Literature DB >> 28895452

Debunking: A Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Efficacy of Messages Countering Misinformation.

Man-Pui Sally Chan1, Christopher R Jones2, Kathleen Hall Jamieson2, Dolores Albarracín1.   

Abstract

This meta-analysis investigated the factors underlying effective messages to counter attitudes and beliefs based on misinformation. Because misinformation can lead to poor decisions about consequential matters and is persistent and difficult to correct, debunking it is an important scientific and public-policy goal. This meta-analysis ( k = 52, N = 6,878) revealed large effects for presenting misinformation ( ds = 2.41-3.08), debunking ( ds = 1.14-1.33), and the persistence of misinformation in the face of debunking ( ds = 0.75-1.06). Persistence was stronger and the debunking effect was weaker when audiences generated reasons in support of the initial misinformation. A detailed debunking message correlated positively with the debunking effect. Surprisingly, however, a detailed debunking message also correlated positively with the misinformation-persistence effect.

Entities:  

Keywords:  belief persistence/perseverance; continued influence; correction; misinformation; open data; science communication

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28895452      PMCID: PMC5673564          DOI: 10.1177/0956797617714579

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Sci        ISSN: 0956-7976


  17 in total

Review 1.  A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality.

Authors:  Daniel Kahneman
Journal:  Am Psychol       Date:  2003-09

2.  Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation.

Authors:  Ullrich K H Ecker; Stephan Lewandowsky; David T W Tang
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2010-12

3.  Publication bias in research synthesis: sensitivity analysis using a priori weight functions.

Authors:  Jack L Vevea; Carol M Woods
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2005-12

4.  Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry.

Authors:  Jaime L Peters; Alex J Sutton; David R Jones; Keith R Abrams; Lesley Rushton
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2008-06-06       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Correcting false information in memory: manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction.

Authors:  Ullrich K H Ecker; Stephan Lewandowsky; Briony Swire; Darren Chang
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2011-06

6.  Terrorists brought down the plane!--No, actually it was a technical fault: processing corrections of emotive information.

Authors:  Ullrich K H Ecker; Stephan Lewandowsky; Joe Apai
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2010-08-06       Impact factor: 2.143

7.  Feeling validated versus being correct: a meta-analysis of selective exposure to information.

Authors:  William Hart; Dolores Albarracín; Alice H Eagly; Inge Brechan; Matthew J Lindberg; Lisa Merrill
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 17.737

Review 8.  Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions.

Authors:  S Hopewell; S McDonald; M Clarke; M Egger
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2007-04-18

9.  Do people keep believing because they want to? Preexisting attitudes and the continued influence of misinformation.

Authors:  Ullrich K H Ecker; Stephan Lewandowsky; Olivia Fenton; Kelsey Martin
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2014-02

10.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069

View more
  51 in total

1.  Containing health myths in the age of viral misinformation.

Authors:  Roger Collier
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2018-05-14       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Crisis or self-correction: Rethinking media narratives about the well-being of science.

Authors:  Kathleen Hall Jamieson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Can Debunked Conspiracy Theories Change Radicalized Views? Evidence from Racial Prejudice and Anti-China Sentiment Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Authors:  Tianyang Liu; Tianru Guan; Randong Yuan
Journal:  J Chin Polit Sci       Date:  2022-09-29

4.  Aging in an Era of Fake News.

Authors:  Nadia M Brashier; Daniel L Schacter
Journal:  Curr Dir Psychol Sci       Date:  2020-05-19

Review 5.  Ten considerations for effectively managing the COVID-19 transition.

Authors:  Katrine Bach Habersaat; Cornelia Betsch; Margie Danchin; Cass R Sunstein; Robert Böhm; Armin Falk; Noel T Brewer; Saad B Omer; Martha Scherzer; Sunita Sah; Edward F Fischer; Andrea E Scheel; Daisy Fancourt; Shinobu Kitayama; Eve Dubé; Julie Leask; Mohan Dutta; Noni E MacDonald; Anna Temkina; Andreas Lieberoth; Mark Jackson; Stephan Lewandowsky; Holly Seale; Nils Fietje; Philipp Schmid; Michele Gelfand; Lars Korn; Sarah Eitze; Lisa Felgendreff; Philipp Sprengholz; Cristiana Salvi; Robb Butler
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2020-06-24

6.  COVID-19-related misinformation on social media: a systematic review.

Authors:  Elia Gabarron; Sunday Oluwafemi Oyeyemi; Rolf Wynn
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 9.408

Review 7.  Misinformation: susceptibility, spread, and interventions to immunize the public.

Authors:  Sander van der Linden
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2022-03-10       Impact factor: 53.440

8.  The global effectiveness of fact-checking: Evidence from simultaneous experiments in Argentina, Nigeria, South Africa, and the United Kingdom.

Authors:  Ethan Porter; Thomas J Wood
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-09-14       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Corrections of political misinformation: no evidence for an effect of partisan worldview in a US convenience sample.

Authors:  Ullrich K H Ecker; Brandon K N Sze; Matthew Andreotta
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2021-02-22       Impact factor: 6.237

10.  Message Design Choices Don't Make Much Difference to Persuasiveness and Can't Be Counted On-Not Even When Moderating Conditions Are Specified.

Authors:  Daniel J O'Keefe; Hans Hoeken
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-06-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.