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

By Man-pui Sally Chan, Christopher Jones, K. Hall-Jamieson, Dolores Albarracin. Psychology Science, 2017

722 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Communication, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/81de42b1b634b47467b12a74787353535c204187

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Communication

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

The Debunking Handbook 2020 (2020, positive): “Explain (1) why the mistaken information was thought to be correct in the first place and (2) why it is now clear it is wrong and (3) why the alternative is correct 81, 90, 91 .”
Facts and Myths about Misperceptions (2020, background): “…increase the accuracy of people’s beliefs and reduce belief in misperceptions, though these interventions do not fully offset the effect of exposure to misinformation and their effects may be reduced in conflictual political settings (Chan et al. 2017; Walter and Murphy 2018; Walter et al. 2019).”
Political Psychology in the Digital (mis)Information age: A Model of News Belief and Sharing (2020, background): “Multiple metaanalyses suggest that fact-checks can successfully reduce belief in misinformation (Chan et al., 2017; Clayton et al., 2019; Walter & Murphy, 2018).”
Fact-Checking: A Meta-Analysis of What Works and for Whom (2019, background): “…when directly contrasting the findings with results from recent meta-analyses that addressed the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation (Chan et al., 2017; Walter & Murphy, 2018) and ways to protect eyewitness memory against the misinformation effect (Blank & Launay, 2014).”
Confirmation Bias and the Persistence of Misinformation on Climate Change (2021, background): “A meta-analysis revealed that although debunking with information that enables recipients to abandon the initial mental model justifying the misinformation might help debias in the short term, it does not translate into reduced misinformation persistence in the long run; rather, it is positively cor”
Countering Misinformation and Fake News Through Inoculation and Prebunking (2021, background): “This “continued influence effect” of misinformation has been demonstrated repeatedly (for reviews, see Chan et al., 2017; Lewandowsky et al., 2012; Swire & Ecker, 2017).”
The Effects of Unsubstantiated Claims of Voter Fraud on Confidence in Elections (2021, background): “Fact-checks can be effective in counteracting exposure to misinformation (Chan et al. 2017; Fridkin, Kenney and Wintersieck 2015).”
Conspiracy theories as barriers to controlling the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. (2020, background): “Because misinformed beliefs are resistant to correction (Chan et al., 2017), beliefs in March would be expected to predict changes in preventive intentions and behavior in July.”