But in our recently published research, the second message was about 52 per cent more likely to be clicked on. Both link to the same reliable vaccination information.
We wanted to test whether changing the way that factual information is presented online could help it reach audiences who might otherwise overlook it. Our findings suggest the wording matters, even when the information itself stays the same.
However, false claims are only part of the problem. They selected a narrow range of topics that fit their world views, meaning even mostly accurate news articles could reinforce those views. Not only does this make it harder to get reliable information to people, it can also negatively affect their relationships. Our research describes people withdrawing from loved ones and mainstream information as they became more involved in fringe communities. Governments provide factual resources, while researchers and other organisations investigate misleading claims and provide the evidence. Fact-checking can help, but people need to trust the source and understand the explanation. So these approaches have had some impact, but they leave a question: how do you get reliable information in front of someone who isn’t looking for it? For example, public health teams could use this approach by listening to how people describe their concerns, then testing different ways of presenting the same evidence. A follow-up study could then examine whether readers understood the information and felt better able to make a decision.
Our earlier research found far-right users also shared articles from moderate news sources.
