Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2020-3
A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Continued Influence of Misinformation in the Face of Correction: How Powerful Is It,Why Does It Happen,and How to Stop It?
A meta-analysis was conducted to examine the extent of continued influence of misinformation in the face of correction and the theoretical explanations of this phenomenon. Aggregation of results from 32 studies (N = 6,527) revealed that, on average, correction does not entirely eliminate the effect of misinformation (r = –.05, p = .045). Corrective messages were found to be more successful when they are coherent, consistent with the audience’s worldview, and delivered by the source of the misinformation itself. Corrections are less effective if the misinformation was attributed to a credible source, the misinformation has been repeated multiple times prior to correction, or when there was a time lag between the delivery of the misinformation and the correction. These findings are consistent with predictions based on theories of mental models and offer concrete recommendations for practitioners.
AllenM.PreissR. W.GayleB. M. (2006). Meta-analytic examination of the base-rate fallacy. Communication Research Reports, 23, 45-51. doi:10.1080/17464090500535863
2.
ArmstrongG. M.GurolM.RussF. A. (1979). Detecting and correcting deceptive advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 237-246. doi:10.1086/208765
3.
BarbettaP. M.HewardW. L.BradleyD. M.MillerA. D. (1994). Effects of immediate and delayed error correction on the acquisition and maintenance of sight words by students with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 177-178. doi:10.1901/jaba.1994.27-177
4.
BaumeisterR. F.BratslavskyE.FinkenauerC.VohsK. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323
5.
BebbingtonK.MacLeodC.EllisonT. M.FayN. (2017). The sky is falling: Evidence of a negativity bias in the social transmission of information. Evolution & Human Behavior, 38, 92-101. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.07.004
BerinskyA. J. (2017). Rumors and health care reform: Experiments in political misinformation. British Journal of Political Science, 47, 241-262. doi:10.1017/S0007123415000186
8.
BlankH.LaunayC. (2014). How to protect eyewitness memory against the misinformation effect: A meta-analysis of post-warning studies. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 77-88. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.03.005
9.
BorensteinM.HedgesL.HigginsJ.RothsteinH. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis: A computer program for meta-analysis [Computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat Inc.
10.
BusselleR. (2017). Schema theory and mental models. In RosslerP. (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of media effects (pp. 1753-1760). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
11.
CappellaJ. N.MaloneyE.OphirY.BrennanE. (2015). Interventions to correct misinformation about tobacco products. Tobacco Regulatory Science, 1, 186-197. doi:10.18001/TRS.1.2.8
12.
ChanM. P. S.JonesC. R.Hall JamiesonK.AlbarracínD. (2017). Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological Science, 28, 1531-1546. doi:10.1177/0956797617714579
13.
ChangC. (2015). Motivated processing: How people perceive news covering novel or contradictory health research findings. Science Communication, 37, 602-634. doi:10.1177/1075547015597914
14.
ChoC. H.MartensM. L.KimH.RodrigueM. (2011). Astroturfing global warming: It isn’t always greener on the other side of the fence. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 571-587. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0950-6
15.
ClarkH. H.ChaseW. G. (1972). On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 472-517. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(72)90019-9
16.
EckerU. K.LewandowskyS.CheungC. S.MayberyM. T. (2015). He did it! She did it! No, she did not! Multiple causal explanations and the continued influence of misinformation. Journal of Memory and Language, 85, 101-115. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2015.09.002
17.
EckerU. K.LewandowskyS.TangD. T. (2010). Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1087-1100. doi:10.3758/MC.38.8.1087
18.
EckerU. K.LewandowskyS.FentonO.MartinK. (2014). Do people keep believing because they want to? Preexisting attitudes and the continued influence of misinformation. Memory & Cognition, 42, 292-304. doi: 10.3758/s13421-013-0358-x
19.
EckerU. K.LewandowskyS.SwireB.ChangD. (2011). Correcting false information in memory: Manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 570-578. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0065-1
20.
FestingerL. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140. doi:10.1177/001872675400700202
21.
FiedlerK.WaltherE.ArmbrusterT.FayD.NaumannU. (1996). Do you really know what you have seen? Intrusion errors and presuppositions effects on constructive memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 484-511. doi:10.1006/jesp.1996.0022
22.
