ArticleJournalism & mass communication quarterly2023
How Misinformation and Rebuttals in Online Comments Affect People's Intention to Receive COVID-19 Vaccines: The Roles of Psychological Reactance and Misperceptions.
Article in Journalism & mass communication quarterly, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Leveraging Canadian Health Care Worker Volunteers to Address COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation on Facebook: Qualitative Program Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Co-Designing a Framework for Social Media Health Communication to Young People: A Participatory Research Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Understanding how users identify health misinformation in short videos: an integrated analysis using PLS-SEM and fsQCA.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- The Impact of Comment Slant and Comment Tone on Digital Health Communication Among Polarized Publics: A Web-Based Survey Experiment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated how exposure to negative and misleading online comments about the COVID-19 vaccination persuasive messages and the ensuing corrective rebuttals of these comments affected people's attitudes and intentions regarding vaccination. An online experiment was performed with 344 adults in the United States. The results showed that rebuttals by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, rather than those by social media users, indirectly increased people's willingness to receive the vaccine by reducing their psychological reactance to persuasive messages and their belief in the misinformation contained in the comments. Rebuttals by social media users became more effective in reducing reactance when people initially had stronger pro-vaccination attitudes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.