CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 898Misinformation and Its ImpactsSocial and Intergroup PsychologyDeception detection and forensic psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access
Chan, Man-pui Sally, Jones, Christopher R., Hall Jamieson, Kathleen, Albarracín, Dolores·2017·Psychological Science
DOI 10.1177/0956797617714579PMC PMC5673564
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

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.

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 · 10.1177/0956797617714579

Cites

42 of 42 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

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?

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 42 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Johnson-Laird P. N., 2013, Cognitive consistency: A unifying concept in social psychology, 225
  2. Johnson-Laird P. N., 1991, Deduction
  3. *Thorson E. A. (2013). Belief echoes: The persistent effects of corrected misinformation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania). Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI3564225

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 801–893 of 893

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Chan, M.-P. S., Jones, C. R., Hall Jamieson, K., & Albarracín, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • The Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania
Corresponding author
Chan, Man-pui Sally
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Science
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2017-09-12
Volume
28
Issue
11
Pages
1531-1546
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
DOI
10.1177/0956797617714579
PMC
PMC5673564
OpenAlex
W2754477858
Cited by
898
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 81 · 2025: 117 · 2024: 112 · 2023: 93 · 2022: 142 · 2021: 114 · 2020: 93 · 2019: 85 · 2018: 58 · 2017: 3
FWCI
20.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH094241)
  • National Cancer Institute (P50CA179546)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
Keywords
debunking, misinformation, belief revision, attitude change, misinformation correction
MeSH terms
Attitude, Communication, Humans, Thinking

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