Missing Voices: Examining How Misinformation-Susceptible Individuals From Underrepresented Communities Engage,Perceive,and Combat Science Misinformation

Misinformation-Susceptible Publics

Whereas much consideration has been given to correcting misinformation (e.g., Ecker et al., 2022), this study extends this literature by concentrating specifically on populations identified as being susceptible to science-related misinformation. Recent scholarship has focused on understanding how different populations accept or reject misinformation (e.g., Baines et al., 2023; Scherer et al., 2021). In particular, Krishna (2021) drew upon the situational theory of problem-solving (Kim & Grunig, 2011; Kim & Krishna, 2014) to propose a typology of misinformation-susceptible publics, classifying individuals into four groups based on their issue-specific situational motivation, knowledge, and attitudes: (a) misinformation-immune, (b) misinformation-vulnerable, (c) misinformation-receptive, and (d) misinformation-amplifying. Misinformation amplifiers are the most extreme receptors of misinformation on a topic and are conceptualized to be the least likely to change their minds. In fact, amplifiers seek to boost the spread of misinformation. At the other end of the spectrum are misinformation-immune publics, who actively reject science mis- and disinformation (Krishna, 2021).

Importantly, Krishna (2021) found that most of the population tends to fall into the middle two groups: misinformation-vulnerable and misinformation-receptive publics. Whereas misinformation-vulnerable publics are moderately susceptible and may be more open to both sides of an issue, misinformation-receptive publics are conceptualized to be more accepting of mis- and disinformation efforts because of their past acceptance of misinformation on a topic. Misinformation-receptive publics were found to be more conservative than misinformation-vulnerable publics, as well as relatively older, with nearly half of the misinformation-receptive publics being over the age of 46 years. However, little is known about the racial distribution of the four publics. Given that Black and Latino communities have historically been excluded from health care processes (Spates, 2012) and have been targets of disinformation efforts related to health and science (Randall et al., 2021), this study seeks to examine how the typology of misinformation-susceptible public may help understand these communities’ lived experiences with science misinformation and ways to address it.

Critical Race Theory

Another perspective that guides this study is critical race theory (CRT). CRT was developed in the 1970s to examine and understand how racism has been constructed and maintained in the United States and how the bond between law and racial power can be challenged (Crenshaw et al., 1995). Critical race theorists address the importance of everyday life experiences to understand how people see race and challenge the dominant worldview (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). CRT emphasizes that the social and experiential context of racial oppression is significant in acknowledging racial dynamics, specifically how current inequalities are connected to previous practices of racial exclusion (Taylor, 1998).

In the context of this unique study examining the lived experiences of members of marginalized communities (Black Americans and Latinos) related to science misinformation, the CRT framework enables the understanding of power dynamics (e.g., news media, health institutions, and government) and how they have affected racial inequities through policies, practices, and information that continues to affect these communities (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). This framework can also be used to specifically understand how science misinformation and disinformation efforts are targeting underrepresented groups and capitalizing on institutional and systemic power and privilege to further increase racial and health inequities (Irfan et al., 2021). Furthermore, the CRT framework provides an opportunity for disadvantaged and marginalized groups to share their voices through “counternarrative storytelling” (Ingram, 2013, p. 5), thereby “centering in the margins” (Ford & Airhihenbuwa, 2010, p. 31) and highlighting the importance of understanding their experiences and cultural perspectives. With this framework, CRT can provide an important lens into the root causes of racial and health disparities in the United States and offer potential solutions to bridge gaps (Ford & Airhihenbuwa, 2010).

This theoretical framework is also highly applicable to the study of two underrepresented groups who are less likely to report engagement with science (Volpe et al., 2022) and have a history of disparate access to reliable science and health information. In fact, Black and Latino populations were disproportionately affected during the COVID-19 pandemic due to multiple barriers to getting vaccinated, such as their limited resources and social-economic background, as well as being the target of conspiracy theories, misleading news, rumors, and misinformation from social media (Frenkel, 2021). To make matters worse, Latinos are the most frequent users of social media in comparison to other groups, which makes them particularly vulnerable to receiving (and accepting) science mis- and disinformation (Nielsen, 2021).

The COVID-19 pandemic and vaccination process in the United States have also illuminated the health inequities and racial divides among the Black community. For many Black Americans, the vaccination process may harken back to the dehumanizing and traumatic experiences associated with the Tuskegee syphilis experiment ² (Funk, 2022). Fueled by years of exploitation, manipulation, and discrimination, Black Americans have a high degree of distrust of health care facilities and institutions (Oladipo, 2021), which may make them vulnerable to science misinformation.

