A meta-analysis of correction effects in science-relevant misinformation

Area of Science:

• Psychology of Science
• Communication of Science
• Misinformation Studies

Background:

• Scientifically relevant misinformation involves false claims about scientific evidence or procedures.
• Examples include the false belief that COVID-19 vaccines contained microchips.
• Understanding factors influencing the correction of such misinformation is crucial.

Approach:

• A meta-analysis was conducted on 205 effect sizes from 74 reports (N=60,861).
• The study examined the average success rate of attempts to debunk science-relevant misinformation.
• Factors influencing correction effectiveness were investigated.

Key Points:

• On average, debunking attempts for science misinformation were not statistically successful (d=0.19, P=0.131).
• Corrections were more effective when the misinformation concerned negative topics.
• Correction success increased for non-health domains and when the issue was not politically polarized.

Conclusions:

• Debunking science misinformation is challenging and often ineffective.
• Correction effectiveness is influenced by the topic's nature (negative vs. positive), domain (health vs. non-health), and political polarization.
• Detailed corrections and recipient familiarity with the issue can improve effectiveness.