In an article titled “A Meta-analysis of Correction Effects in Science-Relevant Misinformation” published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour,, University of Pennsylvania social psychologists and communication scholars Man-pui Sally Chan and Dolores Albarracín discuss the circumstances under which corrections of science-related misinformation are most effective. They also highlight the characteristics that make a correction more likely to succeed.
The researchers conducted a meta-analysis, synthesizing data from 74 experiments with 60,000 participants. These experiments either assessed belief in science-related misinformation or introduced misinformation as accurate and then provided corrections. While the corrections, on average, did not achieve their intended goals, they were more effective when the correction presented a more positive emotional perspective than the initial misinformation, when the correction aligned with the recipient’s ideology, when the topic was not politically polarized, and when the correction provided detailed explanations of why the earlier claims were false.
Can science-related misinformation be corrected, on average?
The study found that, on average, attempts to debunk science-related misinformation were not successful. People tended to believe in the misinformation both before and after receiving the correction. This is different from the domain of misinformation in accidents or political events, where corrections typically perform better. The researchers aimed to determine whether science-related misinformation can be corrected and to identify the types of corrections that are more effective.
Is it easier to correct positive or negative misinformation?
The researchers investigated whether positive or negative misinformation is easier to correct. They found that positive misinformation, which gives people a positive outlook, is more challenging to correct than negative misinformation. People are resistant to debunking pseudoscience that feels good. It is easier to correct misinformation about an event that didn’t happen (negative misinformation) than about an ongoing issue like deforestation (positive misinformation).
Detailed corrections
The researchers also examined which types of corrective messages are most successful. They discovered that detailed explanations in corrections increase the likelihood of receptivity and debunking of the misinformation. This occurs through two stages: first, the correction provides new information for respondents to understand the event; second, this new understanding replaces the initial model shaped by the misinformation.
The alignment of the correction with a recipient’s ideology
The researchers also explored the impact of an individual’s attitudes and beliefs on the success of corrections. They found that when the debunking contradicts people’s ideology, they are more likely to reject the correction and reinforce their support for the misinformation. However, when the debunking aligns with the recipient’s ideology, they are more likely to accept the correction.
When a topic is politically polarized, and ways to succeed
Political polarization also plays a role in the success of corrections. The study found that correcting polarized misinformation, such as misinformation related to COVID-19 vaccination, is more challenging than correcting non-polarized misinformation. In order to succeed, strategies such as providing detailed explanations, increasing familiarity with the topic among the audience, and avoiding politicization of scientific discussions can be employed. However, if the topic is already politically polarized, the correction should be written in a way that aligns with the recipient’s politics.
Overall, the research team led by Albarracín is dedicated to finding ways to mitigate the effects of scientific misinformation. Their recent studies have shown that, even without directly confronting misinformation, its effects can be bypassed by strengthening beliefs that support socially beneficial policies.
More information:
Man-pui Sally Chan et al, A meta-analysis of correction effects in science-relevant misinformation, Nature Human Behaviour (2023). DOI: 10.1038/s41562-023-01623-8
Provided by
Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
Citation:
Research identifies factors that make correcting misinformation about science more successful (2023, June 20)
retrieved 20 June 2023
from https://phys.org/news/2023-06-factors-misinformation-science-successful.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
Denial of responsibility! TechCodex is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
Jessica Irvine is a tech enthusiast specializing in gadgets. From smart home devices to cutting-edge electronics, Jessica explores the world of consumer tech, offering readers comprehensive reviews, hands-on experiences, and expert insights into the coolest and most innovative gadgets on the market.