Given that the barriers to engaging with science are more likely experienced by Black and Latino populations (Volpe et al., 2022), we use CRT (Crenshaw et al., 1995) as a lens through which to make explicit the seemingly hidden structural and institutional power dynamics that circumscribe how these communities are able to navigate science misinformation. Furthermore, in striving to understand these communities’ lived experiences, we leverage the typology of misinformation-susceptible publics (Krishna, 2021) to focus on those who are vulnerable or receptive to misinformation. To better understand the perspectives of these communities, we explore their interaction with news sources, how they seek science-related information, as well as their perceptions of and recommendations for using interventions to correct misperceptions effectively. Specifically, the following broad research questions drive our investigation:

Sample

Following Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, adults from two underrepresented communities (Black Americans and Latinos) who resided in the Boston, Massachusetts area of the United States were screened and recruited via telephone from a proprietary voluntary database by a local market research agency that focuses on qualitative research. The recruiting took place between July 8 and July 13, 2022. To be eligible for the study, the participants were required to (a) self-identify as either Latino (or Hispanic) or Black, (b) be users of social media, and (c) qualify as misinformation-receptive or -vulnerable on the topic of climate change following Krishna’s (2021) typology (see Supplementary Appendix A). To be classified into misinformation-vulnerable or -receptive publics, participants had to receive a “high” score on two of three classification variables: motivation, extreme attitudes, and knowledge deficiency. Participants who scored an average of 4 or higher on the 3 items for situational motivation related to climate change on a 5-point Likert-type scale were classified as “high.” Situational motivation was measured using the three items that were: “I am curious about climate change,” “I often think about climate change,” and “I want to better understand the issue of climate change.” Similarly, to be coded as “high” on attitudes, participants also had to have an average score of 4 or higher on 3 items related to their attitude toward climate change: “I think the ‘climate change’ that people talk about is due to natural variation, not human activities,” “I find it hard to believe that the Earth’s climate is really changing,” and “The so-called climate threat is exaggerated.” Participants’ knowledge deficiency was measured using three true/false questions: “The Earth’s climate has changed naturally in the past; therefore, humans are not the cause of climate change,” “Climate often changes from year to year,” and “There is no scientific consensus about climate change.” Those who incorrectly responded “true” to two or more of these questions were classified as “high.” As noted earlier, participants who were classified as “high” on two of three variables were included in the sample. The two groups that were recruited consisted of 10 individuals who identified as Black and 9 individuals who identified as Latino. Both groups—divided between Black participants and Latino participants to foster discussions rooted in shared cultural and lived experiences, especially with media—were comprised of a diverse and balanced collection of adults in terms of gender and age (see Supplementary Appendix B).

Procedures

Upon IRB approval but prior to the official focus groups, the discussion guide was reviewed by science communication researchers and then revised based on their feedback. To ensure the validity and consistency of the discussion guide, we piloted 2 focus groups with a convenience sample of 12 undergraduate students from 2 universities in distinct geographic locations: Boston, Massachusetts, and Edinburg, Texas. The official focus groups were conducted in person at a university research center on July 20 and 21, 2022. The discussions, which lasted 120 minutes per group, were recorded and transcribed for analysis. One of the researchers, a trained focus group moderator—who identifies as a white woman—led the conversations using the same discussion guide for both groups (see Supplementary Appendix C). The moderator maintained a consistent level of neutrality throughout both focus groups and did not correct any falsehoods or conspiracy theories that arose from the discussions. Participants were compensated with a $150 electronic Visa card for their involvement.

At the outset of the focus group, the moderator explained that the opinions, perspectives, and experiences of all participants were important. They were told that consensus was not necessary, but that it was important to share whether they agreed or disagreed with what others were saying. Agreement or dissent was arrived at by allowing participants the time to respond to one another. The group dynamics were such that the moderator did not often have to ask participants what they thought; they offered their perspectives freely. When necessary, the moderator would probe to clarify agreement or disagreement. During the discussion, participants were asked to engage in sentence-completion tasks allowing them to project their opinions about science-related issues and misinformation onto others, a useful technique especially for sensitive topics (Krueger, 1998). To further aid the discussion, visuals of social media posts were shown to participants on prevalent topics of misinformation about climate change and COVID-19 vaccines followed by three types of common intervention strategies designed to prevent misperceptions (Amazeen & Krishna, 2023; see Supplementary Appendix D). The interventions included examples of real platform-applied warning labels and banners from Instagram and YouTube along with corresponding messages from fact-checking organizations FactCheck.org and SciCheck. Another intervention was a forewarning message intended to “inoculate” or protect people from misinformation much in the way populations are inoculated against biological pathogens (McGuire, 1961). The message was in the form of a fabricated Facebook post from U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy that participants were told was similar to what he stated in his advisory about misinformation (Office of the Surgeon General, 2021) and asked how they would respond if they saw a post similar to this on Facebook or Instagram or some other social media platform from a person like Dr. Murthy. Participants also saw real celebrity testimonials about the safety of COVID-19 oral treatments from Queen Latifah and vaccine safety from Dolly Parton.

Data Analysis

Qualitative data analysis began during data collection and continued during multiple readings of the transcripts and multiple viewings of the focus group recordings, which were complemented by note-taking and observations of verbal and non-verbal communications. Remaining attentive to the racial equity and power dynamics that underlie CRT, several rounds of coding took place, beginning with open coding to establish initial codes. This was followed by axial coding, which allowed for continued organizing and sorting of codes emerging from the initial data reduction process (Miles et al., 2014). Finally, selective coding was used to combine key codes and place them under the main overarching categories. Both primary investigators coded the two focus group transcripts independently and then discussed their findings, reaching an agreement based on their similar interpretations of the data. All the participants were provided with a pseudo-identity to ensure the confidentiality of their responses (see Supplementary Appendix B).

Engaging With Science-Related Topics

The first research question (RQ1) addressed how Black Americans and Latinos engage with science-related topics. No one from either of the focus groups spontaneously mentioned engaging with science topics when asked about their media consumption. While even general news consumption was not a media activity proactively mentioned by Black participants, when specifically asked, many in this group indicated they get their news from social media: “. . . my news is from YouTube.” JD explained, “I try not to watch very much news. I just think it’s really depressing. It’s always negative so I try not to look at it. But I do have the NewsBreak app on my phone.” Others mentioned watching local TV news if there was something important happening, particularly stations that had anchors that looked like them such as Emmy award-winning Nigerian-American journalist Amaka Ubaka on [7 News]. “A lot of times in the past,” explained HA, “you never really saw Black females anchoring.” In contrast, many participants from the Latino group were more proactive in seeking out news media and shared their preferences in watching the local, national, or even international news. “We’re able to watch the news locally from Puerto Rico,” FI said. “It’s definitely interesting to see how uncensored the news is in other countries as opposed to what’s being shown here in the United States.” ³ Indeed, international news was part of the appeal of getting news from YouTube. “We watch a lot of international news on YouTube,” explained ME. Moreover, there was at least one participant in each group who mentioned preferring international news because it was in their native language.

When asked specifically about science-related topics that they were concerned about, both groups mentioned COVID-19 and climate change. There were a few participants across the groups who admitted they never actively sought out any science-related information. What animated both groups the most, however, were health and wellness-related science issues such as cancer, drugs and medications, and food additives such as butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) and titanium dioxide. These concerns generated a series of complementary interactions. For instance, PB shared his fears of having heart disease due to cancer-causing foods and preservatives added by companies:

I see Instagram posts or something about certain food . . . like Cheez-Its, but there’s an ingredient in that that you shouldn’t eat because it causes cancer. I think food in general causes cancer in this world. It’s one of the biggest things that’s cancer-related because of what animal’s hormones and what they’re fed. And even the plants and stuff, the pesticides, nothing’s healthy anymore, nothing, unless you grow it yourself.

DG amplified similar apprehension:

I have an issue with a lot of the ingredients, especially BHT that’s in cereals. They put them up in other countries without those ingredients. So, you can get cereal that’s just like Froot Loops but doesn’t have BHT in another country. So, I had people telling me this for years. “You gotta watch what you eat. Read the ingredients,” da, da, da, da. And then I started reading it and I was like, “I’m going to the grocery store with my phone,” and I looked up BHT . . . I couldn’t believe how many boxes of cereal had BHT in it.

These concerns were grounded in a recognition of inequitable access. “It’s almost a trap,” explained HF, “because if you want to eat healthy with all this food with no hormones, well, you have to go to Whole Foods . . . you got to have money if you want to eat the good, best meats and stuff . . . it’s expensive to eat healthy. Very expensive.”

Thus, while engagement with science-related topics was not top of mind, participants were concerned about climate change, COVID-19, and health/wellness-related science issues. Their engagement with these issues was predominantly, although not exclusively, via digital and social media platforms.

Identifying and Responding to Misinformation

Part of the concern with news, especially science-related news, was knowing what to believe as suggested by MM: “In the news: [they say] that salt is bad for you. Two weeks later, ‘You have to eat salt. You’re not eating enough salt.’ Coffee, everything, now coffee is good. Two years ago, you were going to die.” Given all the conflicting information, our second research question (RQ2) addressed how participants recognized and responded to science-related misinformation. While many participants in the Black group indicated they went to social media for their news (and local TV), they were aware that not everything was accurate. Google was an often-mentioned platform for attempting to cross-check information: “I see some things on Twitter, and if it interests me, or if I don’t believe what I’m seeing, then I’ll Google it,” explained EJ. Similarly, DG—the participant who raised the issue of BHT—employed this tactic while our discussion was in progress:

So, I just Googled it. “Is BHT bad for you?” The first thing that pops up is, “There’s no evidence that BHT is harmful in the amounts used in packaged food.” First thing. I didn’t click anything. I just did a basic Google search. But then the funny thing is . . . Right after that, it says, “General Mills to remove antioxidant BHT from its cereals.” [Laughter.] So, if it’s harmless . . .

Both groups also identified triangulating information as another strategy to see if multiple sources were saying the same thing. For instance, RT explained,

You should always get news from multiple sources. I get the Wall Street Journal mailed to me, the Boston Globe, New York Times. I love to read, but, to get a well-rounded—just because Peter Jennings or Walter Cronkite said something doesn’t mean it’s 100% accurate. They’re getting their information from multiple people, and they can make mistakes . . . [but] you get to trust them because the majority of the time, it’s the truth. It’s factual. Nowadays, you don’t know what is factual. That’s why it’s even more important to get news from multiple sources . . .

Building on this point, other participants explained they would visit official sources such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or World Health Organization (WHO) websites. For instance, RT said, “I would research the CDC’s website versus a news show or just Googling ‘COVID variant’ because that could be all—half the stuff could be fake. You know what I mean? It’s just on the web.”

