ArticleJournal of cognition2020
Weight-of-Evidence Strategies to Mitigate the Influence of Messages of Science Denialism in Public Discussions.
Article in Journal of cognition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- A multi-disciplinary exploration of the press review of the Italian National Institute of Health during the COVID-19 pandemic.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- 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
- A call for immediate action to increase COVID-19 vaccination uptake to prepare for the third pandemic winter.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Article
- [Public Resistance to Vaccination During Epidemics: The Example of COVID-19Resistência da população à vacinação em tempos de epidemias: sobre a COVID-19].Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2022Article
- Weight-of-Evidence Strategies to Mitigate the Influence of Messages of Science Denialism in Public Discussions.Journal of cognition · 2020Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In mass media, the positions of science deniers and scientific-consensus advocates are repeatedly presented in a balanced manner. This false balance increases the spread of misinformation under the guise of objectivity. Weight-of-evidence strategies are an alternative, in which journalists lend weight to each position that is equivalent to the amount of evidence that supports the position. In public discussions, journalists can invite more advocates of scientific consensuses than science deniers (outnumbering) or they can employ warnings about the false-balance effect prior to the discussions (forewarning). In three pre-registered laboratory experiments, we tested the efficacy of outnumbering and forewarning as weight-of-evidence strategies to mitigate science deniers' influence on individuals' attitudes towards vaccination and their intention to vaccinate. We explored whether advocates' responses to science deniers (rebuttal) and audiences' issue involvement moderate the efficacy of these strategies. A total of
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.