SynthesisNature human behaviour2023
A meta-analysis of correction effects in science-relevant misinformation.
Synthesis in Nature human behaviour, 2023. 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 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Conversational Dynamics in Scientific and Pseudoscientific Health Communities on YouTube: Process Mining and Network Analysis Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Fighting fire with fire: Prebunking with the use of a plausible meta-conspiracy framing.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Article
- Blueprint of a smokescreen: Introducing the validated climate disinformation corpus for behavioural research on combating climate disinformation.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Article
- Chatbots reduce health-related conspiracy beliefs not because of but despite being perceived as AI.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluating generative AI's potential to dispel misinformation about wind farms.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Prior beliefs & automated fact checking: Limits on the effectiveness of AI-based corrections.PloS one · 2026Article
- Educational neuromyths in higher education: beliefs about the brain and learning among university faculty members.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Corrections are effective for science misinformation.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Reply to: Corrections are effective for science misinformation.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Misinformation interventions and online sharing behaviour: lessons learned from two pre-registered field studies.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Political ideology and trust in scientists in the USA.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Mapping Vaccination Mindsets among UK Residents of Black Ethnicities with HIV: Lessons from COVID-19.AIDS and behavior · 2025Article
- Strategies to correct vaccine misinformation on social media for pregnant women and the impact of vaccine skepticism.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Bypassing versus correcting misinformation: Efficacy and fundamental processes.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2025Article
- Fluid intelligence but not need for cognition is associated with attitude change in response to the correction of misinformation.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- Don't believe them! Reducing misinformation influence through source discreditation.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- Health Communication and Behavioral Change During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2024Article
- ThePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Scientifically relevant misinformation, defined as false claims concerning a scientific measurement procedure or scientific evidence, regardless of the author's intent, is illustrated by the fiction that the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine contained microchips to track citizens. Updating science-relevant misinformation after a correction can be challenging, and little is known about what theoretical factors can influence the correction. Here this meta-analysis examined 205 effect sizes (that is, k, obtained from 74 reports; N = 60,861), which showed that attempts to debunk science-relevant misinformation were, on average, not successful (d = 0.19, P = 0.131, 95% confidence interval -0.06 to 0.43). However, corrections were more successful when the initial science-relevant belief concerned negative topics and domains other than health. Corrections fared better when they were detailed, when recipients were likely familiar with both sides of the issue ahead of the study and when the issue was not politically polarized.
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.