However, several participants offered clarification, pointing out that even credible organizations can have questionable information. For example, JD observed,

. . . even the FDA, to your point, is pushing things through. You have to question everything at this point and truly . . . do your own research and talk to your friends, talk to your family, talk to people to really find out what’s going on.

Similarly, BV said,

The problem is, there is a possibility of . . . you want to make sure funding for that [CDC] research is not going one way or another, that’s why—even still—science could be biased. You could be researching cancer treatments, but it’s funded by a tobacco company . . .

At the same time, there was recognition, particularly among Black participants, that they do not trust any institutional organizations due, in large part, to a history of inequities and opportunism. “I don’t trust the U.S. government,” said HA. “I think they’ve lied so much in the past and have done so much ill will, especially against the Black community. I don’t trust anything they say.” BD affirmed this point, adding:

A lot of us here have distrust towards the government based off a long history of unethical medical experiments, and with the COVID vaccine, they felt very rushed because a lot of the drugs have to go through clinical trials, whereas this didn’t . . .When it comes to the drugs, I think people are also skeptical because everything is highly processed . . . we’re wondering why are we having all these side effects, all of these different imbalances in the body.

Given how difficult it was for participants to know who to trust, where to find credible information, and—particularly among the Black participants—their deep distrust of many institutions, it was unsurprising that receptivity to conspiratorial thinking and belief in inaccurate information emerged as evidenced in the previous quote (the COVID-19 vaccines did go through clinical trials). “I personally haven’t had any COVID-19 vaccines at all,” admitted EJ. “I’ve been tested. I don’t trust any of that stuff. I just felt like it was too new for them to be rolling out . . . I’ll get tested, but I just don’t trust any COVID-19 vaccine. I just don’t.”

When asked who they do trust, some participants told stories about their elders and their basic ways of living. “If you go back in your mind to elders,” explained ME, “auntie, grandma, to the islands, to wherever. They know. ‘What is that? Oh, no, I don’t eat that.’ They don’t eat that because it’s not real.” They didn’t suffer the same health issues of the current generations because many of them grew their own vegetables and raised their own animals without pesticides and hormones. Other participants mentioned “Dr. Sebi.” He was “an African holistic guru” (whose real name, according to Wikipedia, was Alfredo Bowman and had no medical training) who offered holistic remedies as alternatives to pharmaceutical interventions. “I heard his son talking on Instagram about some of these natural things that we can take for different things. And he went down the list of everything, what you can take for high blood pressure, insomnia, anxiety,” WB explained. But multiple participants noted, “they killed him.” While it was unclear whether they believed it was the U.S. government, the medical community, or the pharmaceutical industry who “killed” Dr. Sebi, ME added, “I remember there was a time, they were finding a lot of doctors were dying. They were finding them dead because they were speaking against different pharmaceutical products.”

However, JD provided a dissenting perspective from the group after explaining that she had worked in the health care industry and emphasized the importance of doing her own research:

I actually talked to the scientists, and only certain people have the right to go into the freezers where we keep the vaccine. And I needed to know for myself because I didn’t trust that it was cool . . . And I didn’t want to get it. I have two daughters. I didn’t want them to get it. And I had to go in there, and I know this is probably a breach. And we’re being recorded, so I have to be careful what I say, but—I did my research. And after my research, I got the vaccine. After MY research. And I got my daughter the vaccine. And I feel okay with the percentages of what is in the Moderna vaccine. I would not get some of the others.

When participants were asked what they would do if they encountered science-related information that they suspected or were sure was inaccurate, many respondents in both groups said they would not do anything because it was a waste of or not worth their time. “Honestly, misinformation is everywhere,” said FE. “You can try to act on it, but you’re wasting time. You’ll get burnt out.” NS agreed, “It is such a waste of energy sometimes when you try to help.” Others took a more active approach. “I would circulate that information with family, friends, [or] colleagues,” said FI. “I would start to circulate that information and understand if anyone else has [seen it]. And then ask if they have any other details or information related to the topic.” DG indicated that they would look through the comments on a questionable social media post to see if anyone else called it out.

As evidenced in the discussions noted above, participants were concerned about the accuracy of information they encountered and reported efforts at triangulation. These efforts were hampered, however, by many participants’ lack of trust in institutional organizations and preference for relying on familial elders or trusted community members such as “Dr. Sebi.” Consistent with their qualification as being misinformation-receptive or vulnerable, many participants voiced beliefs in inaccurate information and conspiracy theories. While some participants indicated they would try to engage with and warn others about misinformation, many felt taking action was a waste of time.

Interpreting Intervention Strategies

The third research question (RQ3) addressed how Black Americans and Latinos interpret potential misinformation intervention messages. Participants in both focus groups were shown three main intervention strategies (see Supplementary Appendix D): various fact-checking messages, celebrity testimonials, and forewarning messages intended to “inoculate” or protect people from misinformation much in the way populations are inoculated against biological pathogens (McGuire, 1961).

