Examining the Effects of Social Media Warning Labels on Perceived Credibility and Intent to Engage with Health Misinformation: The Moderating Role of Vaccine Hesitancy.

Abstract

Despite the robust scientific evidence affirming the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, the proliferation of misinformation on social media platforms poses a threat by potentially exacerbating vaccine hesitancy. In response, certain social media platforms have taken measures to flag posts containing such misinformation with warning labels, aiming to dispel false beliefs. This present study employs a survey experiment (N = 304) to examine the effectiveness of two distinct warning labels - disputed and neutral warning labels - in the Twitter (the social media platform now known as X) context, specifically targeting misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. This study investigates the nuanced effects of vaccine hesitancy on the perceived credibility of debunked misinformation posts following the application of warning flags. The results demonstrated that disputed labels significantly reduced the perceived credibility of misinformation regarding anti-COVID-19 vaccines in comparison to posts without any labeling. Nevertheless, individuals exhibiting higher levels of vaccine hesitancy tended to view the misinformation as more credible than their counterparts with lower levels of hesitancy. These findings present the efficacy of warning labels in combatting misinformation on social media platforms, particularly among those who are least hesitant about vaccination.