Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 390

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Hazards of Correcting Myths About Health Care Reform

Nyhan, Brendan, Reifler, Jason, Ubel, Peter A.·2013·Medical Care
DOI 10.1097/mlr.0b013e318279486b
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CONTEXT: Misperceptions are a major problem in debates about health care reform and other controversial health issues. METHODS: We conducted an experiment to determine if more aggressive media fact-checking could correct the false belief that the Affordable Care Act would create "death panels." Participants from an opt-in Internet panel were randomly assigned to either a control group in which they read an article on Sarah Palin's claims about "death panels" or an intervention group in which the article also contained corrective information refuting Palin. FINDINGS: The correction reduced belief in death panels and strong opposition to the reform bill among those who view Palin unfavorably and those who view her favorably but have low political knowledge. However, it backfired among politically knowledgeable Palin supporters, who were more likely to believe in death panels and to strongly oppose reform if they received the correction. CONCLUSIONS: These results underscore the difficulty of reducing misperceptions about health care reform among individuals with the motivation and sophistication to reject corrective information.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mlr.0b013e318279486b

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Freed, 2010, Parental vaccine safety concerns in 2009., Pediatrics, 125, 654, 10.1542/peds.2009-1962 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Gollust, 2010, Images of illness: how causal claims and racial associations influence public preferences toward diabetes research spending., J Health Polit Policy Law, 35, 921, 10.1215/03616878-2010-034 · DOI
  3. Poland, 2010, Fear, misinformation, and innumerates: how the Wakefield paper, the press, and advocacy groups damaged the public health.., Vaccine, 28, 2361, 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.02.052 · DOI
  4. Sigal Leonard, 1996, The Lyme Disease Controversy: social and financial costs of misdiagnosis and mismanagement., Arch Intern Med, 156, 1493, 10.1001/archinte.1996.00440130011002 · doi:10.1001/archinte.1996.00440130011002
  5. Edwards, 1996, A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments., J Pers Soc Psychol, 71, 5, 10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.5 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.5 · Paper page
  6. Munro, 1997, Biased assimilation, attitude polarization, and affect in reactions to stereotype-relevant scientific information., Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 23, 636, 10.1177/0146167297236007 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Taber, 2006, Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs., Am J Pol Sci, 50, 755, 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x · DOI · Paper page
  8. Nyhan, 2010, When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions., Polit Behav, 32, 303, 10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Lacey, 2006, Hope I die before I get old: mispredicting happiness across the lifespan., J Happiness Stud, 7, 167, 10.1007/s10902-005-2748-7 · DOI
  10. Brambor, 2006, Understanding interaction models: improving empirical analyses., Polit Anal, 14, 63, 10.1093/pan/mpi014 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., & Ubel, P. A.
Venue
Medical Care
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2013-02
Volume
51
Issue
2
Pages
127-132
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/mlr.0b013e318279486b
OpenAlex
W2323316584
Cited by
390
References
2
FWCI
32.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.