Effect of Source Type and Protective Message on the Critical Evaluation of News Messages on Facebook: Randomized Controlled Trial in the Netherlands

Frans Folkvord, Freek Snelting, Doeschka Anschutz, Tilo Hartmann, Alexandra Theben, Laura Gunderson, Ivar Vermeulen, Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva, Frans Folkvord, Freek Snelting, Doeschka Anschutz, Tilo Hartmann, Alexandra Theben, Laura Gunderson, Ivar Vermeulen, Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva

Abstract

Background: Disinformation has become an increasing societal concern, especially due to the speed that news is shared in the digital era. In particular, disinformation in the health care sector can lead to serious casualties, as the current COVID-19 crisis clearly shows.

Objective: The main aim of this study was to experimentally examine the effects of information about the source and a protective warning message on users' critical evaluation of news items, as well as the perception of accuracy of the news item.

Methods: A 3 (unreliable vs reliable vs no identified source) × 2 (with protective message vs without) between-subject design was conducted among 307 participants (mean age 29 (SD 10.9] years).

Results: The results showed a significant effect of source information on critical evaluation. In addition, including a protective message did not significantly affect critical evaluation. The results showed no interaction between type of source and protective message on critical evaluation.

Conclusions: Based on these results, it is questionable whether including protective messages to improve critical evaluation is a way to move forward and improve critical evaluation of health-related news items, although effective methodologies to tackle the spread of disinformation are highly needed.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05030883; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT05030883.

Keywords: critical evaluation; critical thinking; disinformation; health communication; protective message; source.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Frans Folkvord, Freek Snelting, Doeschka Anschutz, Tilo Hartmann, Alexandra Theben, Laura Gunderson, Ivar Vermeulen, Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 31.03.2022.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Conceptual model.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Stimulus material.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Flow diagram of study participants.

