Fake news discourages social distancing, promotes snake oil measures

People who are exposed to online misinformation about the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) become more likely to engage in unscientific practices, such as rinsing their noses with saline or eating more garlic, according to a recent Singapore study. On the other hand, misinformation discourages evidence-based prevention strategies, such as social distancing.

“The effects of misinformation exposure differ by individuals’ e-Health literacy level, suggesting the need for a health literacy education to minimize the counterproductive effects of misinformation online,” the researchers said. “This study contributes to theory-building in misinformation by addressing potential pathways of and disparity in its possible effects on behaviour.”

The study involved three waves of online surveys administered in February (wave 1; n=1,023), March (wave 2; n=767), and April (wave 3; n=540) 2020. Structural modelling analysis revealed that participants who were exposed to online misinformation at wave 1 were significantly less likely to engage in social distancing behaviours by wave 3 (β, –0.09, 95 percent confidence interval [CI], –0.18 to –0.02; p=0.032). [Front Psychol 2022;13:783909]

Conversely, online misinformation at wave 1 made participants significantly more likely to engage in misinformed practices, such as gargling with mouthwash, eating garlic, regularly rinsing their noses with saline, or getting vaccinated for pneumonia (β, 0.44, 95 percent CI, 0.35–0.52; p<0.001).

Misinformation at wave 1 also significantly increased participants’ misperception (β, 0.45, 95 percent CI, 0.38–0.71; p<0.001), defined as how effective they thought the misinformed practices were, and information overload (β, 0.18, 95 percent CI, 0.11–0.24; p<0.001), at wave 2.

In turn, participants who reported greater misperception at wave 2 showed stronger engagement in misinformed practices by wave 3 (β, 0.25, 95 percent CI, 0.16–0.34; p<0001). Misperception did not affect social distancing behaviours, but information overload did (β, –0.25, 95 percent CI, –0.32 to –0.18; p<0.001).

Stratifying analysis according to e-Health literacy, researchers revealed that exposure to online misinformation at wave 1 significantly harmed social distancing behaviours only in those with low e-Health literacy (β, –0.20; p<0.001); its impact on literate participants was not significant (p=0.07). The between-group difference in effect size estimate was also significant (p=0.001).

Similarly, misperception at wave 2 more strongly impacted engagement in misinformed practices by wave 3 in the low e-Health literacy group (β, 0.34; p<0.001), though its effects remained significant even in literate participants (β, 0.17; p=0.001). The between-group difference failed to reach significance (p=0.068).

“This study offered some evidence that online misinformation exposure can lead to the public’s maladaptive behaviours during a disease pandemic,” the researchers said. “This study also provided initial evidence on the impact of online misinformation on information overload beyond misperception; thus, this study informs further theory development in online misinformation exposure and effects.”

“We identified e-Health literacy as a potential boundary condition for the adverse consequences of online misinformation exposure, which highlights the importance of health literacy education to fight the growing problem of misinformation online,” they added.