Study explores the psych. profile of people who are susceptible to online health misinformation

[essentialsaltes]

LINK

A recent study sheds light on the psychosocial attributes of people who fall victim to health misinformation on social media. The findings, published in the journal Health Psychology, suggest that these individuals are more likely to have lower education, reduced health literacy, a distrust in the health care system, and belief in alternative medicine.

An analysis of the findings revealed that accuracy ratings for deceptive posts about cancer, statins, and the HPV vaccine were all positively linked. This meant that respondents who believed in one of the false health claims were more likely to believe in another.

Among all the measures assessed, four stood out as the strongest predictors of falling for false health information. Respondents with lower health literacy, lower education, greater support for alternative medicine, and lower trust in the health care system were more likely to judge the false health claims as accurate and more likely to feel that such claims would influence their behavior.

 

[Leaf473]

LINK

A recent study sheds light on the psychosocial attributes of people who fall victim to health misinformation on social media. The findings, published in the journal Health Psychology, suggest that these individuals are more likely to have lower education, reduced health literacy, a distrust in the health care system, and belief in alternative medicine.

An analysis of the findings revealed that accuracy ratings for deceptive posts about cancer, statins, and the HPV vaccine were all positively linked. This meant that respondents who believed in one of the false health claims were more likely to believe in another.

Among all the measures assessed, four stood out as the strongest predictors of falling for false health information. Respondents with lower health literacy, lower education, greater support for alternative medicine, and lower trust in the health care system were more likely to judge the false health claims as accurate and more likely to feel that such claims would influence their behavior.

Fascinating!
I wonder if there's a similar correlation with people likely to join a group like the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses?

 

[Freth]

LINK

A recent study sheds light on the psychosocial attributes of people who fall victim to health misinformation on social media. The findings, published in the journal Health Psychology, suggest that these individuals are more likely to have lower education, reduced health literacy, a distrust in the health care system, and belief in alternative medicine.

An analysis of the findings revealed that accuracy ratings for deceptive posts about cancer, statins, and the HPV vaccine were all positively linked. This meant that respondents who believed in one of the false health claims were more likely to believe in another.

Among all the measures assessed, four stood out as the strongest predictors of falling for false health information. Respondents with lower health literacy, lower education, greater support for alternative medicine, and lower trust in the health care system were more likely to judge the false health claims as accurate and more likely to feel that such claims would influence their behavior.

It's probably just a lucky coincidence that such a study appears in the midst of the push for everyone to take the vaccine. /s

They're really stretching the propaganda with this one. The idea that dissenters are lower education, reduced health literacy—essentially mouth breathers.

Meanwhile, doctors throw toxic drugs at illnesses that have more side-effects than the illnesses they're trying to treat. People are having crazy reactions to the vaccines, even dying from it. In the last week, my mother's cancer doctor's incompetence reared its ugly head at least three times.

This idea that "we know what's best for you, because we're more intelligent and better educated and you're just dumb" gets disproven on a daily basis.

People from all walks of life can come to logical conclusions, no matter their intelligence and education level.

It's so condescending, elitist and creepy to think that way.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's probably just a lucky coincidence that such a study appears in the midst of the push for everyone to take the vaccine.

Why would it be a coincidence, when medical misinformation about COVID-19 has been rampant for a year?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's not terribly surprising...

I would imagine the types of health misinformation one is susceptible to believing can be categorized into different buckets as well. ...even though there seems to be quite a bit of overlap in some of the topics.

For instance, the type of person who tends to be a "my food has to be GMO-free and Organic!" (even though there's no strong evidence that suggests that it'll provide any real benefit) tends to be a different type of person than the stereotypical "undereducated rural mid-westerner who thinks vaccines are there for population control".

...and both of those groups tend to share some overlap with regards to embracing alternative forms of medicine and some other forms of quackery. I know of two people in my family who got caught up in essential oil pyramid schemes (and legitimately swear that they actually do something for immune system function), one is a bit of a hippie (with a college humanities degree), the other is a Sunday school teacher in Kentucky and are on polar opposites of spectrums for educational attainment and political ideologies.


However, with regards to "believing in alternative medicine" and how it relates to "being susceptible to health misinformation", in my own experience talking with people, it seems to be one of those "which came first, the chicken or the egg" scenarios with some people falling into both.

Some seek out alternative medicine intentionally due to pre-existing beliefs rooted in misinformation, and other develop that belief in misinformation (that they didn't have before) as a result of their interactions with alternative medicine "practitioners".

For instance, I know of some people who intentionally sought out Naturopaths and Chiropractors, specifically, because they knew those types already agreed with their pre-existing anti-vaxx beliefs, and I know of others who became anti-vaxx (when they weren't before) as a result of going to Naturopaths and Chiropractors, and having their heads filled with nonsense by people who technically hold a title of "doctor" and operate out of facilities that, at first glance, look like legitimate medical facilities.

 

[variant]

It's probably just a lucky coincidence that such a study appears in the midst of the push for everyone to take the vaccine. /s

Probably no coincidence at all, the study was probably commissioned so that medical professionals can know what they are dealing with.

Although the idea that people repeatedly making and believing in false claims are probably less educated isn't all that revealing.

 

[Sparagmos]

They're really stretching the propaganda with this one. The idea that dissenters are lower education, reduced health literacy—essentially mouth breathers.

It’s a study. Are you saying you think it was rigged or made up? How could you come to that conclusion without reading the study and looking at the methodology?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's probably just a lucky coincidence that such a study appears in the midst of the push for everyone to take the vaccine. /s

It's not a coincidence...however, that fact that it's not a coincidence (and was likely commissioned specifically because of the current circumstances) isn't evidence of some dubious plot.

It's evidence of research focus being put on a very current and relevant issue.

For instance, if I were a Governor, and the number of drunk driving accidents in my state suddenly spiked 300% from the previous year, I'd be on the phone with every subject matter expert at my disposal to figure out what's going on.

 

[variant]

It's not a coincidence...however, that fact that it's not a coincidence (and was likely commissioned specifically because of the current circumstances) isn't evidence of some dubious plot.

It's evidence of research focus being put on a very current and relevant issue.

For instance, if I were a Governor, and the number of drunk driving accidents in my state suddenly spiked 300% from the previous year, I'd be on the phone with every subject matter expert at my disposal to figure out what's going on.

Indeed. The grand conspiracy here is to use science to investigate problems and point us toward solutions. Scary stuff.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

They're really stretching the propaganda with this one. The idea that dissenters are lower education, reduced health literacy—essentially mouth breathers.

Are you suggesting that people who have irrational fears about vaccines don't have a lower level of health literacy?

To be clear, healthy literacy (or lack of), by itself, isn't a reflection of overall intelligence. I know some people who are very intelligent (and well-educated on a lot of other things) who still believe in things like Chiropractic, think that GMOs are evil, and hop on board with fad diets like Atkins or Carnivore.

There is a level of overlap between those who have reduced health literacy and those who have lower education overall. Which isn't surprising...the same could be said when looking at lower-educated folks and any field of specificity. For instance, the same kind of overlap between low-education individuals and reduced engineering literacy would exist as well.

 

[Rachel20]

It's so condescending, elitist and creepy to think that way.

It's social engineering. They decide what's "misinformation" and what isn't, censor any dissenting voices, then label those who still won't go along as "stupid".

 

[essentialsaltes]

In related news...

Americans are super-spreaders of COVID-19 misinformation: study

Misinformation about COVID-19 is spreading from the United States into Canada, undermining efforts to mitigate the pandemic.

The researchers analyzed the behaviors of the 200,000 most active Canadian Twitter users and conducted surveys on news consumption habits and COVID-19 beliefs of Canadians. They found that those who use social media are relatively more exposed to US-based information than domestic sources of information, and that exposure to US news outlets was associated with misperceptions about COVID-19.

They also found that most of the misinformation circulating on Twitter shared by Canadians was retweeted from US sources. Canadians who followed more American users were more likely to post misinformation.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Among the assumptions made prior to conducting the study is the following.

"Health misinformation on social media threatens public health. "

Shouldn't they have conducted a study to confirm that first?

BTW considering a survey to be a study has always in my opinion been a bit of a stretch.

 

[Pommer]

Among the assumptions made prior to conducting the study is the following.

"Health misinformation on social media threatens public health. "

Shouldn't they have conducted a study to confirm that first?

BTW considering a survey to be a study has always in my opinion been a bit of a stretch.

I dunno.
If the “facts on the ground” say “X is true” and the study looked for folks sharing that “X is most certainly not true” then a study can be compiled based upon the actual facts.

Now, do we all agree with what “the facts on the ground” are?

You are here.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The researchers analyzed the behaviors of the 200,000 most active Canadian Twitter users and conducted surveys on news consumption habits and COVID-19 beliefs of Canadians. They found that those who use social media are relatively more exposed to US-based information than domestic sources of information, and that exposure to US news outlets was associated with misperceptions about COVID-19.

They also found that most of the misinformation circulating on Twitter shared by Canadians was retweeted from US sources. Canadians who followed more American users were more likely to post misinformation.

Probably to be expected given that the US population tends to have more "major influencers" on social media.

They evaluated the 200,000 most active Canadian Twitter users...but I can't help but think that after
Drake
Celine Dion
Justin Trudeau

...there's probably a big big drop-off in terms of number of followers for the remaining 199,997

Okay, that last part was a joke ... but none the less, I think the vast amount of high profile influencers (and the impacts of exponential retweeting/sharing) in the US probably means that US social media sources probably account for disproportionate amounts of both factual and non-factual information on Twitter and Facebook when compared to other countries.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not sure about the vaccine....I don't feel like I've been deceived by someone. I don't recall hearing my opinion anywhere.

We have a process for vaccines that involves years of testing and approval. The testing is for the possibility of unintended side effects....many which aren't obvious immediately. I could probably give a half dozen examples of why this happens and the damage caused by lack of following procedures. Thalidomide, quaeludes, testosterone gel, ranitidine, accutane...

Did I miss some important press release that explains in rather great detail how we didn't have to follow procedures this time? Or are we just rolling the dice and no one wants to say that?

I've looked and can't find anything. I don't want to be part of guinea pig group A.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Seriously, I looked up vaccine approval rates and they aren't high....at least just a couple of decades ago.

Obviously processes improve....but if anyone can show they have improved to the point where safety can be assessed in less than a year, I'd like to see it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Among the assumptions made prior to conducting the study is the following.

"Health misinformation on social media threatens public health. "

Shouldn't they have conducted a study to confirm that first?

BTW considering a survey to be a study has always in my opinion been a bit of a stretch.

I mean they just found out recently there can be a strong connection between DDT amounts in a woman's blood and autism in her child.

Yup.

Remember DDT? The chemical so good you didn't have to be alive in time to buy it to get the effects.

So safety procedures. It's not that I don't believe in science or vaccines or deadly pandemics....I do. I just happen to know of safety procedures as well.

I'm also fully aware that a flu vaccine comes out every year....but that's more of an ability to track generational changes over time. Right? Plus I'd swear I heard this was nothing like the flu. Plus the science guy on tv gave a guess when someone asked how long it would take to make a safe vaccine....and I'd swear he said 4 years would be a miracle as if he really expected it to be longer. Then a few riots later.....vaccine.

I've seen the term emergency approval thrown around too....

I don't recall being asked for it though.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I mean they just found out recently there can be a strong connection between DDT amounts in a woman's blood and autism in her child.

Yup.

Remember DDT? The chemical so good you didn't have to be alive in time to buy it to get the effects.

So safety procedures. It's not that I don't believe in science or vaccines or deadly pandemics....I do. I just happen to know of safety procedures as well.

I'm also fully aware that a flu vaccine comes out every year....but that's more of an ability to track generational changes over time. Right? Plus I'd swear I heard this was nothing like the flu. Plus the science guy on tv gave a guess when someone asked how long it would take to make a safe vaccine....and I'd swear he said 4 years would be a miracle as if he really expected it to be longer. Then a few riots later.....vaccine.

I've seen the term emergency approval thrown around too....

I don't recall being asked for it though.

If you ask yourself for emergency approval I bet you will get it. Isn't that how the government does it?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I've seen the term emergency approval thrown around too....

Some background. In short the vaccine makers have carried out the standard phase I/II/III clinical trials to demonstrate safety and efficacy of a therapeutic. Some of the warp in the warp speed was that they were carrying out the I/II/III tests concurrently rather than sequentially.

Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met

The current vaccines are not approved, they are emergency-approved. Nevertheless, the relevant data has been collected already. The main hold-up ordinarily is reviewing the mountains of paperwork.

• New Drug Application (NDA): Following the Phase III Clinical Trials, the drug manufacturer analyzes all the data from the studies and files an NDA with the FDA (provided the data appear to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the drug). The NDA contains all of the data gathered to date about the drug. (An NDA typically consists of at least 100,000 pages.) The average NDA review time for new drugs approved in 1992 was close to 30 months (2 1/2 years).