FlynnD. J.NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2017). The nature and origins of misperceptions: Understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology, 38, 127-150. doi:10.1111/pops.12394
23.
FosterJ. L.HuthwaiteT.YesbergJ. A.GarryM.LoftusE. F. (2012). Repetition, not number of sources, increases both susceptibility to misinformation and confidence in the accuracy of eyewitnesses. Acta Psychologica, 139, 320-326. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.12.004
24.
GuessA.NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2018). Selective exposure to misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. Brussels, Belgium: European Research Council.
25.
GuilloryJ. J.GeraciL. (2013). Correcting erroneous inferences in memory: The role of source credibility. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 201-209. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.10.001
26.
HansenJ.WänkeM. (2009). Liking what’s familiar: The importance of unconscious familiarity in the mere-exposure effect. Social Cognition, 27, 161-182. doi:10.1521/soco.2009.27.2.161
27.
HedgesL. V.VeveaJ. L. (1998). Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486-504. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486
28.
ItoT. A.LarsenJ. T.SmithN. K.CacioppoJ. T. (1998). Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 887-900. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.887
29.
JohnsonH. M.SeifertC. M. (1994). Sources of the continued influence effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1420-1436. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1420
30.
JostJ. T.FedericoC. M.NapierJ. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307-337. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600
31.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480-498. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. H.SeifertC. M.SchwarzN.CookJ. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 106-131. doi:10.1177/1529100612451018
34.
MayoR.SchulY.BurnsteinE. (2004). “I am not guilty” vs “I am innocent”: Successful negation may depend on the schema used for its encoding. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 433-449. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.07.008
35.
MazisM. B.AdkinsonJ. E. (1976). An experimental evaluation of a proposed corrective advertising remedy. Journal of Marketing Research, 13, 178-183. doi:10.2307/3150855
36.
McGuireW. J. (1968). Personality and attitude change: An information processing theory. In GreenwaldA. G.BrockT. C.OstromT. M. (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 171-196). New York, NY: Academic Press.
37.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2012). Misinformation and fact-checking: Research findings from social science. Washington, DC: New America Foundation.
38.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2015). Displacing misinformation about events: An experimental test of causal corrections. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2, 81-93. doi:10.1017/XPS.2014.22
39.
O’KeefeD. J. (2015). Message generalizations that support evidence-based persuasive message design: Specifying the evidentiary requirements. Health Communication, 30, 106-113. doi:10.1080/10410236.2014.974123
40.
OzturkP.LiH.SakamotoY. (2015, January). Combating rumor spread on social media: The effectiveness of refutation and warning. In 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 2406-2414). New York, NY: IEEE.
41.
PearceL. J.FieldA. P. (2016). The impact of “scary” TV and film on children’s internalizing emotions: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 42, 98-121. doi:10.1111/hcre.12069
42.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion. New York, NY: Springer.
PornpitakpanC. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243-281. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x
45.
ReberR.SchwarzN. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 8, 338-342. doi:10.1006/ccog.1999.0386
46.
RushtonC. H.ReinaM. L.ReinaD. S. (2007). Building trustworthy relationships with critically ill patients and families. AACN Advanced Critical Care, 18, 19-30.
47.
RosenthalR. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
48.
RozinP.RoyzmanE. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296-320. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2
49.
SchwarzN. (2015). Metacognition. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R.BorgidaE.BarghJ. A. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Attitudes and social cognition (pp. 203-229). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
50.
SchwarzN.SannaL. J.SkurnikI.YoonC. (2007). Metacognitive experiences and the intricacies of setting people straight. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 127-161. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(06)39003-X
TaberC. S.LodgeM. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
53.
VosoughiS.RoyD.AralS. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359, 1146-1151. doi:10.1126/science.aap9559
54.
WalterN.MurphyS. T. (2018). How to unring the bell: A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation. Communication Monographs, 85, 423-441. doi:10.1080/03637751.2018.1467564
55.
ZillmannD. (2000). Exemplification theory of media influence. In BryantJ.ZillmannD.BryantJ.OliverM. B. (Eds.), Media effects (pp. 19-42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
56.
ZwaanR. A.LangstonM. C.GraesserA. C. (1995). The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model. Psychological Science, 6, 292-297. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00513.x
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
