tosteson Helen H Scheufele Dietram A DA

Vaccine 20230101 4

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the scientific community has been understandably eager to combat misinformation about issues such as vaccine safety. In highly polarized information environments, however, even well-intentioned messages have the potential to produce adverse effects. In this study, we connect different disciplinary strands of social science to derive and experimentally test the novel hypothesis that although particular efforts to debunk misinformation about mRNA vaccines will reduce re ...[more]

PMID: 36682880

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAs several COVID-19 vaccines are rolled-out globally, it has become important to develop an effective strategy for vaccine acceptance, especially in high-risk groups, such as elderly. Vaccine misconception was declared by WHO as one of the top 10 health issues in 2019. Here we test the effectiveness of applying debunking to combat vaccine misinformation, and reduce vaccine hesitancy.MethodsParticipants were recruited via a daily news show on Dutch Television, targeted to elderly viewers. The study was conducted in 980 elderly citizens during the October 2020 National Influenza Vaccination Campaign. Borrowing from the recent literature in behavioural science and psychology we conducted a two-arm randomized blinded parallel study, in which participants were allocated to exposure to a video containing social norms, vaccine information plus debunking of vaccination myths (intervention group, n = 505) or a video only containing vaccine information plus social norm (control group, n = 475). Participants who viewed either of the video's and completed both a pre- and post-intervention survey on vaccination trust and knowledge, were included in the analysis. The main outcomes of this study were improvement on vaccine knowledge and awareness.FindingsParticipants were recruited from the 13th of October 2020 till the 16th of October 2020 and could immediately participate in the pre-intervention survey. Subsequently, eligible participants were randomly assigned to an interventional video and the follow-up survey, distributed through email on the 18th of October 2020, and available for participation till the 24th of October 2020. We found that exposure to the video with addition of debunking strategies on top of social norm modelling and information resulted in substantially stronger rejection of vaccination misconceptions, including the belief that: (1) vaccinations can cause Autism Spectrum Disorders; (2) vaccinations weaken the immune system; (3) influenza vaccination would hamper the COVID-19 vaccine efficacy. Additionally, we observed that exposure to debunking in the intervention resulted in enhanced trust in government.InterpretationUtilizing debunking in media campaigns on top of vaccine information and social norm modeling is an effective means to combat misinformation and distrust associated with vaccination in elderly, and could help maximize grounds for the acceptance of vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccines.FundingDutch Influenza Foundation.

Project description:BackgroundThe spread of false and misleading health information on social media can cause individual and social harm. Research on debunking has shown that properly designed corrections can mitigate the impact of misinformation, but little is known about the impact of correction in the context of prolonged social media debates. For example, when a social media user takes to Facebook to make a false claim about a health-related practice and a health expert subsequently refutes the claim, the conversation rarely ends there. Often, the social media user proceeds by rebuking the critic and doubling down on the claim.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to examine the impact of such extended back and forth between false claims and debunking attempts on observers' dispositions toward behavior that science favors. We tested competing predictions about the effect of extended exposure on people's attitudes and intentions toward masking in public during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic and explored several psychological processes potentially underlying this effect.MethodsA total of 500 US residents took part in an online experiment in October 2020. They reported on their attitudes and intentions toward wearing masks in public. They were then randomly assigned to one of four social media exposure conditions (misinformation only vs misinformation+correction vs misinformation+correction+rebuke vs misinformation+correction+rebuke+second correction), and reported their attitudes and intentions for a second time. They also indicated whether they would consider sharing the thread if they were to see it on social media and answered questions on potential mediators and covariates.ResultsExposure to misinformation had a negative impact on attitudes and intentions toward masking (β=-.35, 95% CI -.42 to -.29; P<.001). Moreover, initial debunking of a false claim generally improved attitudes and intentions toward masking (β=.35, 95% CI .16 to .54; P<.001). However, this improvement was washed out by further exposure to false claims and debunking attempts (β=-.53, 95% CI -.72 to -.34; P<.001). The latter result is partially explained by a decrease in the perceived objectivity of truth. That is, extended exposure to false claims and debunking attempts appear to weaken the belief that there is an objectively correct answer to how people ought to behave in this situation, which in turn leads to less positive reactions toward masking as the prescribed behavior.ConclusionsHealth professionals and science advocates face an underappreciated challenge in attempting to debunk misinformation on social media. Although engaging in extended debates with science deniers and other purveyors of bunk appears necessary, more research is needed to address the unintended consequences of such engagement.

Project description:To search whether or not the severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccine affects the fertility of women at the 6th months by using AMH, which is an ovarian reserve test. Our study, designed as a prospective case-control study, included 104 women who presented to the GOP EAH obstetrics and gynecology outpatient clinic in January and February 2022. The study group included 74 women who presented to the outpatient clinic and planned to be vaccinated and 30 women who refused to be vaccinated as the control group. Anti-COVID-19 antibody levels in all participants were checked before participation in the study, and participants who were positive were excluded from the study. Blood was taken from the participants in both control and study groups to evaluate their AMH levels before the 2 doses of vaccination. After 2 doses of the vaccine, they were called for follow-up, and serological tests were performed to check whether they were positive for anti-COVID-19 antibodies. Participants in both groups were referred for follow-up after 6 months, samples were taken again for AMH, and the data were recorded. The mean age of the study group was 27.6 ± 5.3 years, and the mean age of the control group was 28.65 ± 5.25 years (P = .298). There was no statistically significant difference between the vaccinated and nonvaccinated groups in terms of AMH levels measured at the 6th month (P = .970). When the vaccinated group was compared in terms of AMH values at the first visit before vaccination and at the 6th month after vaccination, no statistically significant difference was found between them (p:0.127) mRNA vaccination to protect against SARS-CoV-2 does not adversely affect ovarian reserve, which is an indirect indicator of fertility. mRNA vaccines continue to be the most important method of protection against epidemics. Carefully and accurately informing women who are hesitant to get vaccinated is of great importance for the success of the fight against the epidemic.

Dataset Information

Collateral damage from debunking mRNA vaccine misinformation.

Publications

Collateral damage from debunking mRNA vaccine misinformation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets