Author ORCID Identifier
0000-0003-4066-1287
Defense Date
2025
Document Type
Dissertation
Degree Name
Doctor of Philosophy
Department
Psychology
First Advisor
Eric G. Benotsch
Second Advisor
Kristina Hood
Third Advisor
Jeffery Green
Fourth Advisor
Linda Zyzniewski
Fifth Advisor
Richard Brown
Abstract
Medical misinformation represents a significant threat to both individual and public health. While some consequences of this form of misinformation are relatively benign, there can be serious consequences ranging from a decreased trust in healthcare systems to an increased likelihood of epidemic outbreak and death. One such consequence can be seen in the recent legislative actions taken regarding access to transgender healthcare in the United States. Gender affirming care has been shown to benefit the mental well-being of transgender youth and adults; however, the demonstrably false information that underlies these legislative efforts can and has yielded significant harm. But what leads individuals to being susceptible to this (or other) medical misinformation in the first place? Often perceived as political, limited work has explored the underlying factors that might yield increased susceptibility to medical misinformation. Some previous work on misinformation more generally has suggested two potential pathways that yield increased susceptibility to misinformation: superficial information processing and selective processing. While the superficial information processing account would suggest that individuals who are susceptible to misinformation are relying on intuition or gut feelings (i.e., heuristics), the selective processing account for susceptibility to misinformation suggests that individuals engage with misinformation in a way that relies on their previous biases and perspectives (i.e., motivated reasoning). Other work related to social learning has suggested that social influence may impact beliefs about both concepts and people – individuals may learn their beliefs from trusted social referents. Guided by these theories, study 1 collected data from a balanced sample of participants (N=270) identifying as either Democrat, Republican, or Independent which were used to develop a structural equation model (SEM) that simultaneously examined the impacts of motivated reasoning (via latent variables of resistance to systems change and situational antipathy), socially influenced beliefs, and heuristic reliance on susceptibility to medical misinformation about gender affirming healthcare. Overall, the model demonstrated good fit while indicating that motivated reasoning and socially influenced beliefs played significant roles in susceptibility to medical misinformation. Two follow-up tests noted that model fit benefited from the removal of the heuristic reliance variable, and that party affiliation did not impact model fit but did impact patterns of responding. These results suggest that the strongest predictors of susceptibility to medical misinformation about gender affirming healthcare were motivated reasoning and social influence regardless of party affiliation. Drawing upon these models, study 2 recruited a balanced sample of participants (N=506) who self-identified as Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to complete a similar questionnaire assessing susceptibility to misinformation about vaccines and abortion. Two SEMs were constructed to examine susceptibility to medical misinformation about abortion and vaccines. Both models demonstrated excellent fit and suggested that the two strongest predictors of each form of medical misinformation were motivated reasoning and social influence. Follow-up analyses suggested that, while heuristic reliance did not significantly yield increased susceptibility to medical misinformation, the removal of the variable examining heuristic reliance did not impact model fit. Further, both models demonstrated configural and metric invariance, suggesting that not only does model fit remain the same regardless of political affiliation but that the patterns of responding remain the same as well. Results from this study may enhance understanding of factors that yield increased susceptibility to medical misinformation and disinformation, while also providing insight into means by which these pathways might be disrupted.
Rights
© The Author
Is Part Of
VCU University Archives
Is Part Of
VCU Theses and Dissertations
Date of Submission
4-4-2025
