Literature DB >> 26173286

Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing.

Stephan Lewandowsky1, Ullrich K H Ecker2, Colleen M Seifert3, Norbert Schwarz3, John Cook4.   

Abstract

The widespread prevalence and persistence of misinformation in contemporary societies, such as the false belief that there is a link between childhood vaccinations and autism, is a matter of public concern. For example, the myths surrounding vaccinations, which prompted some parents to withhold immunization from their children, have led to a marked increase in vaccine-preventable disease, as well as unnecessary public expenditure on research and public-information campaigns aimed at rectifying the situation. We first examine the mechanisms by which such misinformation is disseminated in society, both inadvertently and purposely. Misinformation can originate from rumors but also from works of fiction, governments and politicians, and vested interests. Moreover, changes in the media landscape, including the arrival of the Internet, have fundamentally influenced the ways in which information is communicated and misinformation is spread. We next move to misinformation at the level of the individual, and review the cognitive factors that often render misinformation resistant to correction. We consider how people assess the truth of statements and what makes people believe certain things but not others. We look at people's memory for misinformation and answer the questions of why retractions of misinformation are so ineffective in memory updating and why efforts to retract misinformation can even backfire and, ironically, increase misbelief. Though ideology and personal worldviews can be major obstacles for debiasing, there nonetheless are a number of effective techniques for reducing the impact of misinformation, and we pay special attention to these factors that aid in debiasing. We conclude by providing specific recommendations for the debunking of misinformation. These recommendations pertain to the ways in which corrections should be designed, structured, and applied in order to maximize their impact. Grounded in cognitive psychological theory, these recommendations may help practitioners-including journalists, health professionals, educators, and science communicators-design effective misinformation retractions, educational tools, and public-information campaigns.
© The Author(s) 2012.

Entities:  

Keywords:  debiasing; false beliefs; memory updating; misinformation

Year:  2012        PMID: 26173286     DOI: 10.1177/1529100612451018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Sci Public Interest        ISSN: 1529-1006


  225 in total

Review 1.  Addressing heterogeneous parental concerns about vaccination with a multiple-source model: a parent and educator perspective.

Authors:  E Allison Hagood; Stacy Mintzer Herlihy
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2013-05-31       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Patient engagement and shared decision-making: What do they look like in neurology practice?

Authors:  Melissa J Armstrong; Lisa M Shulman; Joseph Vandigo; C Daniel Mullins
Journal:  Neurol Clin Pract       Date:  2016-04

3.  Social media targeting of health messages. A promising approach for research and practice.

Authors:  Cornelia Betsch
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2014-11-19       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  The Potential for Narrative Correctives to Combat Misinformation.

Authors:  Angeline Sangalang; Yotam Ophir; Joseph N Cappella
Journal:  J Commun       Date:  2019-04-30

5.  Advocating for vaccination in a climate of science denial.

Authors:  Cornelia Betsch
Journal:  Nat Microbiol       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 17.745

6.  Why Frankenstein is a Stigma Among Scientists.

Authors:  Peter Nagy; Ruth Wylie; Joey Eschrich; Ed Finn
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-06-26       Impact factor: 3.525

7.  Perceived social presence reduces fact-checking.

Authors:  Youjung Jun; Rachel Meng; Gita Venkataramani Johar
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-05-22       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news.

Authors:  Dietram A Scheufele; Nicole M Krause
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-01-14       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Interactive effects of the probability of the cue and the probability of the outcome on the overestimation of null contingency.

Authors:  Fernando Blanco; Helena Matute; Miguel A Vadillo
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 1.986

10.  Correcting false memories: Errors must be noticed and replaced.

Authors:  Hillary G Mullet; Elizabeth J Marsh
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2016-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.