Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33300094›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2020

You don't have to tell a story! A registered report testing the effectiveness of narrative versus non-narrative misinformation corrections.

Ullrich K H Ecker, Lucy H Butler, Anne Hamby

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Changing beliefs or changing behavior? Understanding the belief-to-behavior process and intervening to curb the impact of misinformation.Journal of consumer psychology : the official journal of the Society for Consumer Psychology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Examining the replicability of backfire effects after standalone corrections.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Exploring factors that mitigate the continued influence of misinformation.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ullrich K H EckerSchool of Psychological Science (M304), University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy, Perth, 6009, Australia. ullrich.ecker@uwa.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-4743-313X
Lucy H ButlerSchool of Psychological Science (M304), University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy, Perth, 6009, Australia.
Anne HambyCollege of Business and Economics, Boise State University, 1910 University Drive, Boise, ID, 83725, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Misinformation often has an ongoing effect on people's memory and inferential reasoning even after clear corrections are provided; this is known as the continued influence effect. In pursuit of more effective corrections, one factor that has not yet been investigated systematically is the narrative versus non-narrative format of the correction. Some scholars have suggested that a narrative format facilitates comprehension and retention of complex information and may serve to overcome resistance to worldview-dissonant corrections. It is, therefore, a possibility that misinformation corrections are more effective if they are presented in a narrative format versus a non-narrative format. The present study tests this possibility. We designed corrections that are either narrative or non-narrative, while minimizing differences in informativeness. We compared narrative and non-narrative corrections in three preregistered experiments (total N = 2279). Experiment 1 targeted misinformation contained in fictional event reports; Experiment 2 used false claims commonly encountered in the real world; Experiment 3 used real-world false claims that are controversial, in order to test the notion that a narrative format may facilitate corrective updating primarily when it serves to reduce resistance to correction. In all experiments, we also manipulated test delay (immediate vs. 2 days), as any potential benefit of the narrative format may only arise in the short term (if the story format aids primarily with initial comprehension and updating of the relevant mental model) or after a delay (if the story format aids primarily with later correction retrieval). In all three experiments, it was found that narrative corrections are no more effective than non-narrative corrections. Therefore, while stories and anecdotes can be powerful, there is no fundamental benefit of using a narrative format when debunking misinformation.

Indexed as

CommunicationNarrationComprehensionHumansHydrolasesProblem SolvingHydrolasesContinued influence effectMisinformationMyth debunkingNarrative processingStories

Identifiers

PMID33300094
PMCPMC7725032

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.