References

    1. Fighting disinformation. European Commission. 2020. [2020-05-24]. .
    1. Lewandowsky S, Ecker UK, Cook J. Beyond misinformation: understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2017 Dec;6(4):353–369. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008.
    1. Anderson J, Rainie L. The future of truth and misinformation online. Washington: Pew Internet and American Life Project; 2017. Oct 19, [2020-05-24]. .
    1. Papagiannis G, Posetti J. Journalism, 'fake news' and disinformation: a handbook for journalism education and training. UNESCO. [2021-07-18]. .
    1. Marwick A, Lewis R. Media manipulation and disinformation online. Data and Society Research Institute. 2017. [2022-02-11]. .
    1. Acosta FJ, Rodríguez CJ, Cejas MR, Ramallo-Fariña Y, Fernandez-Garcimartin H. Suicide coverage in the digital press media: adherence to World Health Organization guidelines and effectiveness of different interventions aimed at media professionals. Health Commun. 2020 Nov;35(13):1623–1632. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2019.1654176.
    1. Fletcher R, Cornia A, Graves L, Nielson RK. Measuring the reach of "fake news" and online disinformation in Europe. 2018. [2022-02-11]. .
    1. Salmon CT, Poorisat T. The rise and development of public health communication. Health Commun. 2020 Nov;35(13):1666–1677. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2019.1654180.
    1. Martens B, Aguiar L, Gómez-Herrera E, Muller F. The digital transformation of news media and the rise of disinformation and fake news. 2018. [2022-02-11]. .
    1. Lee M, Ju Y, You M. The effects of social determinants on public health emergency preparedness mediated by health communication: the 2015 MERS outbreak in South Korea. Health Commun. 2020 Oct;35(11):1396–1406. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2019.1636342.
    1. Allcott H, Gentzkow M. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. J Econ Perspect. 2017 May 01;31(2):211–236. doi: 10.1257/jep.31.2.211.
    1. Guess A, Nyhan B, Reifler J. Selective exposure to misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 US presidential campaign. 2018. [2022-02-11]. .
    1. Levine TR. Truth-default theory (TDT): a theory of human deception and deception detection. J Lang Soc Psychol. 2014 May 23;33(4):378–392. doi: 10.1177/0261927x14535916.
    1. Devaux A, Theben A, Deshpande A, Folkvord F, Meranto A, Porcu F, Harshfield A. Study on media literacy and online empowerment issues raised by algorithm-driven media services. European Commission. 2019. [2022-02-11].
    1. Chou WS, Hunt YM, Beckjord EB, Moser RP, Hesse BW. Social media use in the United States: implications for health communication. J Med Internet Res. 2009;11(4):e48. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1249. v11i4e48
    1. Asmolov G. The disconnective power of disinformation campaigns. J Int Affairs. 2018;71(1.5):69–76. doi: 10.4135/9781483359922.n138.
    1. Shearer E. More than eight-in-ten Americans get news from digital devices. Washington: Pew Internet and American Life Project; 2021. Jan 12, [2022-02-11]. .
    1. Walker S, Mercea D, Bastos M. The disinformation landscape and the lockdown of social platforms. Inform Commun Soc. 2019 Aug 29;22(11):1531–1543. doi: 10.1080/1369118x.2019.1648536.
    1. Zimmermann F, Kohring M. Mistrust, disinforming news, and vote choice: a panel survey on the origins and consequences of believing disinformation in the 2017 German parliamentary election. Polit Commun. 2020 Jan 01;37(2):215–237. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2019.1686095.
    1. Burkhardt J. Combating fake news in the digital age. Library Technol Rep. 2017;53(8):5–9.
    1. Zelizer B. Why journalism is about more than digital technology. Digital Journ. 2019 May 08;7(3):343–350. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2019.1571932.
    1. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124–1131. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.185/4157/1124
    1. Pennycook G, Epstein Z, Mosleh M, Arechar A, Eckles D, Rand D. Understanding and reducing the spread of misinformation online. PsyArXiv. :1. doi: 10.31234/. Preprint posted online on November 13, 2019.
    1. Vosoughi S, Roy D, Aral S. The spread of true and false news online. Science. 2018 Dec 09;359(6380):1146–1151. doi: 10.1126/science.aap9559.359/6380/1146
    1. Bode L, Vraga EK. In related news, that was wrong: the correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media. J Commun. 2015 Jun 23;65(4):619–638. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12166.
    1. Bode L, Vraga EK. See something, say something: correction of global health misinformation on social media. Health Commun. 2018 Sep;33(9):1131–1140. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2017.1331312.
    1. Schwarz W, Newman E, Leach N. Making the truth stick & the myths fade: Lessons from cognitive psychology. Behav Sci Pol. 2016;2(1):85–95. doi: 10.1353/bsp.2016.0009.
    1. Burgess J, Hurcombe E. Digital journalism as symptom, response, and agent of change in the platformed media environment. Digital Journ. 2019 May 08;7(3):359–367. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2018.1556313.
    1. Bringula RP, Catacutan-Bangit AE, Garcia MB, Gonzales JPS, Valderama AMC. "Who is gullible to political disinformation?": predicting susceptibility of university students to fake news. J Inform Technol Pol. 2021 Jul 07;:1–15. doi: 10.1080/19331681.2021.1945988.
    1. Buchanan T. Why do people spread false information online? The effects of message and viewer characteristics on self-reported likelihood of sharing social media disinformation. PLoS One. 2020;15(10):e0239666. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239666. PONE-D-20-16848
    1. Hameleers M, Powell TE, Van Der Meer TG, Bos L. A picture paints a thousand lies? The effects and mechanisms of multimodal disinformation and rebuttals disseminated via social media. Polit Commun. 2020 Feb 05;37(2):281–301. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2019.1674979.
    1. Chan MS, Jones CR, Hall Jamieson K, Albarracín D. Debunking: a meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychol Sci. 2017 Nov;28(11):1531–1546. doi: 10.1177/0956797617714579.
    1. Cho J, Park D, Lee HE. Cognitive factors of using health apps: systematic analysis of relationships among health consciousness, health information orientation, eHealth literacy, and health app use efficacy. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(5):e125. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3283. v16i5e125
    1. Clayton K, Blair S, Busam JA, Forstner S, Glance J, Green G, Kawata A, Kovvuri A, Martin J, Morgan E, Sandhu M, Sang R, Scholz-Bright R, Welch AT, Wolff AG, Zhou A, Nyhan B. Real solutions for fake news? Measuring the effectiveness of general warnings and fact-check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social media. Polit Behav. 2019 Feb 11;42(4):1073–1095. doi: 10.1007/s11109-019-09533-0.
    1. Wilson SL, Wiysonge C. Social media and vaccine hesitancy. BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Oct;5(10):e004206. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004206.bmjgh-2020-004206
    1. Lewandowsky S. Climate change disinformation and how to combat it. Annu Rev Public Health. 2021 Apr 01;42:1–21. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102409.
    1. Dahl S, Eagle L. Empowering or misleading? Online health information provision challenges. Mark Intell Plan. 2016 Oct 03;34(7):1000–1020. doi: 10.1108/mip-07-2015-0127.
    1. Ekker H. Impact Nederlandse luchtvaart op klimaat neemt flink toe. 2019. [2019-04-20]. .
    1. Pennycook G, Rand DG. Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Feb 12;116(7):2521–2526. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1806781116. 1806781116
    1. Mediamonitor 2018: Mediabedrijven en mediamarkten. CvdM. 2018. [2019-04-25]. .
    1. Metzger M, Flanagin A, Medders R. Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. J Commun. 2010;60(3):413–439. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x.
    1. Eisend M. Is it still worth to be credible? A meta-analysis of temporal patterns of source credibility effects in marketing. Adv Consumer Res. 2004:352–357.
    1. Pornpitakpan C. The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades' evidence. J Appl Social Pyschol. 2004 Feb;34(2):243–281. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x.
    1. Sherry JL. Flow and media enjoyment. Commun Theory. 2004 Nov;14(4):328–347. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00318.x.
    1. Petty R, Cacioppo J. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Petty R, Cacioppo J, editors. Communication and Persuasion. New York: Springer; 1986. pp. 1–24.
    1. Perugini M, Gallucci M, Costantini G. A practical primer to power analysis for simple experimental designs. Int Rev Soc Psychol. 2018;31(1):1. doi: 10.5334/irsp.181.
    1. Anastasiadou D, Folkvord F, Lupiañez-Villanueva F. A systematic review of mHealth interventions for the support of eating disorders. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2018 Sep;26(5):394–416. doi: 10.1002/erv.2609. doi: 10.1002/erv.2609.
    1. Reuters Digital News Report 2018. [2019-06-02]. .
    1. Bayer J, Bitiukova N, Bard P, Szakács J. Disinformation and propaganda: impact on the functioning of the rule of law in the EU and its Member States. European Parliament. 2019. [2022-02-18]. .
    1. Potter W. Theory of Media Literacy: A Cognitive Approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2004.
    1. Potter W. Media Literacy. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2018.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться