Research on metacognition yields eight communication strategies for inoculating the public against harmful health myths when standard techniques fail or backfire.

1. APRIL. 15. 2015
HOW TO COMBAT
MISINFORMATION
ON VACCINES & OTHER PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES
WILLAM D. LEACH, PHD
SOL PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

2. USC Provost Professor
Norbert Schwarz studies the
psychology of meta­cognition
– meaning our thoughts about
what we think and why – and
it's application to harmful
misconceptions about health
and well­being.
Drawing upon a decade of research, this presentation reviews why
standard myth­busting campaigns backfire, and what we should do
instead to combat harmful health myths while communicating
accurate health information.

3. Truth-Testing Heuristics
People are more likely to believe new information if it satisfies
five metacognitive criteria:
1. Compatibility: Is it compatible with other things I know?
2. Coherence: Is it an internally coherent and plausible story?
3. Credibility: Does it come from a credible source?
4. Corroboration: Is there a lot of supporting evidence?
5. Consensus: Do others believe this?

4. Eight Communication Strategies for
Effective Public Health Campaigns
Take­home messages from research on metacognition are
summarized in the following eight communication strategies.

5. #1
Do not repeat misinformation.
“False information is better left alone. Any
attempt to explicitly discredit false information
necessarily involves a repetition of the false
information, which may contribute to its later
familiarity and acceptance” (Schwarz et al. 2007).
Therefore, to fight misinformation on vaccines, it
is best to ignore the misinformants, and instead
focus on communicating the risks of preventable
infections and the benefits of vaccination.

6. #2
Repeat “true facts” often.
Repetition increases familiarity and implies that a
claim is widely accepted. Ideally, multiple credible
sources should repeat the same information, but
failing that, simply having the same authority repeat
the same message increases perceptions of
consensus and veracity (Schwarz 2015).

7. #3
Enlist credible sources.
Heuristic #3 highlights the importance of credibility.
However, highly credible sources should be especially
careful not to repeat a myth. People may later associate
the myth with the credible source, but forget that the
information is untrue.

8. #4
Lead with a disclaimer.
If misinformation must be repeated, explicitly warn the
audience ahead of time that they are about to hear something
that merits skepticism. The best protection against harmful
health misconceptions is suspicion when you first hear it. For
example, the FDA requires that labels for dietary supplements
include the disclaimer, “This product is not intended to
diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.” Moving this
message to the top of label and the beginning of radio
advertisements would enhance its impact.

9. #5
Emphasize consensus
on the true information.
Heuristic #5 implies one should emphasize consensus
on true information and avoid signaling consensus on
false information. News reports on health myths, such
as the unfounded link between childhood vaccines
and autism, unavoidably normalize mistaken beliefs
by suggesting they are commonly held.

10. #6
Make the message simple,
brief, and memorable.
Simple fonts, clear language, brevity, and white space on
the page help the audience feel as though they understand
the message effortlessly. Rhymes, jingles, mnemonics,
and visuals make a message memorable. “If the myth is
simpler and more compelling than your debunking, it will
be cognitively more attractive” (Lewandowsky et al. 2012).

11. #7
Affirm the audience's worldview.
People rarely accept new information that contradicts their
existing beliefs. To soften resistance, validate the audience’s
basic values. For example, people who fear childhood vacci­
nation and distrust the government or the pharmaceutical
industry might be more receptive to vaccine information
from an independent non­profit organization dedicated to
children’s health, especially if vaccination is framed as a
voluntary action taken by thoughtful parents who have
thoroughly investigated the pros and potential cons.

12. #8
Nudge toward better decisions.
Policymakers can often design “choice architecture” so that
people automatically gravitate toward the preferred decision.
A promising example from behavioral economics is the use of
defaults . For example, many people never skip a six­month dental
check­up, largely because dental offices always schedule your
next visit before you leave the office. If family physicians routinely
calendared their patients’ annual flu vaccine, vaccination rates
might rise accordingly. Flipping the default choice would improve
public health without altering patients’ basic options and without
confronting misinformation about vaccines.

13. GET THE FULL STORY AT USC'S
Executive Master's of Health Administration
http://exechealthadmin.usc.edu/blog