Across both groups, there was a general lack of familiarity with independent fact-checking organizations such as FactCheck.org. Reactions were mixed and demonstrated a lack of understanding of Meta’s Third-Party Fact-Checkers. ⁴ While some participants were open to fact-checkers, many questioned their practices, motivations, and credibility. Initially, for example, when shown a Turning Point USA meme about Greta Thunberg, some participants thought the overlay flagging the message as false information by Instagram made the post unviewable (i.e., censored) and reacted negatively. “What level of credibility do they have?” asked SJ. He continued: “Whoever is writing [the fact-check], what credentials do they have? Because we don’t know it . . . how do we know that they’re not biased?” FI agreed,

I just don’t like it. I think it’s just another way of censoring information. And I think social media does share this information, but what’s nice about it is that you have people that are . . . putting up videos . . . firsthand experiences and videos of people showing you what’s happening on the streets. And if that’s something that is now going to also be interfered with, or social media is going to alter and change and tell us why not to believe something that is actually in front of us, then I have a hard time with that.

However, JD and others pointed out that the post was still viewable by clicking on “see post.”

It didn’t hurt anything. You still clicked it. You still see what you want to see. It’s not infringing on the person who posted, [their] rights to post their opinion. You just have to be intelligent enough to read and make your own decisions based on your knowledge and your research and not just take what someone else is feeding at you 100%.

In contrast, participants were shown a YouTube video clip of the podcast, Behind the Line, which claimed there is a toxic chemical—SM-102—in the Moderna vaccine. A banner had been affixed at the bottom of the YouTube video encouraging viewers that they could “get the latest information from the CDC” by clicking on a “learn more” button and that they could also “see more resources on Google.” The banners, however, made no indication that there was inaccurate content in the video. Participants seemed to prefer the Instagram strategy because it led immediately to the relevant fact-check, whereas the YouTube banner did not. “When you have to—just even hitting two buttons instead of one, it’s too long. I don’t have the time,” explained RT. And there was still the issue of whether the fact-checker was more credible than the person who posted the content in question. HA reiterated, “See, a lot of this stuff, you don’t know who is telling the truth and who’s lying.” FI expanded on this sentiment:

What we’re talking about, like doing your research and looking stuff up, whether you agree or disagree, vaccinated or unvaccinated, this human did look up the ingredient list, did take the time to go to another site to pull up more information about what that particular SM-102 is and is now sharing it. So, I think coming back full circle, it’s like, well, how you know what’s credible or not, because here’s a person who is doing research and is sharing what he believes to be true based off of another site that is telling you what it is. So how do you know?

Furthermore, when shown two video clips, one narrated by Queen Latifah (as voice-over in an ad for a COVID oral treatment) and the other a social media post from Dolly Parton urging the public to get vaccinated, most in both groups were not persuaded or pleased with COVID-19 testimonials because they questioned the celebrities’ motivation and lack of scientific knowledge. In complementary interactions, participants demonstrated their conviction that the celebrities were getting paid for sharing their messages online. “We love the Queen, but . . .” said PB. His explanation was finished by BV, “ . . . she’s getting paid, of course.” Even after explaining that Dolly Parton was not paid, but rather donated one million dollars to Moderna to develop the vaccine, they were still very suspicious of this testimonial and perceived it to be inauthentic. “I think she’s selling her song,” said DG. Similarly, MM also did not perceive Parton’s message as credible: “It would’ve been more [persuasive] if she had not said Moderna. If it is a public announcement, you didn’t need to say Moderna.” However, some participants pushed back. RT pointed out, “But, if that saves someone’s life because they got vaccinated, or whatever. Go ahead. I don’t think it’s harming anyone. Even if it saves one life because some girl who follows her went and got vaccinated because she said to.”

BD expressed frustration with the power disparity of this intervention strategy more generally:

Another thing that irritates me is they use celebrities and entertainers to push these products or agendas. They’re meant to entertain, not to inform us about this. They’re not really knowledgeable on these subjects to begin with. They’re being fed information from people that do know what’s really going on. So, it’s a bit of an insult. They really use celebrities and entertainers to pander to Black people about certain things.

JD agreed that the blatant targeting of their community was insulting:

I think that that was really frustrating, too, because, do you guys remember when the COVID commercials first came out and there were news stories about African Americans not– they’re underreporting based on everyone else having the vaccine? And then all of a sudden, the commercial came out, like, “Neighborhood Healthcare,” or whatever it was, and it was an Asian woman, a Hispanic woman, a Black woman, and, “We all got it. We think it’s safe.” And I’m like, “I ain’t never seen no commercial like that before.” And all of a sudden, a commercial comes out of people that look like you, to get you to go and get that vaccine. My daughter is the one who told me, “Mommy, I’ve never seen that before.” And I said, “Well, you know who they’re targeting.” . . . I thought that was so hypocritical because they’re never in any other commercial like that . . .

