Abstract / Description of output
Designing effective communication strategies for correcting vaccines misinformation requires an understanding of how the target group might react to information from different sources. The present study examined whether erroneous inferences about vaccination could be effectively corrected by a perceived credible (i.e. expert or trustworthy) source. Two experiments are reported using a standard continued influence paradigm, each featuring two correction conditions on vaccine misinformation. Participants were presented with a story containing a piece of information that was later retracted by a perceived credible or not so credible source. Experiment 1 showed that providing a correction reduced participants’ use of the original erroneous information, yet the overall reliance on misinformation did not significantly differ between the low- and high-expertise correction groups. Experiment 2 revealed that a correction from a high-trustworthy source decreased participants’ reliance on misinformation when making inferences; nonetheless, it did not positively affect the reported intent to vaccinate one’s child. Overall, source trustworthiness was more relevant than source expertise.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 321-330 |
Journal | Cognitive Processing |
Volume | 21 |
Early online date | 24 Apr 2020 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 24 Apr 2020 |
Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)
- vaccine misinformation
- sources credibility
- vaccination intent
- belief updating