Abstract
Vaccine rumors on social media endanger public health. This study examined how evidence types influenced perceived persuasiveness and relevance and engagement intentions of vaccine rumors. We conducted a 2 (evidence type: anecdotes vs. anecdotal statistics) × 2 (stance: pro-vaccine rumor vs. anti-vaccine rumor) online experiment (N = 551) and surveyed participants' health literacy and vaccine knowledge. Anecdotal statistics were perceived as more relevant than anecdotes and indirectly influenced perceived persuasiveness and behavior intentions. This finding was confirmed when vaccine rumors were pro-attitudinal. Health literacy positively predicted perceived persuasiveness; health knowledge negatively predicted relevance and behavior intentions. Practical implications and future research directions are discussed.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
