Accuracy-sensitisation promotes the sharing of pro- (but not anti-) vaccine information.

OBJECTIVE This study investigated (i) factors predicting the seeking and sharing of vaccinerelated information, and (ii) the effect of an accuracy-sensitisation prime on sharing intentions. Design:This was a preregistered online survey with 213 participants. Participants were randomly assigned to an intervention group (who were exposed to an accuracy-sensitisation prime) or a control group. DESIGN This was a preregistered online survey with 213 participants. Participants were randomly assigned to an intervention group (who were exposed to an accuracy-sensitisation prime) or a control group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Measures included decision-making style, COVID-19 anxiety, and percentages of pro and anti-vaccine friends. We also measured preferences to seek pro or anti-vaccine-related information and sharing intentions with respect to this information. RESULTS Compared with those seeking both pro and anti-vaccine information, participants seeking only pro-vaccine information had lower hypervigilance and buck-passing and higher COVID-19 anxiety. The likelihood of sharing anti-vaccine information was positively predicted by the percentage of one's anti-vaccine friends, the size of one's social network, and conservative political orientation. Conversely, the likelihood of sharing pro-vaccine information was positively predicted by the percentage of one's pro-vaccine friends, and liberal political orientation. Participants sensitised to accuracy were significantly more likely to share provaccine information; however, accuracy-sensitisation had no effect on anti-vaccine information sharing. CONCLUSIONS Individuals who seek anti-vaccine information have a tendency towards disorganised and impulsive decision-making. Accuracy-sensitisation may prime people to internalise a norm promoting truth-sharing.

[1]  S. van der Linden,et al.  How Accurate Are Accuracy-Nudge Interventions? A Preregistered Direct Replication of Pennycook et al. (2020) , 2021, Psychological science.

[2]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Believing and sharing misinformation, fact-checks, and accurate information on social media: The role of anxiety during COVID-19 , 2021, New Media Soc..

[3]  Ayelet Gneezy,et al.  COVID-19 and vaccine hesitancy: A longitudinal study , 2021, PloS one.

[4]  C. Latkin,et al.  Trust in a COVID-19 vaccine in the U.S.: A social-ecological perspective , 2021, Social Science & Medicine.

[5]  B. Greenwood,et al.  Who should be prioritised for COVID-19 vaccination? , 2020, Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics.

[6]  Jon Roozenbeek,et al.  Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world , 2020, Royal Society Open Science.

[7]  Sherman A. Lee Coronavirus Anxiety Scale: A brief mental health screener for COVID-19 related anxiety , 2020, Death studies.

[8]  David G. Rand,et al.  Fighting COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media: Experimental Evidence for a Scalable Accuracy-Nudge Intervention , 2020, Psychological science.

[9]  David G. Rand,et al.  Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online , 2021, Nature.

[10]  Joshua A. Tucker,et al.  Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook , 2019, Science Advances.

[11]  David G. Rand,et al.  Prior Exposure Increases Perceived Accuracy of Fake News , 2018, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[12]  Brian E. Weeks,et al.  Epistemic beliefs’ role in promoting misperceptions and conspiracist ideation , 2017, PloS one.

[13]  Juan Liu,et al.  What have we learned about social media by studying Facebook? A decade in review , 2017, New Media Soc..

[14]  G. Caldarelli,et al.  The spreading of misinformation online , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[15]  Leon Mann,et al.  The Hassled Decision Maker: The Effects of Perceived Time Pressure on Information Processing in Decision Making , 1993 .

[16]  I. Janis,et al.  Decision Making during International Crises , 1987 .