The effectiveness of short-format refutational fact-checks

Conspire to one's own detriment: Strengthening HPV Program Support Through Debunking Epistemically Suspect Beliefs

The study experimentally tested an intervention that debunks epistemically suspect beliefs about vaccines. After answering questions about pre-existing epistemically suspect beliefs (irrational health beliefs and conspiracy mentality), 565 participants were randomly assigned into one of three conditions and exposed either to neutral information about domestic animals, salient epistemically suspect content about vaccination or an intervention that debunks epistemically suspect beliefs about vaccination. Afterwards, the participants answered questions about vaccination-related conspiracy narratives (manipulation check), vaccination attitudes, intentions to vaccinate against HPV, support for an HPV vaccination programme and intentions to seek health guidance. Although the intervention demonstrated the potential to inhibit the endorsement of conspiracy narratives, we found no differences in the other outcome variables. Nevertheless, across the conditions, pre-existing epistemically suspect beliefs were associated with less favourable attitudes towards vaccination, lower intentions to vaccinate against HPV, less support for the vaccination programme and lower intentions to seek health guidance. The results indicate that debunking may be futile in curbing long-term negative impacts associated with epistemically suspect beliefs, and they contribute to the debate about assessing the effectiveness of interventions related to highly controversial topics such as vaccination. The study enhances understanding of persistent adverse impacts that epistemically suspect beliefs may have on public health outcomes.

Gist Knowledge and Misinformation Acceptance: An Application of Fuzzy Trace Theory

Applying fuzzy trace theory to misinformation related to COVID-19, the present study (a) examines the roles of gist knowledge in predicting misinformation acceptance, and (b) further examines whether a gist cue in fact checking scales affects the level of gist knowledge. Study 1 (a survey) showed that categorical gist knowledge was negatively related to misinformation acceptance, whereas ordinal gist knowledge was not, when both types of knowledge were included in the model. In addition, Study 2 (an experiment) showed that fact checking scales containing a categorical gist cue resulted in greater categorical gist knowledge.

The Feasibility of Using the National PulsePoint Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Responder Network to Facilitate Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The use of naloxone, an opioid antagonist, is a critical component of the US response to fatal opioid-involved overdoses. The importance and utility of naloxone in preventing fatal overdoses have been widely declaimed by medical associations and government officials and are supported by strong research evidence. Still, there are gaps in the current US national strategy because many opioid-involved overdose fatalities have no evidence of naloxone administration. Improving the likelihood that naloxone will be used to prevent fatal overdoses is predicated on facilitating an environment wherein naloxone is available near each overdose and can be accessed by someone who is willing and able to use it. How to accomplish this on a national scale has been unclear. However, there exists a national network of >1 million cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) layperson responders and 4800 emergency responder agencies linked through a mobile phone app called PulsePoint Respond. PulsePoint responders certify that they are trained to administer CPR and are willing to respond to possible cardiac events in public. When such an event occurs near their mobile phone's location, they receive an alert to respond. These motivated citizens are ideally positioned to carry naloxone and reverse overdoses that occur in public.

OBJECTIVE

This randomized controlled trial will examine the feasibility of recruiting first responder agencies and layperson CPR responders who already use PulsePoint to obtain overdose education and carry naloxone.

METHODS

This will be a 3-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial. We will randomly select 180 first responder agencies from the population of agencies contracting with the PulsePoint Foundation. The 3 study arms will include a standard recruitment arm, a misperception-correction recruitment arm, and a control arm (1:1:1 allocation, with random allocation stratified by zip code designation [rural or nonrural]). We will study agency recruitment and, among the agencies we successfully recruit, responder certification of receiving overdose and naloxone education, carrying naloxone, or both. Hypothesis 1 contrasts agency recruitment success between arms 1 and 2, and hypothesis 2 contrasts the ratios of layperson certification across all 3 arms. The primary analyses will be a logistic regression comparing the recruitment rates among the arms, adjusting for rural or nonrural zip code designation.

