The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
See Something, Say Something: Correction of Global Health Misinformation on Social Media
Abstract
Social media are often criticized for being a conduit for misinformation on global health issues, but may also serve as a corrective to false information. To investigate this possibility, an experiment was conducted exposing users to a simulated Facebook News Feed featuring misinformation and different correction mechanisms (one in which news stories featuring correct information were produced by an algorithm and another where the corrective news stories were posted by other Facebook users) about the Zika virus, a current global health threat. Results show that algorithmic and social corrections are equally effective in limiting misperceptions, and correction occurs for both high and low conspiracy belief individuals. Recommendations for social media campaigns to correct global health misinformation, including encouraging users to refute false or misleading health information, and providing them appropriate sources to accompany their refutation, are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(2013) · Cited by 44,563
Granovetter, M. S. (1973) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/225469 · Cited by 40,491
When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2 · Cited by 3,173
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612451018 · Cited by 2,920
The spreading of misinformation online
Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Petroni, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Stanley, H. E., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1517441113 · Cited by 2,407
Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial
Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S., & Freed, G. L. (2014) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2013-2365 · Cited by 1,300
The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions
Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0089177 · Cited by 1,232 · cited 3×
“Further, misinformation beliefs in health domains are particularly problematic, given that they can limit effective treatment options or preventative behaviors (Jolley & Douglas, 2014a).”
BackgroundA postmodern Pandora's box: anti-vaccination misinformation on the internet
Kata, A. (2010) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.12.022 · Cited by 1,208
Automation bias: a systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators
Goddard, K., Roudsari, A., & Wyatt, J. C. (2012) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000089 · Cited by 1,162 · cited 3×
“Finally, although research suggests trust in algorithms is relatively high, boosting their effectiveness as mechanisms of correction (Goddard et al., 2012), such trust can also be threatened.”
BackgroundBruder, M., Haffke, P., Neave, N., Nouripanah, N., & Imhoff, R. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225 · Cited by 1,049 · cited 4×
“Trust in government and other institutions is also related to CI (Brotherton et al., 2013; Bruder et al., 2013; van Prooijen & Jostmann, 2013), so countries where citizens are less trustful of the government might have a harder time correcting misinformation beliefs.”
BackgroundInfluential
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Bode L., 2016, Social media and politics: A new way to participate in the political process, 189
- Katz E., 1955, Personal influence
- Worth K., 2016, Frontline
Cited by
Systematic Literature Review on the Spread of Health-related Misinformation on Social Media
Wang, Y., McKee, M., Torbica, A., & Stuckler, D. (2019) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552 · Cited by 1,806
Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: systematic review
Suarez-Lledo, V., & Alvarez-Galvez, J. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/17187 · Cited by 1,564
The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction
Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., Kendeou, P., Vraga, E. K., & Amazeen, M. A. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y · Cited by 1,372
Self-citationCOVID-19–Related Infodemic and Its Impact on Public Health: A Global Social Media Analysis
Islam, M. S., Sarkar, T., Khan, S. H., Mostofa Kamal, A.-H., Hasan, S. M. M., Kabir, A., Yeasmin, D., Islam, M. A., Amin Chowdhury, K. I., Anwar, K. S., et al. (2020) · The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · doi:10.4269/ajtmh.20-0812 · Cited by 1,178
“aimed at promoting evidence against misinformation quickly and clearly might change people’s perception and healthseeking behaviors.(52,53) Currently, the WHO and other health”
BackgroundGuess, A. M., Lerner, M., Lyons, B., Montgomery, J. M., Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., & Sircar, N. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1920498117 · Cited by 773
Metadata
- Authors
- Bode, L., & Vraga, E. K.
- Venue
- Health Communication
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-06-16
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1131-1140
- ISSN
- 1041-0236 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7027
- OpenAlex
- W2625555835
- Cited by
- 745
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 98.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: See Something, Say Something: Correction of Global Health Misinformation on Social Media. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10410236.2017.1331312
- The paper
- Bode, L., & Vraga, E. K. (2018). See Something, Say Something: Correction of Global Health Misinformation on Social Media. Health Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1331312
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
