Mental Health Misinformation on Social Media: Evaluations and Responses

Theoretical Background and research questions/hypothesis: Scholars are increasingly interested in responses to health messages, especially health misinformation, on social media (Nan et al., 2021). Transmissibility of social media posts facilitates spreading of misinformation (Wang et al., 2016). Yet little research on misinformation has addressed mental health. Popular articles argue that false/misleading information on social media contributes to inappropriate self-diagnosis and misunderstandings about mental health treatment (Wood, 2021). Messages that stigmatize mental health conditions also could be considered misinformation. This study focuses on factors that affect responses to mental health misinformation on social media. Grounded in psychological approaches to misinformation and stigma theory (e.g., Krishna & Thompson, 2021; Smith, 2007), this study examines responses to social media “posts” about depression that convey accurate or inaccurate information about diagnosis/treatment and that perpetuate or challenge stigma. Moreover, because posts by public figures/celebrities have greater potential to become viral, messages were randomly attributed to a public figure or an average person. We predict that perceived truth and usefulness of information will increase intention to share/endorse messages and reduce intention to criticize/correct messages. We ask if responses will differ based on message type (diagnosis/treatment; stigma related to blame/peril) and attribution to a public figure vs. average person. Moderators include mental health stigma and personal/family mental health experience.

Methods: Participants on MTurk (200) completed a Qualtrics survey. The data have been collected and are being analyzed. Sixteen messages about depression were created, which presented accurate/inaccurate information about diagnosis/treatment, and that perpetuated/challenged two types of stigma (blame/peril). Respondents were randomly assigned to view 4 posts attributed to a public figure or average person. They evaluated truth and usefulness of each message, and reported intention to share, post supportive or critical comments, and correct the message. Background variables include mental health stigma and mental health experience. Respondents also rated credibility of a list of public figures as sources of mental health information. The survey ended with a debriefing message.

Results: Because data collection just concluded, results are yet available. ANOVA will examine the effect of message features (accurate/inaccurate information; diagnosis/treatment; type of stigma) on key dependent variables: perceived truth and usefulness and response intentions (sharing, endorsing, criticizing, correcting). The influence of message source will also be examined. Regression analyses will examine how personal characteristics and perceived truth and usefulness influence response intentions. Results will yield data regarding the role of public figures in spreading or challenging mental health misinformation.

Conclusions: The findings will inform understanding of factors that contribute to spreading or challenging mental health misinformation on social media. Results will also yield data regarding the role of public figures – and perceived credibility of specific individuals – for future research on the effectiveness of public correction of mental health misinformation.

Implications for research and/or practice: This research contributes to an important but understudied topic: mental health misinformation on social media. The study contributes to a gap in the research literature, and also extends work on health misinformation and stigma. The findings will also yield insight for mental health professionals regarding public sources of misunderstanding and stigma related to mental health.