ArticleCognitive processing2020
The effects of source expertise and trustworthiness on recollection: the case of vaccine misinformation.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of communication interventions for countering vaccine misinformation.Vaccine · 2023Pooled it
- The continued influence effect and situation models: Evidence for the model-updating account.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Determinants of medical crowdfunding information sharing attitudes through integrated source credibility and technology acceptance models.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Pre- and post- COVID-19 trends related to dementia caregiving on Twitter.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- How do forewarnings and post-warnings affect misinformation reliance? The impact of warnings on the continued influence effect and belief regression.Memory & cognition · 2024Article
- Memory and belief updating following complete and partial reminders of fake news.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- Promoting COVID-19 vaccine confidence through public responses to misinformation: The joint influence of message source and message content.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2023Article
- Posttraumatic stress moderates return intentions: a factorial survey experiment with internally displaced persons in Nigeria.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2023Article
- Correcting vaccine misinformation: A failure to replicate familiarity or fear-driven backfire effects.PloS one · 2023Article
- Forming and updating vaccination beliefs: does the continued effect of misinformation depend on what we think we know?Cognitive processing · 2022Article
- Article
- Vaccination against misinformation: The inoculation technique reduces the continued influence effect.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Designing effective communication strategies for correcting vaccines misinformation requires an understanding of how the target group might react to information from different sources. The present study examined whether erroneous inferences about vaccination could be effectively corrected by a perceived credible (i.e. expert or trustworthy) source. Two experiments are reported using a standard continued influence paradigm, each featuring two correction conditions on vaccine misinformation. Participants were presented with a story containing a piece of information that was later retracted by a perceived credible or not so credible source. Experiment 1 showed that providing a correction reduced participants' use of the original erroneous information, yet the overall reliance on misinformation did not significantly differ between the low- and high-expertise correction groups. Experiment 2 revealed that a correction from a high-trustworthy source decreased participants' reliance on misinformation when making inferences; nonetheless, it did not positively affect the reported intent to vaccinate one's child. Overall, source trustworthiness was more relevant than source expertise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32333126What 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.