Vulnerable Populations and COVID-19 Misinformation

• In Event: Relevance, Quality, and Expedience: Political Science Responds to COVID-19: COVID-19 and Political Behavior: Public Opinion and Political Participation

Abstract

"The most astonishing thing about the pandemic was the complete mystery which surrounded it. Nobody seemed to know what the disease was, where it came from or how to stop it. Anxious minds are inquiring today… In spite of the repeated statement that [some information] has been discredited, there are many well-informed persons who believe [it].”
--Major George A. Soper (1919: 501, 503)

This statement, from a 1919 Science article on the Spanish Flu, could most certainly apply to the COVID-19 pandemic. Like the Spanish Flu, COVID-19 has upended health, economic, and social systems. Yet, one notable difference is the information environment in which we live today. While misinformation was obviously a concern a century ago—as is mentioned in the quote—the speed with which misinformation can spread today is unprecedented. Misinformation about COVID-19 can have severe consequences for people ignoring health advice that can delay economic recovery and becoming hostile to groups they misattribute as being responsible (van Bavel et al. 2020: 464).

Not surprisingly, these concerns have led to a large number of explorations into COVID-19 misinformation; however, virtually, all of this work focuses on social media and misinformation spread. While certainly a crucial topic, much less work explores who, in fact, is misinformed. Isolating those more likely to be misinformed allows communities and practitioners to target such individuals with techniques for enhancing accurate information (e.g. Pennycook et al. 2020, van Bavel et al. 2020: 464).

In this paper, we explore the correlates of misinformation about COVID-19. We offer a brief review of work on science misinformation, leading to a set of expectations. We then explore the correlates of misinformation about COVID-19, as well as the correlates of correct information with a large data set of nearly 18,000 individuals. We find clear evidence that populations vulnerable to the disease tend to be the least informed and the most misinformed—perhaps most notably African-Americans, who have been otherwise disproportionally affected by the disease, and those exhibiting low levels of mental health who are inherently at risk. We also find that partisan gaps reflect group attachments with political parties. With a disease that quickly became politicized in the United States, these too are vulnerable individuals insofar as they tend to rely on identity affirmation rather than the systematic assessment of information (Achen and Bartels 2016). Our results offer a crucial portrait of those susceptible to the consequences of misinformation and also contribute to the general knowledge of misinformation about science.

Authors

• James N. Druckman, Northwestern University

• David Lazer, Northeastern University

• Katherine Ognyanova, Rutgers University

• Matthew A. Baum, Harvard University

• Matthew D. Simonson, University of Pennsylvania