ArticleScience advances2025
Prebunking and credible source corrections increase election credibility: Evidence from the US and Brazil.
Article in Science advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can a public information campaign increase trust in American elections?Science advances · 2026Article
- Restoring institutional confidence in backsliding democracies: Evidence from Mexico.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- How to fight election misinformation.Science advances · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigate how to counter misinformation about voter and election fraud using data from the US and Brazil. Our study first compares two types of messages countering claims of widespread fraud: (i) retrospective corrections from credible sources speaking against interest and (ii) prebunking messages that prospectively warn of false claims about future elections and provide information about election security practices. In the US, each approach immediately increased election confidence and reduced fraud beliefs, with prebunking showing somewhat more durable effects. In Brazil, prebunking had positive immediate effects across measured outcomes, whereas those of the credible source corrections were less consistent. We then conducted an experiment in the US randomizing exposure to a persuasion forewarning before election security information is provided. Prebunking again increased confidence and decreased fraud beliefs but only when the forewarning was omitted, suggesting that novel factual information is responsible for the observed effects of the prebunking treatment.
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.