Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jan 29;6(5):eaaw7449.
doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaw7449. eCollection 2020 Jan.

The effects of corrective information about disease epidemics and outbreaks: Evidence from Zika and yellow fever in Brazil

Affiliations

The effects of corrective information about disease epidemics and outbreaks: Evidence from Zika and yellow fever in Brazil

John M Carey et al. Sci Adv. .

Abstract

Disease epidemics and outbreaks often generate conspiracy theories and misperceptions that mislead people about the risks they face and how best to protect themselves. We investigate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at combating false and unsupported information about the Zika epidemic and subsequent yellow fever outbreak in Brazil. Results from a nationally representative survey show that conspiracy theories and other misperceptions about Zika are widely believed. Moreover, results from three preregistered survey experiments suggest that efforts to counter misperceptions about diseases during epidemics and outbreaks may not always be effective. We find that corrective information not only fails to reduce targeted Zika misperceptions but also reduces the accuracy of other beliefs about the disease. In addition, although corrective information about the better-known threat from yellow fever was more effective, none of these corrections affected support for vector control policies or intentions to engage in preventive behavior.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Zika disease beliefs and conspiracy theory endorsement (representative survey).
Means and 95% confidence intervals from the Brazil wave of the 2016 and 2017 AmericasBarometer survey (n = 1532; 5 April to 11 May 2017). “T” and “F” indicate true and false, respectively, for the outcome measures.

References

    1. Scheufele D. A., Krause N. M., Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 7662–7669 (2019). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Oyeyemi S. O., Gabarron E., Wynn R., Ebola, twitter, and misinformation: A dangerous combination? BMJ 349, g6178 (2014). - PubMed
    1. Sharma M., Yadav K., Yadav N., Ferdinand K. C., Zika virus pandemic—Analysis of Facebook as a social media health information platform. Am. J. Infect. Control 45, 301–302 (2017). - PubMed
    1. Chan M.-p. S., Jones C. R., Jamieson K. H., Albarracin D., Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychol. Sci. 28, 1531–1546 (2017). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Walter N., Murphy S. T., How to unring the bell: A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation. Commun. Monogr. 85, 423–441 (2018).

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources