Measuring the effects of misinformation exposure and beliefs on behavioural intentions: a COVID-19 vaccination study.

Constance de Saint Laurent, Gillian Murphy, Karen Hegarty, Ciara M Greene
Author Information
  1. Constance de Saint Laurent: School of Psychology, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
  2. Gillian Murphy: School of Applied Psychology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
  3. Karen Hegarty: School of Psychology, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
  4. Ciara M Greene: School of Psychology, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. ciara.greene@ucd.ie. ORCID

Abstract

Misinformation has been a pressing issue since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, threatening our ability to effectively act on the crisis. Nevertheless, little is known about the actual effects of fake news on behavioural intentions. Does exposure to or belief in misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines affect people's intentions to receive such a vaccine? This paper attempts to address this question via three preregistered experiments (N���=���3463). In Study 1, participants (n���=���1269) were exposed to fabricated pro- or anti-vaccine information or to neutral true information, and then asked about their intentions to get vaccinated. In Study 2, participants (n���=���646) were exposed to true pro- and anti-vaccine information, while Study 3 (n���=���1548) experimentally manipulated beliefs in novel misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines by increasing exposure to the information. The results of these three studies showed that exposure to false information about the vaccines had little effect on participants' intentions to get vaccinated, even when multiple exposures led them to believe the headlines to be more accurate. An exploratory meta-analysis of studies 1 and 3, with a combined sample size of 2683, showed that exposure to false information both supporting and opposing COVID-19 vaccines actually increased vaccination intentions, though the effect size was very small. We conclude by cautioning researchers against equating exposure to misinformation or perceived accuracy of false news with actual behaviours.

Keywords

References

  1. Transl Behav Med. 2020 Oct 8;10(4):850-856 [PMID: 32910819]
  2. Psychol Bull. 2015 Nov;141(6):1178-204 [PMID: 26501228]
  3. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2022 Jul;13(4):e1602 [PMID: 35599587]
  4. Annu Rev Psychol. 2018 Jan 4;69:299-327 [PMID: 28841390]
  5. Health Psychol Rev. 2016 Jun;10(2):148-67 [PMID: 25089611]
  6. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2018 Dec;147(12):1865-1880 [PMID: 30247057]
  7. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2022 Oct 04;: [PMID: 36250192]
  8. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2018 Mar;24(1):81-91 [PMID: 29595305]
  9. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2020 Feb;46(2):204-215 [PMID: 31179863]
  10. Psychol Sci. 2021 Jul;32(7):1169-1178 [PMID: 34114521]
  11. Annu Rev Psychol. 2000;51:539-70 [PMID: 10751980]
  12. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010 Jun;98(6):886-903 [PMID: 20515245]
  13. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2021 Mar-Apr;35(2):486-496 [PMID: 33362344]
  14. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2020 Dec 4;5(1):63 [PMID: 33275199]
  15. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2021 Dec;27(4):773-784 [PMID: 34110860]
  16. Sci Commun. 2020 Oct;42(5):586-615 [PMID: 38603002]
  17. Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Mar;5(3):337-348 [PMID: 33547453]
  18. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Nov 9;22(11):e21582 [PMID: 33164907]
  19. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Jul 7;117(27):15536-15545 [PMID: 32571950]
  20. Health Commun. 2021 Jan;36(1):6-14 [PMID: 33225745]
  21. BMJ Open. 2021 Aug 2;11(8):e048025 [PMID: 34341047]
  22. Psychol Sci. 2020 Jul;31(7):770-780 [PMID: 32603243]
  23. Patient Educ Couns. 2005 May;57(2):190-8 [PMID: 15911192]
  24. Annu Rev Psychol. 2006;57:345-74 [PMID: 16318599]
  25. R Soc Open Sci. 2020 Oct 14;7(10):201199 [PMID: 33204475]
  26. Science. 2018 Mar 9;359(6380):1146-1151 [PMID: 29590045]
  27. Psychiatry Res. 2020 Dec;294:113540 [PMID: 33142144]
  28. Science. 2019 Jan 25;363(6425):374-378 [PMID: 30679368]
  29. Implement Sci. 2011 Sep 29;6:111 [PMID: 21958556]
  30. Front Psychol. 2020 Sep 18;11:565128 [PMID: 33071892]
  31. PLoS One. 2014 Feb 20;9(2):e89177 [PMID: 24586574]
  32. Appl Geogr. 2021 Aug;133:102473 [PMID: 34103772]
  33. Conscious Cogn. 2020 Feb;78:102866 [PMID: 31935624]
  34. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2021 Jun;10(2):248-258 [PMID: 33391983]
  35. Health Promot Int. 2002 Mar;17(1):51-60 [PMID: 11847138]
  36. Psychol Med. 2022 Jan;52(2):251-263 [PMID: 32436485]
  37. Comput Human Behav. 2021 Dec;125:106950 [PMID: 35228774]
  38. J Travel Med. 2020 May 18;27(3): [PMID: 32125413]
  39. Annu Rev Psychol. 2022 Jan 4;73:327-352 [PMID: 34587780]
  40. Psychol Health. 2008;23(7):745-65 [PMID: 25160879]
  41. Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 6;10(1):16598 [PMID: 33024152]
  42. J Comput Soc Sci. 2020;3(2):343-366 [PMID: 33263092]
  43. J Pers. 2020 Apr;88(2):185-200 [PMID: 30929263]

MeSH Term

COVID-19
COVID-19 Vaccines
Communication
Humans
Intention
Pandemics
Vaccination
Vaccines

Chemicals

COVID-19 Vaccines
Vaccines

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0COVID-19exposureinformationintentionsmisinformationvaccinesnewsStudyfalseMisinformationlittleactualeffectsbehaviouralthree1participantsexposedpro-anti-vaccinetruegetvaccinated3beliefsstudiesshowedeffectsizevaccinationpressingissuesincebeginningof thepandemicthreateningabilityeffectivelyactcrisisNeverthelessknownfakebeliefaffectpeople'sreceivevaccine?paperattemptsaddressquestionviapreregisteredexperimentsN���=���3463n���=���1269fabricatedneutralasked2n���=���646n���=���1548experimentallymanipulatednovelincreasingresultsparticipants'evenmultipleexposuresledbelieveheadlinesaccurateexploratorymeta-analysiscombinedsample2683supportingopposingactuallyincreasedthoughsmallconcludecautioningresearchersequatingperceivedaccuracybehavioursMeasuringintentions:studyFakeVaccine

Similar Articles

Cited By