SynthesisPsychological science2017
Debunking: A Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Efficacy of Messages Countering Misinformation.
Synthesis in Psychological science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 161 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
161 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence for an illusory truth effect and its determinants.Nature communications · 2026Pooled it
- Overcoming health misinformation in marginalized groups: a systematic review.International journal for equity in health · 2025Pooled it
- Physical Activity Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Correcting misinformation about the Russia-Ukraine War reduces false beliefs but does not change views about the War.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- A meta-analysis of correction effects in science-relevant misinformation.Nature human behaviour · 2023Pooled it
- Characteristics of Antivaccine Messages on Social Media: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- COVID-19-related misinformation on social media: a systematic review.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2021Pooled it
- Message Design Choices Don't Make Much Difference to Persuasiveness and Can't Be Counted On-Not Even When Moderating Conditions Are Specified.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Pooled it
- Using a mental model approach to undercut the effects of exposure to mRNA vaccination misconceptions: Two randomized trials.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Trial
- Effects of a Video of Science Rejection by a Social Media Influencer and User Comments: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- The Resilience of Attitude Toward Vaccination: Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial on the Processing of Misinformation.JMIR formative research · 2024Trial
- Effectiveness of WhatsApp based debunking reminders on follow-up visit attendance for individuals with hypertension: a randomized controlled trial in India.BMC public health · 2024Trial
- Effect of Source Type and Protective Message on the Critical Evaluation of News Messages on Facebook: Randomized Controlled Trial in the Netherlands.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Trial
- The Challenge of Debunking Health Misinformation in Dynamic Social Media Conversations: Online Randomized Study of Public Masking During COVID-19.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Trial
- COVID-19 myth-busting: an experimental study.BMC public health · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Debunking highly prevalent health misinformation using audio dramas delivered by WhatsApp: evidence from a randomised controlled trial in Sierra Leone.BMJ global health · 2021Trial
- Tackling Smoker Misperceptions About E-cigarettes Using Expert Videos.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2021Trial
- Attitudinal Spillover from Misleading Natural Cigarette Marketing: An Experiment Examining Current and Former Smokers' Support for Tobacco Industry Regulation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Trial
101 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.