Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35400028›Full record

ArticleInformation processing & management2022

Investigation of the determinants for misinformation correction effectiveness on social media during COVID-19 pandemic.

Yuqi Zhang, Bin Guo, Yasan Ding, Jiaqi Liu, Chen Qiu, Sicong Liu, Zhiwen Yu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Information processing & management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. When Infodemic Meets Epidemic: Systematic Literature Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Infodemic: Challenges and solutions in topic discovery and data process.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Pediatric COVID-19 Health Disparities and Vaccine Equity.Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society · 2022
    Article
  11. 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

7 authors.

Yuqi ZhangNorthwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an, 710129 CN, China.
Bin GuoNorthwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an, 710129 CN, China.
Yasan DingNorthwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an, 710129 CN, China.
Jiaqi LiuNorthwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an, 710129 CN, China.
Chen QiuNorthwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an, 710129 CN, China.
Sicong LiuNorthwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an, 710129 CN, China.
Zhiwen YuNorthwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an, 710129 CN, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid dissemination of misinformation in social media during the COVID-19 pandemic triggers panic and threatens the pandemic preparedness and control. Correction is a crucial countermeasure to debunk misperceptions. However, the effective mechanism of correction on social media is not fully verified. Previous works focus on psychological theories and experimental studies, while the applicability of conclusions to the actual social media is unclear. This study explores determinants governing the effectiveness of misinformation corrections on social media with a combination of a data-driven approach and related theories on psychology and communication. Specifically, referring to the Backfire Effect, Source Credibility, and Audience's role in dissemination theories, we propose five hypotheses containing seven potential factors (regarding correction content and publishers' influence), e.g., the proportion of original misinformation and warnings of misinformation. Then, we obtain 1487 significant COVID-19 related corrections on Microblog between January 1st, 2020 and April 30th, 2020, and conduct annotations, which characterize each piece of correction based on the aforementioned factors. We demonstrate several promising conclusions through a comprehensive analysis of the dataset. For example, mentioning excessive original misinformation in corrections would not undermine people's believability within a short period after reading; warnings of misinformation in a demanding tone make correction worse; determinants of correction effectiveness vary among different topics of misinformation. Finally, we build a regression model to predict correction effectiveness. These results provide practical suggestions on misinformation correction on social media, and a tool to guide practitioners to revise corrections before publishing, leading to ideal efficacies.

Indexed as

Cognitive factorCorrectionData-drivenMicroblogMisinformationSocial media

Identifiers

PMID35400028
PMCPMC8979789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.