Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2023-11
Comparing the effects of simple and refutational narratives in misinformation correction: The moderating roles of correction placement and issue involvement
The study examines whether adding a refutational ending to narrative messages improves correction effectiveness and how the effect differs depending on whether the correction message is presented before or after exposure to misinformation. A 2 (narrative format: simple vs refutational narrative) × 2 (correction placement: prebunking vs debunking) between-subjects online experiment (N = 281) with US participants was conducted to correct misinformation about human papilloma virus vaccines. The results suggested that the refutational narrative was more effective in reducing misbeliefs in prebunking, whereas the simple narrative was more effective in debunking. This interaction was further moderated by issue involvement. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
BodeLVragaEK (2015) In related news, that was wrong: The correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media. Journal of Communication65(4): 619–638.
4.
BusselleRBilandzicH (2009) Measuring narrative engagement. Media Psychology12(4): 321–347.
5.
CappellaJNMaloneyEOphirYBrennanE (2016) Interventions to correct misinformation about tobacco products. Tobacco Regulatory Science2: 186–197.
6.
ChanMSJonesCRHall JamiesonKAlbarracínD (2017) Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological Science28(11): 1531–1546.
7.
ChangC (2013) Imagery fluency and narrative advertising effects. Journal of Advertising42(1): 54–68.
8.
CohenEL (2016) Exploring subtext processing in narrative persuasion: The role of eudaimonic entertainment-use motivation and a supplemental conclusion scene. Communication Quarterly64(3): 273–297.
9.
CohenJE (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10.
CranoWD (1977) Primacy versus recency in retention of information and opinion change. The Journal of Social Psychology101(1): 87–96.
11.
DahlstromMF (2010) The role of causality in information acceptance in narratives: An example from science communication. Communication Research37: 857–875.
DillardJPShenL (2005) On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs72(2): 144–168.
14.
EckerUKHButlerLHHambyA (2020) You don’t have to tell a story! A registered report testing the effectiveness of narrative versus non-narrative misinformation corrections. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications5(64): 1–26.
15.
EckerUKHLewandowskySSwireBChangD (2011) Correcting false information in memory: Manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review18(3): 570–578.
16.
FrazerRRobinsonMJKnobloch-WesterwickS (2021) Narratives’ impacts on attitudes: Do signaling of persuasive intent and fictionality matter?Communication Studies72(3): 347–365.
17.
GarciaKMannT (2003) From “I wish” to ‘I will’: Social-cognitive predictors of behavioral intentions. Journal of Health Psychology8(3): 347–360.
18.
GreenMCBrockTC (2000) The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology79(5): 701–721.
19.
HambyAEckerUBrinbergD (2020) How stories in memory perpetuate the continued influence of false information. Journal of Consumer Psychology30(2): 240–259.
20.
HanJHDaviesGGrimesA (2021) Recency effects in the buffering of negative news by corporate social responsibility advertising. Corporate Communications: An International Journal26(2): 382–402.
21.
HaugtvedtCPWegenerDT (1994) Message order effects in persuasion: An attitude strength perspective. Journal of Consumer Research21(1): 205.
22.
HayesAF (2018) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 2nd edn.New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
23.
HuangYWangW (2022) When a story contradicts: Correcting health misinformation on social media through different message formats and mechanisms. Information, Communication & Society25(8): 1192–1209.
KatzSJErkkinenMLindgrenBHatsukamiD (2018) Assessing the impact of conflicting health warning information on intentions to use E-cigarettes- An application of the heuristic-systematic model. Journal of Health Communication23: 874–885.
26.
KreuterMWGreenMCCappellaJNSlaterMDWiseMEStoreyD, et al. (2007) Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: A framework to guide research and application. Annals of Behavioral Medicine33: 221–235.
27.
LiuSYangJZ (2020) The role of temporal distance perception in narrative vs. non-narrative persuasion related to e-cigarettes. Journal of Health Communication25(7): 543–553.
28.
McGuireWJ (1961) The effectiveness of supportive and refutational defenses in immunizing and restoring beliefs against persuasion. Sociometry24(2): 184–197.
Moyer-GuséEJainPChungAH (2012) Reinforcement or reactance? Examining the effect of an explicit persuasive appeal following an entertainment-education narrative. Journal of Communication62(6): 1010–1027.
31.
NiederdeppeJHeleyKBarryCL (2015) Inoculation and narrative strategies in competitive framing of three health policy issues. The Journal of Communication65(5): 838–862.
32.
PettyRECacioppoJT (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: PettyRECacioppoJT (eds) Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 1–24.
33.
PfauMTusingKJKoernerAFLeeWGodboldLCPenalozaLJ, et al. (1997) Enriching the inoculation construct: The role of critical components in the process of resistance. Human Communication Research24(2): 187–215.
34.
RatcliffCLSunY (2020) Overcoming resistance through narratives: Findings from a meta-analytic review. Human Communication Research46(4): 412–443.
35.
SangalangAOphirYCappellaJN (2019) The potential for narrative correctives to combat misinformation. Journal of Communication69(3): 298–319.
36.
ScheufeleDAKrauseNM (2019) Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America116(16): 7662–7669.
37.
ShelbyAErnstK (2013) Story and science: How providers and parents can utilize storytelling to combat anti-vaccine misinformation. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics9(8): 1795–1801.
38.
SlaterMDRounerD (2002) Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory12(2): 173–191.
39.
SülflowMSchäferSWinterS (2019) Selective attention in the news feed: An eye-tracking study on the perception and selection of political news posts on Facebook. New Media & Society21(1): 168–190.
40.
ThorsonE (2016) Belief echoes: The persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Communication33(3): 460–480.
VragaEKKimSCCookJBodeL (2020) Testing the effectiveness of correction placement and type on Instagram. The International Journal of Press/politics25(4): 632–652.
43.
WalterNMurphyST (2018) How to unring the bell: A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation. Communication Monographs85(3): 423–441.
44.
WalterNBrooksJJSaucierCJSureshSWalterNBrooksJJ, et al. (2021) Evaluating the impact of attempts to correct health misinformation on social media: A meta-analysis. Health Communication36(13): 1776–1784.
45.
WangWHuangY (2021) Countering the “harmless e-cigarette” myth: The interplay of message format, message sidedness, and prior experience with e-cigarette use in misinformation correction. Science Communication43(2): 170–198.
46.
YangKPierriFHuiPAxelrodDTorres-LugoCBrydenJ, et al. (2021) The COVID-19 infodemic: Twitter versus Facebook. Big Data & Society. Epub ahead of print 5 May. DOI: 10.1177/20539517211013861.
47.
ZaichkowskyJL (1994) The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising23(5): 59–70.
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.
