Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35748514›Full record

ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2023

Combining refutations and social norms increases belief change.

Ullrich Kh Ecker, Jasmyne A Sanderson, Paul McIlhiney, Jessica J Rowsell, Hayley L Quekett, Gordon DA Brown, Stephan Lewandowsky

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2023. 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
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  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. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ullrich Kh EckerSchool of Psychological Science, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4743-313X
Jasmyne A SandersonSchool of Psychological Science, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Paul McIlhineySchool of Psychological Science, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4480-2406
Jessica J RowsellSchool of Psychological Science, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Hayley L QuekettSchool of Psychological Science, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Gordon DA BrownDepartment of Psychology, The University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Stephan LewandowskySchool of Psychological Science, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
The University of Western Australia · AUUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

European Research Council 101020961
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Misinformed beliefs are difficult to change. Refutations that target false claims typically reduce false beliefs, but tend to be only partially effective. In this study, a social norming approach was explored to test whether provision of peer norms could provide an alternative or complementary approach to refutation. Three experiments investigated whether a descriptive norm-by itself or in combination with a refutation-could reduce the endorsement of worldview-congruent claims. Experiment 1 found that using a single-point estimate to communicate a norm affected belief but had less impact than a refutation. Experiment 2 used a verbally presented distribution of four values to communicate a norm, which was largely ineffective. Experiment 3 used a graphically presented social norm with 25 values, which was found to be as effective at reducing claim belief as a refutation, with the combination of both interventions being most impactful. These results provide a proof of concept that normative information can aid in the debunking of false or equivocal claims, and suggests that theories of misinformation processing should take social factors into account.

Indexed as

CommunicationSocial NormsHumansbelief changecontinued influence effectdebunkingfalse beliefsMisinformationsocial norms

Identifiers

PMID35748514
PMCPMC7614554
OpenAlexW4283386655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.