When Debunking Scientific Myths Fails (and When It Does Not)

@article{Peter2016WhenDS,
  title={When Debunking Scientific Myths Fails (and When It Does Not)},
  author={Christina Peter and Thomas Koch},
  journal={Science Communication},
  year={2016},
  volume={38},
  pages={25 - 3}
}
When reporting scientific information, journalists often present common myths that are refuted with scientific facts. However, correcting misinformation this way is often not only ineffective but can increase the likelihood that people misremember it as true. We test this backfire effect in the context of journalistic coverage and examine how to counteract it. In a web-based experiment, we find evidence for a systematic backfire effect that occurs after a few minutes and strengthens after five… 
Political Misinformation
Misinformation occurs when people hold incorrect factual beliefs and do so confidently. The problem plagues political systems and is exceedingly difficult to correct. In this review, we assess the
Searching for the Backfire Effect: Measurement and Design Considerations☆
Reminders of Everyday Misinformation Statements Can Enhance Memory for and Beliefs in Corrections of Those Statements in the Short Term
TLDR
Reminders of misinformation could improve memory for and beliefs in corrections and were greater both when misinformation was recollected and when subjects remembered that corrections had occurred.
Can corrections spread misinformation to new audiences? Testing for the elusive familiarity backfire effect
TLDR
There was substantial evidence against familiarity backfire within the context of correcting novel misinformation claims and after a 1-week study-test delay, suggesting that it is safe to repeat misinformation when correcting it, even when the audience might be unfamiliar with the misinformation.
Correction format has a limited role when debunking misinformation
TLDR
It appeared that as long as the key ingredients of a correction were presented, format did not make a considerable difference, which suggests that simply providing corrective information, regardless of format, is far more important than how the correction is presented.
OP-JNLC200036 646..669
The problem of a misinformed citizenry is often used to motivate research on misinformation and its corrections. However, researchers know little about how differences in informedness affect how well
The Covid-19 Infodemic and the Efficacy of Corrections
Social media platforms have taken unprecedented steps to combat misinformation about Covid-19. However, critics question whether the most common strategy – labeling and alerting readers to
Mapping the field of misinformation correction and its effects: A review of four decades of research
Why people still rely on misinformation after clear corrections is a major concern driving relevant research. Different fields, from psychology to marketing, have been seeking answers. Yet there
The power of the truth bias: False information affects memory and judgment even in the absence of distraction
Truth-bias is the tendency to believe information whether or not it is true. According to a prominent account, this tendency results from limited cognitive resources. We presented participants true
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 65 REFERENCES
When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions
An extensive literature addresses citizen ignorance, but very little research focuses on misperceptions. Can these false or unsubstantiated beliefs about politics be corrected? Previous studies have
How warnings about false claims become recommendations
Telling people that a consumer claim is false can make them misremember it as true. In two experiments, older adults were especially susceptible to this "illusion of truth" effect. Repeatedly
Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic Citizenship
Scholars have documented the deficiencies in political knowledge among American citizens. Another problem, misinformation, has received less attention. People are misinformed when they confidently
Helpful or Harmful? How Frequent Repetition Affects Perceived Statement Credibility
On the basis of experimental data, we study how repetition of a statement affects perceived statement credibility. We identify 2 counteracting effects: The first effect, known as “truth effect,”
Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences.
Several lines of research have found that information previously encoded into memory can influence inferences and judgments, even when more recent information discredits it. Previous theories have
Sad, thus true: negativity bias in judgments of truth
Misinformation and Its Correction
TLDR
Recommendations may help practitioners—including journalists, health professionals, educators, and science communicators—design effective misinformation retractions, educational tools, and public-information campaigns.
Dissociation of processes in belief: Source recollection, statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth
This article reports 4 experiments concerning the effect of repetition on rated truth (the illusory truth effect). Statements were paired with differentially credible sources (true vs. false). Old
Good things don't come easy (to mind): explaining framing effects in judgments of truth.
  • B. Hilbig
  • Psychology
    Experimental psychology
  • 2012
TLDR
Overall, results replicate and extend the negatively-biased framing effect in truth judgments and show that processing fluency may account for it.
...
1
2
3
4
5
...