Cited by 162Misinformation and Its ImpactsClimate Change Communication and PerceptionCommunication and COVID-19 Impact

Testing Logic-based and Humor-based Corrections for Science, Health, and Political Misinformation on Social Media

Vraga, Emily K., Kim, Sojung Claire, Cook, John·2019·Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media

Abstract

Misinformation causes a range of negative impacts. One proposed solution is applying critical thinking techniques to neutralize misinformation by explaining its misleading techniques or logical fallacies. This study tests the efficacy of corrections after exposure to misinformation that adopt inoculating techniques. We test two forms of rhetorical correction—logic-based and humor-based—across the issues of climate change, gun control, and HPV vaccination. We find that results vary across topics, with both logic-based and humor-based corrections reducing misperceptions only for HPV vaccination. More research is needed to test the efficacy of logic-based and humor-based corrections across different issues.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08838151.2019.1653102

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • These tropes can be analyzed and used for inoculation without prior knowledge of specific misleading content, thus potentially providing broad resilience against social media or news content that draws on one or more of the techniques that someone has been inoculated against.

    “These tropes, which include manipulation techniques such as logical fallacies (20) and emotionally manipulative language (18), can be analyzed and used for inoculation without prior knowledge of specific misleading content, thus potentially providing broad resilience against social media or news content that draws on one or more of the techniques that someone has been inoculated against.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vraga, E. K., Kim, S. C., & Cook, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • George Mason University (US)
Venue
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media
Published
2019-07-03
Volume
63
Issue
3
Pages
393-414
ISSN
  • 0883-8151 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-6878
OpenAlex
W2973736928
Cited by
162
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 11
FWCI
26.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (publishedVersion)
Funders
George Mason University (000)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
Keywords
misinformation, inoculation theory, critical thinking, logical fallacies, scientific misinformation, health misinformation, political misinformation, climate change, gun control, HPV vaccination, social media

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