ArticleCognitive processing2022
Forming and updating vaccination beliefs: does the continued effect of misinformation depend on what we think we know?
Article in Cognitive processing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Author Correction: A meta-analysis of correction effects in science-relevant misinformation.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Scrutinizing the COVID-19 vaccine safety debate.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- Conspiracy narratives and vaccine hesitancy: a scoping review of prevalence, impact, and interventions.BMC public health · 2024Article
- (Why) Is Misinformation a Problem?Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
People may cling to false facts even in the face of updated and correct information. The present study confronted misconceptions about the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and a novel, fictitious Zika vaccine. Two experiments are reported, examining misconceptions as motivated by a poor risk understanding (Experiment 1, N = 130) or the exposure to conspiracy theories (Experiment 2, N = 130). Each experiment featured a Misinformation condition, wherein participants were presented with fictitious stories containing some misinformation (Experiment 1) and rumours focused on conspiracy theories (Experiment 2) that were later retracted by public health experts and a No misinformation condition, containing no reference to misinformation and rumours. Across experiments, participants were more hesitant towards vaccines when exposed to stories including vaccine misinformation. Notwithstanding, our results suggest a positive impact of a trusted source communicating the scientific consensus about vaccines. Zika virus represents a particular case showing how missing information can easily evolve into misinformation. Implications for effective dissemination of information are discussed.
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.