A meta-analysis of correction effects in science-relevant misinformation.

Nat Hum Behav

Annenberg School for Communication, Annenberg Public Policy Center, School of Arts and Sciences, School of Nursing, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Published: September 2023

Scientifically relevant misinformation, defined as false claims concerning a scientific measurement procedure or scientific evidence, regardless of the author's intent, is illustrated by the fiction that the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine contained microchips to track citizens. Updating science-relevant misinformation after a correction can be challenging, and little is known about what theoretical factors can influence the correction. Here this meta-analysis examined 205 effect sizes (that is, k, obtained from 74 reports; N = 60,861), which showed that attempts to debunk science-relevant misinformation were, on average, not successful (d = 0.19, P = 0.131, 95% confidence interval -0.06 to 0.43). However, corrections were more successful when the initial science-relevant belief concerned negative topics and domains other than health. Corrections fared better when they were detailed, when recipients were likely familiar with both sides of the issue ahead of the study and when the issue was not politically polarized.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01623-8DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

science-relevant misinformation
12
meta-analysis correction
4
correction effects
4
science-relevant
4
effects science-relevant
4
misinformation
4
misinformation scientifically
4
scientifically relevant
4
relevant misinformation
4
misinformation defined
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!