The last intervention presented to participants was a (fabricated) Facebook message from Dr. Vivek Murthy (U.S. Surgeon General) reminding social media users to be wary of COVID-19 misinformation. Across both groups, this was the intervention strategy participants were most receptive to as demonstrated by cascading affirmations. “Well, just telling you to be aware, I mean, is always a positive, right?” explained RT. He added, “And [to] make sure the information you rely on comes from credible sources. I think we all question the sources we’re getting our information from all the time, so I think this is a positive statement.” Similarly, JD explained why she perceived this message to be acceptable as long as she was not being told what to do:

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with somebody reminding you something that you already know. I already know to watch out for predators . . . But also, his job is primarily also to make sure that we’re not panicked. So, it’s like, “Hey, don’t forget to do your research.” He’s not trying to stir a panic because that’s really what the government doesn’t want. They don’t want us to panic. So, we need to be soft and gentle in our messaging to us because we’re not very smart and they feel the need to have to tell us. We already know that. So, if you want to say that to me, I’m okay with it. But I’m not going to– I wouldn’t listen to him if he said, “You need to go do X, Y, and Z,” because then I’ve already changed the station in my mind.

A potential problem with this type of message, however, is that it “makes you second-guess everything.”

In summary, participants’ reactions to the shared misinformation intervention strategies indicate they were most receptive to the forewarning message intervention. With some exceptions, they were generally distrustful of the fact-checking messages and warning labels and reacted negatively to the celebrity testimonials, finding them to be inauthentic.

Recommendations for Intervention Strategies

After discussing the potential misinformation intervention strategies, the fourth research question (RQ4) asked participants what other strategies to combat science misinformation they would recommend. Black participants recommended a community forum or town hall where they could convene to share their experiences in an open and transparent manner. BD believed this venue (whether in person or online) would be ideal for sharing experiences with COVID-19 in an honest and unfiltered way:

I mean [a] town hall, live, because you can’t get past that camera. It’s rolling. You see it happening right there. A live town hall for some people is really beneficial because the honest bluntness is coming out. You could [also] do it on Zoom if you want for those who don’t want it [in person]. But I mean, just stream it live. Live town hall, something that you pick up the microphone and you pass it. In this day and age, a little old-fashioned, everyone would show up at town hall. Now you just pass the mic and each person can ask their question or say their experience or talk about what’s happened to them. “Three times, my nephew had COVID and he had these shots.” Explain that.

BD also emphasized the importance of having people they can trust and who understand their community and concerns so that it is genuine:

So, if it’s everybody that’s from the government in a town hall in Roxbury, people are going to be like, “First of all, we don’t know you. We’re not trusting you.” Maybe it needs to be, yeah, community-based or people that you know, people that you will trust. Maybe it could be your respective politician . . . and then maybe the local pastor . . . whatever in that area would make people feel the most comfortable . . .

Other participants emphasized the importance of teaching their children how to detect misinformation early on. For example, FI explained how she’s encouraging her children to ask questions:

I empower them to do so even if that means that there’s a back and forth because the more that they’re able to feel confident and comfortable asking those questions, I think naturally you’ll get to some sort of truth that makes any person feel comfortable . . . we can teach the next generation that curiosity is a superpower, and it is okay to ask the questions, then the more that you dig you’re going to find gold, you’re going to find the hidden treasure.

DG reiterated that the media still needed to be a key component in fighting misinformation. “Documentaries . . .” she said. “. . . things where you can actually see the bottom of what you’re talking about, where the person that’s researching it has actually spoken to the people that they needed to, to go all the way down to the beginning.” She explained,

I did a little bit of research on COVID when it first started happening, and the origins. Where I stopped was somewhere within Boston, one of the universities. I want to say Northeastern. I’m not sure. There was a particular person, a lady. I don’t know if she was Chinese or Japanese, but they were working on a vaccine here and they were told to shut it down and take it somewhere else. And that’s when they went to China or something like that . . . I don’t know exactly where. But I used Google . . . And if you dig deeper, you could get to some of these details because there were people that were talking. But with a lot of things, people started dying, that was actually—closely connected to what was happening. So, there’s an article about it . . . but sometimes, the people aren’t there no more . . .

And just like that, the discussion of what was seen online devolved back into seeming conspiracy theories: ⁵

Do you remember the lady that came out? They used to work with Dr. Fauci and the Caucasian lady. She came out and was saying, “It’s manmade. They don’t want you to know this.” She’s like, “I’m not going to stop talking. They’re trying to shut me up. They’re doing this.”

Despite their occasional forays into conspiracy theories, participants did want to be able to more easily discern accurate scientific information. Their recommendations for combatting science misinformation included community-based forums where trusted local leaders could talk with concerned residents. Teaching children how to detect misinformation was also suggested as was using the media to expose misinformation such as with documentaries.

Theoretical Implications

As expected by the typology of misinformation-susceptible publics (Krishna, 2017, 2021), individuals categorized as “misinformation vulnerable” or “misinformation receptive” are motivated to think about science-related topics and have strongly held extreme attitudes or inaccurate beliefs about a science-related topic. Although our participants did not actively seek out science-related news, when prompted they did, indeed, demonstrate that they were motivated to think about certain science-related topics such as COVID-19 and climate change, as well as health and wellness issues. Furthermore, and consistent with the typology, many participants expressed inaccurate beliefs (e.g., “I think [the vaccine] causes autism and stuff”), as well as conspiratorial beliefs (e.g., “They’re trying to kill us all”). It is noteworthy that while participants qualified for the focus groups based on their climate-related beliefs, or misperceptions (see Supplementary Appendix A), the discussions suggest that the misperceptions of vulnerable and receptive publics are not necessarily limited to a single topic but, instead, may range across a variety of science topics. Consistent with findings from survey-based research (Scherer et al., 2021), this evidence further contributes to the notion that the misinformation-susceptibility typology is theoretically expansive and not issue specific.

