ArticleNature human behaviour2019
Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 2 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
53 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Overcoming health misinformation in marginalized groups: a systematic review.International journal for equity in health · 2025Pooled it
- Counteracting climate denial: A systematic review.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Effects of a Video of Science Rejection by a Social Media Influencer and User Comments: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- A randomized controlled trial of empathetic refutational learning with health care professionals.BMC public health · 2025Trial
- 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
- Testing the impact of fallacies and contrarian claims in climate change misinformation.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Article
- Blueprint of a smokescreen: Introducing the validated climate disinformation corpus for behavioural research on combating climate disinformation.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Article
- Better Communication With the Public: Understanding Science Phobia and Mistrust as Neurobiological Phenomena.Neurology · 2025Article
- A field test of empathetic refutational and motivational interviewing to address vaccine hesitancy among patients.NPJ vaccines · 2025Article
- Correction approaches and hashtag framing in addressing Mpox misinformation on Instagram.Health education research · 2025Article
- A technocognitive approach to detecting fallacies in climate misinformation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Unmasking vaccine hesitancy and refusal: a deep dive into Anti-vaxxer perspectives on COVID-19 in Spain.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Toolbox of individual-level interventions against online misinformation.Nature human behaviour · 2024Review
- The social anatomy of climate change denial in the United States.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- How to distinguish climate sceptics, antivaxxers, and persistent sceptics: Evidence from a multi-country survey of public attitudes.PloS one · 2024Article
- Teaching scientific evidence and critical thinking for policy making.Biology methods & protocols · 2024Article
- Hostility has a trivial effect on persuasiveness of rebutting science denialism on social media.Communications psychology · 2023Article
- Addressing Antivaccine Sentiment on Public Social Media Forums Through Web-Based Conversations Based on Motivational Interviewing Techniques: Observational Study.JMIR infodemiology · 2023Observational
- Navigating the COVID-19 infodemic: the influence of metacognitive efficiency on health behaviours and policy attitudes.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Science deniers question scientific milestones and spread misinformation, contradicting decades of scientific endeavour. Advocates for science need effective rebuttal strategies and are concerned about backfire effects in public debates. We conducted six experiments to assess how to mitigate the influence of a denier on the audience. An internal meta-analysis across all the experiments revealed that not responding to science deniers has a negative effect on attitudes towards behaviours favoured by science (for example, vaccination) and intentions to perform these behaviours. Providing the facts about the topic or uncovering the rhetorical techniques typical for denialism had positive effects. We found no evidence that complex combinations of topic and technique rebuttals are more effective than single strategies, nor that rebutting science denialism in public discussions backfires, not even in vulnerable groups (for example, US conservatives). As science deniers use the same rhetoric across domains, uncovering their rhetorical techniques is an effective and economic addition to the advocates' toolbox.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31235861What 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.