Fraudulent health claims: Further consideration of the role of emotions

Better safe than sorry: a study on older adults' credibility judgments and spreading of health misinformation

The online world is flooded with misinformation that puts older adults at risk, especially the misinformation about health and wellness. To understand older adults' vulnerability to online misinformation, this study examines how eye-catching headlines and emotional images impact their credibility judgments and spreading of health misinformation. Fifty-nine older adults aged between 58 and 83 years participated in this experiment. Firstly, participants intuitively chose an article for further reading among a bunch of headlines. Then they viewed the emotional images. Finally, they judged the credibility of health articles and decided whether to share these articles. On average, participants only successfully judged 41.38% of health articles. Attractive headlines not only attracted participants' clicks at first glance but also increased their credibility judgments on the content of health misinformation. Although participants were more willing to share an article they believed than not, 62.5% of the articles they want to share were falsehoods. Older adults in this study were notified of possible falsehoods in advance and were given enough time to discern misinformation before sharing. However, these efforts neither lead to a high judgment accuracy nor a high quality of information that they wanted to share. That may be on account of eye-catching headlines which misled participants into believing health misinformation. Besides, the most older adults in this study may follow the "better safe than sorry" principle when confronted with health misinformation, that is to say they would rather trust the misinformation to avoid health risks than doubt it.

Can counter-advertising protect spectators of elite sport against the influence of unhealthy food and beverage sponsorship? A naturalistic trial

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE

Unhealthy, energy-dense nutrient-poor foods and beverages are heavily promoted through sport sponsorship. This naturalistic trial assessed whether exposing young adult spectators to various types of counter-advertising (CA) before watching an unhealthy food sponsored elite sporting event could diminish sponsorship effects and increase support for restrictions on sponsorship.

METHOD

Young adults (ages 18-29 years) who planned to watch the Australian Football League (AFL) Grand Final were recruited through an online panel and randomly assigned to one of four conditions: (A) control (neutral advertisement); (B) anti-industry CA (critiquing unhealthy food industry sponsorship of sport); (C) anti-product CA (critiquing the association of sports stars with unhealthy food); or (D) negative health effects CA (highlighting negative health consequences of unhealthy food consumption). Participants (N = 1316) completed a pre-test questionnaire and viewed their assigned CA online 1-3 days before watching the 2017 AFL Grand Final, which featured unhealthy food sponsorship.

RESULTS

Participants who reported watching the AFL Grand Final (n = 802) answered post-test measures within five days of the event. Results indicated that participants found the anti-industry CA more believable, attention-grabbing, reassuring and encouraging than the anti-product CA. The anti-industry CA promoted less favourable attitudes to sponsor brands, the anti-product CA promoted reduced intentions to purchase the fast-food sponsor brand, and the negative health effects CA reduced preferences for fast food in general compared to the control condition.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-industry CA may detract from favourable attitudes to unhealthy food sponsor brands and negative health effects CA may detract from intentions to consume fast food in the face of unhealthy food sponsorship exposure. Such interventions may require higher dosage levels than applied in the present study to bolster spectators' resistance to the surfeit of unhealthy food sport sponsorship.