RESULTS

This study was reviewed by the Indiana University Institutional Review Board (20218 and 20219). This project was funded beginning September 14, 2023, by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

CONCLUSIONS

The hypotheses in this study will test whether a specific type of messaging is particularly effective in recruiting agencies and layperson responders. Although we hypothesize that arm 2 will outperform the other arms, our intention is to use the best-performing approach in the next phase of this study if any of our approaches demonstrates feasibility.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

OSF Registries osf.io/egn3z; https://osf.io/egn3z.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/57280.

Source-credibility information and social norms improve truth discernment and reduce engagement with misinformation online

Misinformation on social media is a pervasive challenge. In this study (N = 415) a social-media simulation was used to test two potential interventions for countering misinformation: a credibility badge and a social norm. The credibility badge was implemented by associating accounts, including participants', with a credibility score. Participants' credibility score was dynamically updated depending on their engagement with true and false posts. To implement the social-norm intervention, participants were provided with both a descriptive norm (i.e., most people do not share misinformation) and an injunctive norm (i.e., sharing misinformation is the wrong thing to do). Both interventions were effective. The social-norm intervention led to reduced belief in false claims and improved discrimination between true and false claims. It also had some positive impact on social-media engagement, although some effects were not robust to alternative analysis specifications. The presence of credibility badges led to greater belief in true claims, lower belief in false claims, and improved discrimination. The credibility-badge intervention also had robust positive impacts on social-media engagement, leading to increased flagging and decreased liking and sharing of false posts. Cumulatively, the results suggest that both interventions have potential to combat misinformation and improve the social-media information landscape.

Factual corrections: Concerns and current evidence

Factual corrections that target misinformation improve belief accuracy. They do so across a wide variety of countries, political beliefs and demographic characteristics. Instances of backfire, wherein exposure to corrections reduce accuracy, are exceedingly rare and may be an artifact of research design. The evidence regarding other common concerns is mixed. While the effects on corrections on belief are not permanent, they are not entirely ephemeral, either. With some exceptions, corrections mostly only affect belief accuracy, with minor to nonexistent influence on downstream attitudes and behaviors. While corrections are not unpopular among the public, limited available evidence suggests that those who see misinformation are exceedingly unlikely to see relevant corrections.

How do forewarnings and post-warnings affect misinformation reliance? The impact of warnings on the continued influence effect and belief regression

People often continue to rely on certain information in their reasoning, even if this information has been retracted; this is called the continued influence effect (CIE) of misinformation. One technique for reducing this effect involves explicitly warning people that there is a possibility that they might have been misled. The present study aimed to investigate these warnings' effectiveness, depending on when they were given (either before or after misinformation). In two experiments (N = 337), we found that while a forewarning did reduce reliance on misinformation, retrospectively warned participants (when the warning was placed either between the misinformation and the retraction or just before testing) relied on the misinformation to a similar degree as unwarned participants. However, the protective effect of the forewarning was not durable, as shown by the fact that reliance on the misinformation increased for over 7 days following the first testing, despite continued memory of the retraction.

Effective correction of misinformation

This paper reviews correction effectiveness, highlighting which factors matter, which do not, and where further research is needed. To boost effectiveness, we recommend using detailed corrections and providing an alternative explanation wherever possible. We also recommend providing a reminder of the initial misinformation and repeating the correction. Presenting corrections pre-emptively (i.e., prebunking) or after misinformation exposure is unlikely to greatly impact correction effectiveness. There is also limited risk of repeating misinformation within a correction or that a correction will inadvertently spread misinformation to new audiences. Further research is needed into which correction formats are most effective, whether boosting correction memorability can enhance effectiveness, the effectiveness of discrediting a misinformation source, and whether distrusted correction sources can contribute to corrections backfiring.

