Social Proof as a Vaccine Booster: Enhancing the Efficacy of Fact-Based Corrections of Online Vaccine Misinformation during Pandemics

Social Proof as a Vaccine Booster: Enhancing the Efficacy of Fact-Based Corrections of Online Vaccine Misinformation during Pandemics | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Social Proof as a Vaccine Booster: Enhancing the Efficacy of Fact-Based Corrections of Online Vaccine Misinformation during Pandemics Ankit Shanker, Ivo Vlaev This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6530575/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract In the battleground of pandemic information, vaccine misinformation spreads with virus-like efficiency across social media, potentially undermining public health efforts when they're most crucial. While platforms deploy algorithmic corrections as digital antibodies against false claims, these interventions often fail to penetrate the protective barriers of deeply held skepticism. This study examines a novel immunization strategy: fortifying factual corrections with social proof. Through a controlled experiment simulating a novel pandemic scenario ("COVID-66"), we measured how vaccine intentions fluctuated when exposed to misinformation followed by different corrective treatments. Our findings reveal a compelling asymmetry: while algorithmic corrections alone successfully bolstered overall vaccine intentions compared to untreated controls, they failed to sway the unvaccinated and partially vaccinated—the very groups most critical to achieving population immunity. However, when corrections were combined with normative messaging showing peer acceptance of vaccines, these resistant groups showed significant positive shifts in vaccination intent. Further dissection through mediation analysis unveiled the mechanism behind this enhanced efficacy: unlike standalone corrections that worked through multiple pathways, the combined approach primarily operated by reshaping perceptions of social consensus, which subsequently realigned personal intentions. These results suggest a powerful prescription for pandemic communication: facts alone may not persuade the hesitant, but facts embedded within a supportive social context can overcome resistance where traditional approaches fail. By bridging the gap between cognitive correction and social influence, this research offers practical tools for crafting public health messages that resonate even with those most resistant to conventional expertise. Behavioral Economics Health Policy Infectious Diseases Vaccine hesitancy Social proof Misinformation correction Public health communication Full Text Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6530575","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":448124980,"identity":"070cc1b3-76a7-4ffe-974c-a23223f3be98","order_by":0,"name":"Ankit Shanker","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3353-8053","institution":"Institute for Global Pandemic Planning, University of Warwick","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ankit","middleName":"","lastName":"Shanker","suffix":""},{"id":448125314,"identity":"077b139f-3ac5-4b4b-bc9b-37cef807c5c0","order_by":1,"name":"Ivo Vlaev","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Warwick Business School, University of Warwick","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ivo","middleName":"","lastName":"Vlaev","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-25 16:29:06","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6530575/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6530575/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":86378192,"identity":"fa987896-a2f8-4199-8945-06962bce1568","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-10 03:29:18","extension":"pdf","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":929796,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"socialProof.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6530575/v1_covered_dab1cb85-293f-450a-a7ec-8fc854f885fc.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eSocial Proof as a Vaccine Booster: Enhancing the Efficacy of Fact-Based Corrections of Online Vaccine Misinformation during Pandemics\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":true,"hasManuscriptDocX":false,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"University of Warwick","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":true,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":true,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":" Vaccine hesitancy, Social proof, Misinformation correction, Public health communication","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6530575/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6530575/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eIn the battleground of pandemic information, vaccine misinformation spreads with virus-like efficiency across social media, potentially undermining public health efforts when they're most crucial. While platforms deploy algorithmic corrections as digital antibodies against false claims, these interventions often fail to penetrate the protective barriers of deeply held skepticism.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study examines a novel immunization strategy: fortifying factual corrections with social proof. Through a controlled experiment simulating a novel pandemic scenario (\"COVID-66\"), we measured how vaccine intentions fluctuated when exposed to misinformation followed by different corrective treatments. Our findings reveal a compelling asymmetry: while algorithmic corrections alone successfully bolstered overall vaccine intentions compared to untreated controls, they failed to sway the unvaccinated and partially vaccinated—the very groups most critical to achieving population immunity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, when corrections were combined with normative messaging showing peer acceptance of vaccines, these resistant groups showed significant positive shifts in vaccination intent. Further dissection through mediation analysis unveiled the mechanism behind this enhanced efficacy: unlike standalone corrections that worked through multiple pathways, the combined approach primarily operated by reshaping perceptions of social consensus, which subsequently realigned personal intentions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese results suggest a powerful prescription for pandemic communication: facts alone may not persuade the hesitant, but facts embedded within a supportive social context can overcome resistance where traditional approaches fail. By bridging the gap between cognitive correction and social influence, this research offers practical tools for crafting public health messages that resonate even with those most resistant to conventional expertise.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Social Proof as a Vaccine Booster: Enhancing the Efficacy of Fact-Based Corrections of Online Vaccine Misinformation during Pandemics","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-10 03:21:10","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6530575/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"05d459ef-ba74-404b-bf83-24c031c7de71","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 10th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":47700980,"name":"Behavioral Economics"},{"id":47700981,"name":"Health Policy"},{"id":47700982,"name":"Infectious Diseases"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-07-10T03:21:10+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-10 03:21:10","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6530575","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6530575","identity":"rs-6530575","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}