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.
ArceneauxK. (2012). Cognitive biases and the strength of political arguments. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 271–285. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00573.x
2.
ArceneauxK.JohnsonM.CrydermanJ. (2013). Communication, persuasion, and the conditioning value of selective exposure: Like minds may unite and divide but they mostly tune out. Journal of Political Communication, 30, 213–231. doi:10.1080/10584609.2012.737424
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E.CritesS. L. J. (1994). Attitude change. In RamachandranV. S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (pp. 261–270). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
7.
ChaikenS.TropeY. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
8.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
DuvalS. (2005). The “‘trim and fill’” method. In RothsteinH. R.SuttonA. J.BorensteinM. (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 127–144). West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.
10.
*EckerU. K. H.LewandowskyS.ApaiJ. (2011). Terrorists brought down the plane!—No, actually it was a technical fault: Processing corrections of emotive information. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 283–310. doi:10.1080/17470218.2010.497927
11.
*EckerU. K. H.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
12.
*EckerU. K. H.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
13.
*EckerU. K. H.LewandowskyS.TangD. T. W. (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
14.
HartW.AlbarracínD.EaglyA. H.BrechanI.LindbergM. J.MerrillL. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 555–588. doi:10.1037/a0015701
HopewellS.McDonaldS.ClarkeM. J.EggerM. (2007). Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2, MR000010. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000010.pub3
18.
InzlichtM.GervaisW.BerkmanE. (2015). Bias-correction techniques alone cannot determine whether ego depletion is different from zero: Commentary on Carter, Kofler, Forster, & McCullough, 2015. SSRN. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2659409
19.
JeritJ. (2008). Issue framing and engagement: Rhetorical strategy in public policy debates. Political Behavior, 30, 1–24. doi:10.1007/s11109-007-9041-x
20.
*JohnsonH. M.SeifertC. M. (1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1420–1436. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1420
21.
Johnson-LairdP. N. (1994). Mental models and probabilistic thinking. Cognition, 50, 189–209.
22.
Johnson-LairdP. N. (2013). Mental models and consistency. In GawronskiB.FritzS. (Eds.), Cognitive consistency: A unifying concept in social psychology (pp. 225–244). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
23.
Johnson-LairdP. N.ByrneR. M. J. (1991). Deduction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
24.
KahnemanD. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. The American Psychologist, 58, 697–720. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697
25.
KepesS.BanksG. C.OhI.-S. (2014). Avoiding bias in publication bias research: The value of “null” findings. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 183–203. doi:10.1007/s10869-012-9279-0
26.
KowalskiP.TaylorA. K. (2009). The effect of refuting misconceptions in the introductory psychology class. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 153–159. doi:10.1080/00986280902959986
27.
LewandowskyS.CookJ.OberauerK.BrophyS.LloydE. A.MarriottM. (2015). Recurrent fury: Conspiratorial discourse in the blogosphere triggered by research on the role of conspiracist ideation in climate denial. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3, 161–197. doi:10.5964/jspp.v3i1.443
28.
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
29.
McShaneB. B.BöckenholtU.HansenK. T. (2016). Adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis: An evaluation of selection methods and some cautionary notes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 730–749. doi:10.1177/1745691616662243
30.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), Article e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
NyhanB. (2010). Why the “death panel” myth wouldn’t die: Misinformation in the health care reform debate. The Forum, 8(1), Article 5. doi:10.2202/1540-8884.1354
34.
PetersJ. L.SuttonA. J.JonesD. R.AbramsK. R.RushtonL. (2008). Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 991–996. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.010
35.
PetersJ. L.SuttonA. J.JonesD. R.AbramsK. R.RushtonL.MorenoS. G. (2010). Assessing publication bias in meta-analyses in the presence of between-study heterogeneity. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A: Statistics in Society, 173, 575–591. doi:10.1111/j.1467-985X.2009.00629.x
36.
PettyR. E.BriñolP. (2010). Attitude change. In BaumeisterR. F.FinkelE. J. (Eds.), Advanced social psychology: The state of science (pp. 217–259). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
SchwarzN.SannaL. J.SkurnikI.YoonC. (2007). Metacognitive experiences and the intricacies of setting people straight: Implications for debiasing and public information campaigns. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 127–191). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(06)39003-X127
39.
SimonsohnU.SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D. (2015). Better P-curves: Making P-curve analysis more robust to errors, fraud, and ambitious P-hacking, a reply to Ulrich and Miller (2015). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 1146–1152. doi:10.1037/xge0000104
40.
SlothuusR.de VreeseC. H. (2010). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects. The Journal of Politics, 72, 630–645. doi:10.1017/S002238161000006X
SterneJ. A. C.HarbordR. M. (2004). Funnel plots in meta-analysis. The Stata Journal, 4, 127–141.
43.
*ThorsonE. A. (2013). Belief echoes: The persistent effects of corrected misinformation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania). Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI3564225
44.
van AssenM. A. L. M.van AertR. C. M.WichertsJ. M. (2015). Meta-analysis using effect size distributions of only statistically significant studies. Psychological Methods, 20, 293–309. doi:10.1037/met0000025
45.
Van DammeI.SmetsK. (2014). The power of emotion versus the power of suggestion: Memory for emotional events in the misinformation paradigm. Emotion, 14, 310–320. doi:10.1037/a0034629
46.
VeveaJ. L.WoodsC. M. (2005). Publication bias in research synthesis: Sensitivity analysis using a priori weight functions. Psychological Methods, 10, 428–443. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.10.4.428
47.
ViechtbauerW.CheungM. W.-L. (2010). Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 112–125. doi:10.1002/jrsm.11
48.
WilkesA. L.LeatherbarrowM. (1988). Editing episodic memory following the identification of error. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 40, 361–387. doi:10.1080/02724988843000168
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.
