ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2021
Corrections of political misinformation: no evidence for an effect of partisan worldview in a US convenience sample.
Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- The differential consequences of correcting misinformation for high and low credibility sources.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Countering AI-generated misinformation with pre-emptive source discreditation and debunking.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Article
- Examining the replicability of backfire effects after standalone corrections.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023Article
- Combining refutations and social norms increases belief change.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2023Article
- Would I lie to you? Party affiliation is more important than Brexit in processing political misinformation.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Truth and Bias, Left and Right: Testing Ideological Asymmetries with a Realistic News Supply.Public opinion quarterly · 2023Article
- Correcting vaccine misinformation: A failure to replicate familiarity or fear-driven backfire effects.PloS one · 2023Article
- Misinformation and the Sins of Memory: False-Belief Formation and Limits on Belief Revision.Journal of applied research in memory and cognition · 2022Article
- The backfire effect after correcting misinformation is strongly associated with reliability.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2022Article
- Inoculation works and health advocacy backfires: Building resistance to COVID-19 vaccine misinformation in a low political trust context.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Vaccination against misinformation: The inoculation technique reduces the continued influence effect.PloS one · 2022Article
- Can you believe it? An investigation into the impact of retraction source credibility on the continued influence effect.Memory & cognition · 2021Article
- Computational and neurocognitive approaches to the political brain: key insights and future avenues for political neuroscience.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021Article
- You don't have to tell a story! A registered report testing the effectiveness of narrative versus non-narrative misinformation corrections.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Misinformation often has a continuing effect on people's reasoning despite clear correction. One factor assumed to affect post-correction reliance on misinformation is worldview-driven motivated reasoning. For example, a recent study with an Australian undergraduate sample found that when politically situated misinformation was retracted, political partisanship influenced the effectiveness of the retraction. This worldview effect was asymmetrical, that is, particularly pronounced in politically conservative participants. However, the evidence regarding such worldview effects (and their symmetry) has been inconsistent. Thus, the present study aimed to extend previous findings by examining a sample of 429 pre-screened US participants supporting either the Democratic or Republican Party. Participants received misinformation suggesting that politicians of either party were more likely to commit embezzlement; this was or was not subsequently retracted, and participants' inferential reasoning was measured. While political worldview (i.e. partisanship) influenced the extent to which participants relied on the misinformation overall, retractions were equally effective across all conditions. There was no impact of political worldview on retraction effectiveness, let alone evidence of a backfire effect, and thus we did not replicate the asymmetry observed in the Australian-based study. This pattern emerged despite some evidence that Republicans showed a stronger emotional response than Democrats to worldview-incongruent misinformation. This article is part of the theme issue 'The political brain: neurocognitive and computational mechanisms'.
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.