How to debunk misinformation? An experimental online study investigating text structures and headline formats

OBJECTIVES

Misinformation is a crucial problem, particularly online, and the success of debunking messages has so far been limited. In this study, we experimentally test how debunking text structure (truth sandwich vs. bottom-heavy) and headline format (statement vs. questions) affect the belief in misinformation across topics of the safety of COVID vaccines and GMO foods.

DESIGN

Experimental online study.

METHODS

A representative German sample of 4906 participants were randomly assigned to reading one of eight debunking messages in the experimentally varied formats and subsequently rated the acceptance of this message and the agreement to misinformation statements about the mentioned topics and an unrefuted control myth.

RESULTS

While the debunking messages specifically decreased the belief in the targeted myth, these beliefs and the acceptance of the debunking message were unaffected by the text structures and headline formats. Yet, they were less successful when addressing individuals with strong pre-existing, incongruent attitudes and distrust in science.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of backfire effects in debunking misinformation is low. Text structure and headline format are of relatively little importance for the effectiveness of debunking messages. Instead, writers may need to pay attention to the text being comprehensive, trustworthy and persuasive to maximize effectiveness.

I know It's false, but I keep thinking as if it were true: A replication study of Johnson and Seifert's (1994) continued influence effect

False Information (FI) is a critical societal issue, made even more pressing by our inability to mitigate its influence through correction. Researchers Johnson and Seifert (1994, Experiment 1A) penned a seminal paper on this "Continued Influence Effect" (CIE), which they observed in English-speaking participants. In their experiments, one group read a text containing FI that was later retracted (FI group), while another read the same text without FI (control group). Interestingly, even after receiving corrections, participants who read the FI were more likely than their peers to form FI-related inferences about the text. To the best of our knowledge, this finding has never been successfully directly replicated. Given the current replicability crisis plaguing the human sciences, the influence of culture on CIE and the importance of Johnson and Seifert's paradigm in this literature, the reassessment of their findings within a non-English-speaking population appears crucial. The present research investigated the direct replicability of their study with a French-speaking sample, comparing the inferences drawn by an FI group (n = 21) to those made by a control group (n = 23). The results confirm those of the original study, supporting the validity of Johnson and Seifert's paradigm (1994) and extending its applicability to a French-speaking population.

Deepfake detection with and without content warnings

The rapid advancement of 'deepfake' video technology-which uses deep learning artificial intelligence algorithms to create fake videos that look real-has given urgency to the question of how policymakers and technology companies should moderate inauthentic content. We conduct an experiment to measure people's alertness to and ability to detect a high-quality deepfake among a set of videos. First, we find that in a natural setting with no content warnings, individuals who are exposed to a deepfake video of neutral content are no more likely to detect anything out of the ordinary (32.9%) compared to a control group who viewed only authentic videos (34.1%). Second, we find that when individuals are given a warning that at least one video in a set of five is a deepfake, only 21.6% of respondents correctly identify the deepfake as the only inauthentic video, while the remainder erroneously select at least one genuine video as a deepfake.

Listening to Misinformation while Driving: Cognitive Load and the Effectiveness of (Repeated) Corrections

Corrected misinformation can continue to influence inferential reasoning. It has been suggested that such continued influence is partially driven by misinformation familiarity, and that corrections should therefore avoid repeating misinformation to avoid inadvertent strengthening of misconceptions. However, evidence for such familiarity-backfire effects is scarce. We tested whether familiarity backfire may occur if corrections are processed under cognitive load. Although misinformation repetition may boost familiarity, load may impede integration of the correction, reducing its effectiveness and therefore allowing a backfire effect to emerge. Participants listened to corrections that repeated misinformation while in a driving simulator. Misinformation familiarity was manipulated through the number of corrections. Load was manipulated through a math task administered selectively during correction encoding. Multiple corrections were more effective than a single correction; cognitive load reduced correction effectiveness, with a single correction entirely ineffective under load. This provides further evidence against familiarity-backfire effects and has implications for real-world debunking.

