How to unring the bell: A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation

Nathan Walter*, Sheila T. Murphy

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The study reports on a meta-analysis of attempts to correct misinformation (k = 65). Results indicate that corrective messages have a moderate influence on belief in misinformation (r =.35); however, it is more difficult to correct for misinformation in the context of politics (r =.15) and marketing (r =.18) than health (r =.27). Correction of real-world misinformation is more challenging (r =.14), as opposed to constructed misinformation (r =.48). Rebuttals (r =.38) are more effective than forewarnings (r =.16), and appeals to coherence (r =.55) outperform fact-checking (r =.25), and appeals to credibility (r =.14).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)423-441
Number of pages19
JournalCommunication Monographs
Volume85
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 3 2018

Fingerprint

Marketing
appeal
Health
credibility
marketing
politics
health
Real World
Rebuttal
Credibility
Meta-analysis
coherence

Keywords

  • Misinformation
  • correction
  • debiasing
  • meta-analysis
  • rebuttals

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Communication
  • Language and Linguistics

Cite this

@article{bbe50ee992f84498a284e1559437f6dc,
title = "How to unring the bell: A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation",
abstract = "The study reports on a meta-analysis of attempts to correct misinformation (k = 65). Results indicate that corrective messages have a moderate influence on belief in misinformation (r =.35); however, it is more difficult to correct for misinformation in the context of politics (r =.15) and marketing (r =.18) than health (r =.27). Correction of real-world misinformation is more challenging (r =.14), as opposed to constructed misinformation (r =.48). Rebuttals (r =.38) are more effective than forewarnings (r =.16), and appeals to coherence (r =.55) outperform fact-checking (r =.25), and appeals to credibility (r =.14).",
keywords = "Misinformation, correction, debiasing, meta-analysis, rebuttals",
author = "Nathan Walter and Murphy, {Sheila T.}",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1080/03637751.2018.1467564",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "85",
pages = "423--441",
journal = "Communication Monographs",
issn = "0363-7751",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "3",

}

How to unring the bell : A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation. / Walter, Nathan; Murphy, Sheila T.

In: Communication Monographs, Vol. 85, No. 3, 03.07.2018, p. 423-441.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - How to unring the bell

T2 - A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation

AU - Walter, Nathan

AU - Murphy, Sheila T.

PY - 2018/7/3

Y1 - 2018/7/3

N2 - The study reports on a meta-analysis of attempts to correct misinformation (k = 65). Results indicate that corrective messages have a moderate influence on belief in misinformation (r =.35); however, it is more difficult to correct for misinformation in the context of politics (r =.15) and marketing (r =.18) than health (r =.27). Correction of real-world misinformation is more challenging (r =.14), as opposed to constructed misinformation (r =.48). Rebuttals (r =.38) are more effective than forewarnings (r =.16), and appeals to coherence (r =.55) outperform fact-checking (r =.25), and appeals to credibility (r =.14).

AB - The study reports on a meta-analysis of attempts to correct misinformation (k = 65). Results indicate that corrective messages have a moderate influence on belief in misinformation (r =.35); however, it is more difficult to correct for misinformation in the context of politics (r =.15) and marketing (r =.18) than health (r =.27). Correction of real-world misinformation is more challenging (r =.14), as opposed to constructed misinformation (r =.48). Rebuttals (r =.38) are more effective than forewarnings (r =.16), and appeals to coherence (r =.55) outperform fact-checking (r =.25), and appeals to credibility (r =.14).

KW - Misinformation

KW - correction

KW - debiasing

KW - meta-analysis

KW - rebuttals

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047115569&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047115569&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/03637751.2018.1467564

DO - 10.1080/03637751.2018.1467564

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85047115569

VL - 85

SP - 423

EP - 441

JO - Communication Monographs

JF - Communication Monographs

SN - 0363-7751

IS - 3

ER -