How to unring the bell: A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation
Abstract
The study reports on a meta-analysis of attempts to correct misinformation (k = 65). Results indicate that corrective messages have a moderate influence on belief in misinformation (r = .35); however, it is more difficult to correct for misinformation in the context of politics (r = .15) and marketing (r = .18) than health (r = .27). Correction of real-world misinformation is more challenging (r = .14), as opposed to constructed misinformation (r = .48). Rebuttals (r = .38) are more effective than forewarnings (r = .16), and appeals to coherence (r = .55) outperform fact-checking (r = .25), and appeals to credibility (r = .14).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Meta-analytic studies show that corrections are generally effective in reducing misperceptions.
“meta-analytic studies show that corrections are generally effective in reducing misperceptions (Chan et al., 2017;Walter and Murphy, 2018).”
From Factual belief polarization between Democrats and Republicans: source or epiphenomenon of ideological and affective polarization? (2024) · cites this paper as Walter and Murphy, 2018
Cites
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099 · see citing works
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542 · see citing works
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004) · doi:10.4135/9781412985031 · Cited by 3,023 · see citing works
Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.486 · Cited by 2,977 · see citing works
A Nonparametric “Trim and Fill” Method of Accounting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905 · Cited by 2,955 · see citing works
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612451018 · Cited by 2,920 · see citing works
The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades' Evidence
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x · Cited by 2,205 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Further, the literature on source credibility suggests that messages delivered by a credible source are deemed more trustworthy compared to messages linked to low-credibility sources (Pornpitakpan, 2004); hence, corrective messages that leverage on source credibility are more likely to be effective.”
BackgroundBias and Efficiency of Meta-Analytic Variance Estimators in the Random-Effects Model
Viechtbauer, W. (2005) · Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics · doi:10.3102/10769986030003261 · Cited by 1,699 · cited 1× · see citing works
“These discrepancies are to be expected as the HS estimator has been shown to be negatively biased (Viechtbauer, 2005).”
BackgroundPeterson, R. A. (2001) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/323732 · Cited by 1,258 · see citing works
The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions
Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0089177 · Cited by 1,232 · cited 1× · see citing works
“While some studies record substantial reductions in reported misinformation (e.g., Ecker, Lewandowsky, & Apai, 2011), other studies reveal nonsignificant results (e.g., Jolley & Douglas, 2014).”
ResultDebunking: A Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Efficacy of Messages Countering Misinformation
Chan, M.-P. S., Jones, C. R., Hall Jamieson, K., & Albarracín, D. (2017) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797617714579 · Cited by 898 · see citing works
The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis
Hedges, L. V., & Pigott, T. D. (2001) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.6.3.203 · Cited by 716 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Analogous to the omnibus test that estimates the difference between groups in ANOVAs, the Q test provides a general assessment of variance and specific contrasts need to be used to explore the differences among group means (Hedges & Pigott, 2001).”
MethodAge differences in information processing: A perspective on the aged consumer
Phillips, L. W., & Sternthal, B. (1977) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224377701400402 · Cited by 342 · see citing works
The Effect of Refuting Misconceptions in the Introductory Psychology Class
Kowalski, P., & Taylor, A. K. (2009) · Teaching of Psychology · doi:10.1080/00986280902959986 · Cited by 192 · see citing works
Cameron, K. A., Roloff, M. E., Friesema, E. M., Brown, T., Jovanovic, B. D., Hauber, S., & Baker, D. W. (2013) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2013.06.017 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction
Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., Kendeou, P., Vraga, E. K., & Amazeen, M. A. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y · Cited by 1,372 · see citing works
Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation
Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2019) · Palgrave Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-019-0279-9 · Cited by 708 · see citing works
Fact-checking: a meta-analysis of what works and for whom
Walter, N., Cohen, J., Holbert, R. L., & Morag, Y. (2020) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2019.1668894 · Cited by 690 · see citing works
Self-citationExposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election
Guess, A. M., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0833-x · Cited by 587 · see citing works
Misinformation: susceptibility, spread, and interventions to immunize the public
van der Linden, S. (2022) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-022-01713-6 · Cited by 570 · see citing works
Walter, N., & Tukachinsky, R. (2020) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650219854600 · Cited by 522 · see citing works
Self-citationBasol, M., Roozenbeek, J., & Van der Linden, S. (2020) · Journal of Cognition · doi:10.5334/joc.91 · Cited by 368 · see citing works
Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization
Barberá, P. (2020) · Social Media and Democracy · doi:10.1017/9781108890960.004 · Cited by 373 · see citing works
Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations.
Swire-Thompson, B., DeGutis, J., & Lazer, D. (2020) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.06.006 · Cited by 360 · see citing works
Jerit, J., & Zhao, Y. (2020) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032814 · Cited by 263 · see citing works
Psychological Inoculation against Misinformation: Current Evidence and Future Directions
Traberg, C. S., Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2022) · The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · doi:10.1177/00027162221087936 · Cited by 224 · see citing works
Political Psychology in the Digital (mis)Information age: A Model of News Belief and Sharing
Van Bavel, J. J., Harris, E. A., Pärnamets, P., Rathje, S., Doell, K. C., & Tucker, J. A. (2021) · Social Issues and Policy Review · doi:10.1111/sipr.12077 · Cited by 213 · see citing works
Healthcare professionals’ acts of correcting health misinformation on social media
Bautista, J. R., Zhang, Y., & Gwizdka, J. (2021) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104375 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Inoculating against the spread of Islamophobic and radical-Islamist disinformation
Lewandowsky, S., & Yesilada, M. (2021) · Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-021-00323-z · Cited by 62 · see citing works
How Effective Are Interventions Against Misinformation?
Altay, S. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/sm3vk · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Rekker, R. (2024) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2024.1254826 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Walter, N., & Murphy, S. T.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- Corresponding author
- Walter, Nathan
- Venue
- Communication Monographs
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-05-15
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 423-441
- ISSN
- 0363-7751 (ISSN-L)
- 1479-5787
- OpenAlex
- W2803783310
- Cited by
- 561
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 54 · 2025: 87 · 2024: 75 · 2023: 97 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 79 · 2019: 15
- FWCI
- 95.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Communication Monographs (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, University of Southern California
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Keywords
- misinformation correction, belief in misinformation, rebuttal, forewarning, fact-checking, political misinformation, health misinformation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