Unlike “misinformation amplifiers” who deliberately spread inaccurate information (Krishna, 2017, 2021), these vulnerable/receptive participants were concerned about the veracity of the information they were seeing in the media, especially that which was related to food or health claims. However, given the racial disparities in traditional newsrooms (Grieco, 2018), participants were more inclined to get their news from social media, thereby reinforcing their likely exposure to misinformation (Wang et al., 2019). Using sites such as YouTube to surface scientific content may disrupt the ability of these populations from finding accurate information to make informed decisions. Consistent with CRT (Crenshaw et al., 1995), studies show that social media algorithms contribute to racial/social oppression because the systems mimic existing discriminatory practices (Noble, 2018; O’Neil, 2016). Yet, participants were aware of the importance of and did report practicing cross-referencing or triangulation of information. This is what media literacy experts refer to as “lateral reading” (McGrew et al., 2017, p. 8). Thus, it is noteworthy that these participants were already engaged in practices that have been called for in building misinformation resilience (Lee et al., 2023).

In the context of the infrastructural oppression posed by discriminatory algorithms, another important obstacle that emerged was that it was often difficult for these participants to know whom to trust given inherent biases in other institutions. They were aware of official sources such as the CDC, FDA, or WHO, but many questioned the credibility of these institutions because of the historical discrimination underrepresented populations experienced. For example, participants discussed difficulties in accessing affordable, healthy food, alluding to the “food deserts” (e.g., “It’s almost a trap”) that are disproportionately concentrated in low-income areas with underrepresented populations (Dutko et al., 2012). Their lack of trust was also based on how frequently the information from these agencies changed over time or was seemingly inconsistent with similar organizations in other countries. Moreover, that the U.S. media system is commercially supported and thus profit-oriented encourages the politicization and polarization of content, further complicating the complex understanding of emerging scientific issues (Hart et al., 2020). To be sure, that “lady that came out . . . saying it’s manmade” was revealed to be a strategic “cloaked science” disinformation campaign about the origins of COVID-19—the “Yan Reports”—that leveraged the vulnerability of open-access scientific preprint repositories, the scale of social media, and partisan media such as Fox News (Nilsen et al., 2022). The Yan Reports demonstrate how yet another vulnerable population, Asians, has been the subject of a racist disinformation campaign that contributed to increasing anti-Asian sentiment and harassment (Dwoskin, 2021). The bitter irony revealed in this study is that this disinformation is being consumed by Black and Latino audiences who have been historically the subject of disinformation campaigns, as well.

In seeking out accurate scientific information, consulting fact-checking organizations was not organically mentioned and was generally met with skepticism when raised during the discussion, with participants questioning their motivations and credibility. Indeed, in a high-choice media environment, few people seek out fact-checking sites (Guess et al., 2020). That science-related fact-checkers such as SciCheck most frequently cite government agencies, such as the CDC, FDA, or National Institutes of Health (NIH), to support their claims (Su et al., 2022) likely contributes to the disconnect with people who historically do not trust the government (Krishna, 2018). While fact-checkers like SciCheck are more likely to cite multilingual sites when providing evidence for addressing misinformation, many websites are not available in multiple languages (Su et al., 2022). Thus, underrepresented groups continue to lack access to accurate, multilingual information (Lee et al., 2023) demonstrating that the infrastructure of online media environments can be discriminatory, inhibiting their ability to comprehend the world (Su et al., 2017). These findings echo what has been referred to as the communication inequalities approach to understanding disparities across racial/ethnic groups (Pena-Y-Lillo & Lee, 2019; Viswanath & Emmons, 2006). Applying the communication inequalities lens to understanding how misinformation spreads among susceptible groups may be an avenue for future scholarship.

In navigating the power granted to media institutions in narrating and shaping (mis)perceptions of the world (Amazeen, 2014), participants turned to storytelling and observation. Stories of the lived experiences of trusted elders from distant lands were shared to help make sense of how and why present ways of living are so much different—often worse—than their ancestors, especially the health disparities. In this same way, some participants were drawn to social media posts from individuals such as “Dr. Sebi,” the “African holistic guru,” because of his elder status, cultural resonance, and ability to speak to their health concerns. Beyond storytelling, if there were specific claims on social media that participants were suspicious of, some indicated they would look at the comments of others, a strategy consistent with Bode and Vraga’s (2015) concept of “observational correction.” Moreover, unlike the 23% (Bode & Vraga, 2015) to 50% (Glass, 2022) of people who have reportedly attempted to provide accurate information to someone who has shared misinformation, many of these participants said they personally would not take such action as it was perceived to be a waste of their time. This is in line with other research that revealed most social media users (73%) ignore misinformation when they see it online (Tandoc et al., 2020)—consistent with the avoidance strategies noted by Jacks and Cameron (2003)—unless it is from family members or close friends (Baines et al., 2023).

