Disinformation is false information spread intentionally, and it is particularly harmful for public health. We conducted three preregistered experiments (N = 1,568) investigating how to discredit dubious health sources and disinformation attributed to them. Experiments 1 and 2 used cancer information and recruited representative U.S. samples. Participants read a vignette about a seemingly reputable source and rated their credibility. Participants were randomly assigned to a control condition or interventions that (a) corrected the source's disinformation, (b) highlighted the source's low expertise, or (c) corrected disinformation and highlighted low expertise (Experiment 2). Next, participants rated their belief in the source's disinformation claims and rerated their credibility. We found that highlighting low expertise was equivalent to (or more effective than) other interventions for reducing belief in disinformation. Highlighting low expertise was also more effective than correcting disinformation for reducing source credibility, although combining it with correcting disinformation outperformed low expertise alone (Experiment 2). Experiment 3 extended this paradigm to vaccine information in vaccinated and unvaccinated subgroups. A conflict-of-interest intervention and 1 week retention interval were also added. Highlighting low expertise was the most effective intervention in both vaccinated and unvaccinated participants for reducing belief in disinformation and source credibility. It was also the only condition where belief change was sustained over 1 week, but only in the vaccinated subgroup. In sum, highlighting a source's lack of expertise is a promising option for fact-checkers and health practitioners to reduce belief in disinformation and perceived credibility. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

抹黑健康虚假信息来源：强调低专业知识的优势。


虚假信息是故意传播的虚假信息，对公共健康尤其有害。我们进行了三项预先注册的实验（N = 1,568），调查如何抹黑可疑的健康来源和归因于它们的虚假信息。实验 1 和 2 使用癌症信息并招募了具有代表性的美国样本。参与者阅读了关于看似信誉良好的来源的小插曲，并评价了其可信度。参与者被随机分配到控制条件或干预措施，以（a）纠正消息来源的虚假信息，（b）强调消息来源的低专业知识，或（c）纠正虚假信息并突出低专业知识（实验2）。接下来，参与者评估了他们对消息来源虚假信息主张的信念，并重新评估了他们的可信度。我们发现，强调低专业知识相当于（或更有效）其他减少虚假信息信念的干预措施。强调低专业知识也比纠正虚假信息更有效，以降低来源可信度，尽管将其与纠正虚假信息相结合优于单独低专业知识（实验 2）。实验 3 将这种范式扩展到已接种疫苗和未接种疫苗的亚组中的疫苗信息。还添加了利益冲突干预和 1 周保留间隔。强调专业知识不足是对接种疫苗和未接种疫苗的参与者最有效的干预措施，以减少对虚假信息和来源可信度的信任。这也是信念改变持续超过 1 周的唯一情况，但仅限于接种疫苗的亚组。总之，对于事实核查人员和健康从业者来说，强调消息来源缺乏专业知识是减少对虚假信息和可信度的信任的一个有前途的选择。 （PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。