Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35482715›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Vaccination against misinformation: The inoculation technique reduces the continued influence effect.

Klara Austeja Buczel, Paulina D Szyszka, Adam Siwiak, Malwina Szpitalak, Romuald Polczyk

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Examining the replicability of backfire effects after standalone corrections.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Klara Austeja BuczelInstitute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland.
Paulina D SzyszkaInstitute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland.
Adam SiwiakInstitute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland.
Malwina SzpitalakInstitute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland.
Romuald PolczykInstitute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-8079-7475

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The continued influence effect of misinformation (CIE) is a phenomenon in which certain information, although retracted and corrected, still has an impact on event reporting, reasoning, inference, and decisions. The main goal of this paper is to investigate to what extent this effect can be reduced using the procedure of inoculation and how it can be moderated by the reliability of corrections' sources. The results show that the reliability of corrections' sources did not affect their processing when participants were not inoculated. However, inoculated participants relied on misinformation less when the correction came from a highly credible source. For this source condition, as a result of inoculation, a significant increase in belief in retraction, as well as a decrease in belief in misinformation was also found. Contrary to previous reports, belief in misinformation rather than belief in retraction predicted reliance on misinformation. These findings are of both great practical importance as certain boundary conditions for inoculation efficiency have been discovered to reduce the impact of the continued influence of misinformation, and theoretical, as they provide insight into the mechanisms behind CIE. The results were interpreted in terms of existing CIE theories as well as within the remembering framework, which describes the conversion from memory traces to behavioral manifestations of memory.

Indexed as

CommunicationMental RecallHumansReproducibility of ResultsVaccination

Identifiers

PMID35482715
PMCPMC9049321

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.