Effects of fact-checking social media vaccine misinformation on attitudes toward vaccines.

Social media vaccine misinformation can negatively influence vaccine attitudes. It is urgent to develop communication approaches to reduce the misinformation's impact. This study aimed to test the effects of fact-checking labels for misinformation on attitudes toward vaccines. An online survey experiment with 1198 participants recruited from a U.S. national sample was conducted in 2018. Participants were randomly assigned to six conditions: misinformation control, or fact-checking label conditions attributed to algorithms, news media, health institutions, research universities, or fact-checking organizations. We analyzed differences in vaccine attitudes between the fact-checking label and control conditions. Further, we compared perceived expertise and trustworthiness of the five categories of fact-checking sources. Fact-checking labels attached to misinformation posts made vaccine attitudes more positive compared to the misinformation control condition (P = .003, Cohen's d= 0.21). Conspiracy ideation moderated the effect of the labels on vaccine attitudes (P = .02). Universities and health institutions were rated significantly higher on source expertise than other sources. Mediation analyses showed labels attributed to universities and health institutions indirectly resulted in more positive attitudes than other sources through perceived expertise. Exposure to fact-checking labels on misinformation can generate more positive attitudes toward vaccines in comparison to exposure to misinformation. Incorporating labels from trusted universities and health institutions on social media platforms is a promising direction for addressing the vaccine misinformation problem. This points to the necessity for closer collaboration between public health and research institutions and social media companies to join efforts in addressing the current misinformation threat.

Feeling angry: the effects of vaccine misinformation and refutational messages on negative emotions and vaccination attitude.

Vaccine misinformation circulated on social media has negatively impacted people's vaccine beliefs and behaviors. Communication strategies to address misinformation including fact-checking and warning labels have shown conflicting effects. This study examined how short-term exposure to vaccine misinformation impacted vaccination attitude through both cognitive and affective routes and tested whether and how two-sided refutational messages could negate the misinformation's impact. We conducted an online experiment involving a convenient sample of 609 U.S. adult participants with five message conditions: two misinformation messages (one using the conspiracy frame and one using the uncertainty frame), two corresponding two-sided refutational messages, and a control group. Results showed that both conspiracy and uncertainty framed misinformation messages decreased pro-vaccination attitude in comparison to the control. The two refutational messages increased pro-vaccination attitude in comparison to the corresponding misinformation messages. These effects were further mediated by the emotion of anger. Parental status and conspiracy beliefs did not moderate effects of the messages on vaccination attitude. Our findings indicate two-sided refutational messages can be a promising strategy to combat vaccine misinformation.

Comparison of public discussions of gene editing on social media between the United States and China.

The world's first gene-edited babies event has stirred controversy on social media over the use of gene editing technology. Understanding public discussions about this controversy will provide important insights about opinions of science and facilitate informed policy decisions. This study compares public discussion topics about gene editing on Twitter and Weibo, as wel asthe evolution of these topics over four months. Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) was used to generate topics for 11,244 Weibo posts and 57,525 tweets from September 25, 2018, to January 25, 2019. Results showed a difference between the topics on Twitter versus Weibo: there were more nuanced discussions on Twitter, and the discussed topics between platforms focused on different areas. Temporal analysis showed that most discussions took place around gene-edited events. Based on our findings, suggestions were provided for policymakers and science communication practitioners to develop more effective communication strategies toward audiences in China and the U.S.