Practical Implications

Given that misinformation-vulnerable/receptive publics comprise the largest proportion of Krishna’s (2021) taxonomy, it is important to strategically engage with these populations in ways that resonate. While fact-checking has been shown to be conditionally effective at correcting misperceptions (Ecker et al., 2022), fact-checks appear not to be credible for these groups. Instead, participants seemed more amenable to general inoculation messages that forewarn about misinformation strategies such as using questionable sources or selective use of data to support one’s arguments (Ecker et al., 2022). This is consistent with other research engaging underrepresented populations (Lee et al., 2023). While this inoculation-based strategy has been shown effective across audiences with differing preexisting attitudes on a topic (Amazeen et al., 2022), this study suggests that it merits future empirical analysis among populations vulnerable or receptive to science-related misinformation. An important challenge to information literacy interventions such as this, however, is evidence that they may have the unintended effect of prompting people to discount the accuracy of all types of information rather than only that which is false (Guay et al., 2022). Indeed, even in response to the preferred inoculation strategy, participants explicitly mentioned that it may make people “second-guess everything.”

Based on these findings, future efforts to help misinformation-susceptible individuals among underrepresented communities effectively identify and respond to science-related inaccuracies must adopt a multi-pronged approach that is culturally sensitive. Indeed, our findings reflect previous scholarship on cultural variance (Davis & Resnicow, 2012) that highlights ways cultural identity, cultural characteristics, and contextual specificity must purposively and effectively engage with marginalized or underserved communities concerning health or science message design, thereby deviating from the general market strategy approach to engage with set groups. It is in this way that local community leaders who are considered credible and trustworthy must be leveraged. Participants emphasized the importance of having people they can trust who genuinely understand their community’s concerns such as local politicians or religious leaders. This is also consistent with the findings of other studies of underrepresented communities which found that engaging with local leaders who reflect the identities, understand the historical complexities, and speak their language are crucial in developing appropriate interventions (Lee et al., 2023; Tully et al., 2022). Similarly, cultural literacy or the ability to identify and understand how to engage customs, social identities, and worldviews associated with particular populations is necessary for effective health and science-related communications (Zarcadoolas et al., 2005) and is an avenue for additional research regarding science misinformation interventions.

Beyond local politicians and religious leaders, librarians and libraries may be another potential key vector in connecting underrepresented communities with accurate information. Although libraries were not mentioned by our participants, nationally representative surveys have shown that libraries remain one of the most trusted institutions at a time when trust is at an all-time low (Geiger, 2017). Communities of color, in particular, are more likely to perceive local libraries as community anchors and are more likely to believe that libraries help people learn how to decide what information to trust (Horrigan, 2015). Moreover, an overwhelming majority of respondents to a 2016 Pew survey indicated that they believed libraries should have programs to teach digital information literacy skills (Horrigan, 2016). Indeed, the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) has convened a taskforce to study just such a question. As the IMLS Director noted, “Access to accurate information is a cornerstone of democracy, and information literacy is the tool by which all people can meaningfully participate in our society” (IMLS, 2022). The taskforce aims to increase access to information literacy instruction so local communities can be better prepared to engage with and find accurate information.

Instruction was also mentioned by participants who were informally teaching children or helping friends or family members locate information. Without using the words “media literacy education,” this is essentially what participants were describing (Lee et al., 2023; Tully et al., 2022). While this type of instruction can take place at local libraries, as envisioned by the IMLS, some state-level initiatives are underway to mandate media literacy education in public schools. In 2021, the state of Illinois passed a law requiring all public high schools to include a unit of media literacy education beginning with the 2022 to 2023 academic year (Illinois General Assembly, 2021). In 2023, New Jersey passed a similar law expanded to include grades K-12 (State of New Jersey, 2023). Whether legislative mandates such as these consider the needs of children from underrepresented communities—reflecting their cultural identities, their historical complexities, and their languages—are crucial in the success of these interventions.

Limitations and Future Research

As with any research effort, certain limitations need acknowledgment. While qualitative research yields rich insights, this study was limited to the perspectives of 19 participants in 2 focus groups. Furthermore, the study focused only on perspectives from two underrepresented audiences: those of Black and Latino participants. Future research should examine the experiences of other underrepresented groups who reside in different U.S. geographic locations, as did Lee and colleagues (2023), but focus on those who are misinformation-susceptible within those marginalized populations. Moreover, given the revelation that the misperceptions of vulnerable and receptive publics spanned a variety of science topics, future research is warranted to examine if this finding generalizes to a broader population. Furthermore, while this study revealed that many participants indicated they engaged in lateral reading and triangulation in trying to discern the accuracy of information, future research could investigate how effective these types of participants are in using these strategies. Finally, regarding Latino participants: as the largest racial or ethnic group in the United States, Latinos are not monolithic but represent a variety of intersectional identities. Future research should examine how some of these differences, such as having an immigrant status or speaking Spanish or other languages, may play a role in engagement with science and perceptions of science misinformation intervention strategies among Latinos and a wider variety of ethnicities and racial groups.