Combatting rumors around the French election: the memorability and effectiveness of fact-checking articles

Across four studies, we examined the how design decisions influenced the effectiveness of fact-checking articles created by CrossCheck France during the 2017 French election. We measured both memory for the article and belief in the false rumor. We saw no difference in fact check efficacy based on the type of headline (question vs negation) or the number of newsroom logos present around the article (one, four, or seven). In addition, informative design features such as an icon identifying the type of misinformation were ignored by readers. Participants failed to remember many of the details from the article, but retrieval practice was beneficial in reducing forgetting over a 1-week delay. In both US and French samples, reading the fact check decreased belief in the false information, even 1 week later. However, the articles were much more effective in the US sample, who lacked relevant prior knowledge and political beliefs. Overall, fact-checking articles can be effective at reducing belief in false information, but readers tend to forget the details and ignore peripheral information.

Examining the replicability of backfire effects after standalone corrections

Corrections are a frequently used and effective tool for countering misinformation. However, concerns have been raised that corrections may introduce false claims to new audiences when the misinformation is novel. This is because boosting the familiarity of a claim can increase belief in that claim, and thus exposing new audiences to novel misinformation-even as part of a correction-may inadvertently increase misinformation belief. Such an outcome could be conceptualized as a familiarity backfire effect, whereby a familiarity boost increases false-claim endorsement above a control-condition or pre-correction baseline. Here, we examined whether standalone corrections-that is, corrections presented without initial misinformation exposure-can backfire and increase participants' reliance on the misinformation in their subsequent inferential reasoning, relative to a no-misinformation, no-correction control condition. Across three experiments (total N = 1156) we found that standalone corrections did not backfire immediately (Experiment 1) or after a one-week delay (Experiment 2). However, there was some mixed evidence suggesting corrections may backfire when there is skepticism regarding the correction (Experiment 3). Specifically, in Experiment 3, we found the standalone correction to backfire in open-ended responses, but only when there was skepticism towards the correction. However, this did not replicate with the rating scales measure. Future research should further examine whether skepticism towards the correction is the first replicable mechanism for backfire effects to occur.

Multiple-choice quizzes improve memory for misinformation debunks, but do not reduce belief in misinformation

Fact-checkers want people to both read and remember their misinformation debunks. Retrieval practice is one way to increase memory, thus multiple-choice quizzes may be a useful tool for fact-checkers. We tested whether exposure to quizzes improved people's accuracy ratings for fact-checked claims and their memory for specific information within a fact check. Across three experiments, 1551 US-based online participants viewed fact checks (either health- or politics-related) with or without a quiz. Overall, the fact checks were effective, and participants were more accurate in rating the claims after exposure. In addition, quizzes improved participants' memory for the details of the fact checks, even 1 week later. However, that increased memory did not lead to more accurate beliefs. Participants' accuracy ratings were similar in the quiz and no-quiz conditions. Multiple-choice quizzes can be a useful tool for increasing memory, but there is a disconnect between memory and belief.

Psychological interventions countering misinformation in social media: A scoping review

Introduction

The rise of social media users and the explosive growth in misinformation shared across social media platforms have become a serious threat to democratic discourse and public health. The mentioned implications have increased the demand for misinformation detection and intervention. To contribute to this challenge, we are presenting a systematic scoping review of psychological interventions countering misinformation in social media. The review was conducted to (i) identify and map evidence on psychological interventions countering misinformation, (ii) compare the viability of the interventions on social media, and (iii) provide guidelines for the development of effective interventions.

Methods

A systematic search in three bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Scopus) and additional searches in Google Scholar and reference lists were conducted.

Results

3,561 records were identified, 75 of which met the eligibility criteria for the inclusion in the final review. The psychological interventions identified during the review can be classified into three categories distinguished by Kozyreva et al.: Boosting, Technocognition, and Nudging, and then into 15 types within these. Most of the studied interventions were not implemented and tested in a real social media environment but under strictly controlled settings or online crowdsourcing platforms. The presented feasibility assessment of implementation insights expressed qualitatively and with numerical scoring could guide the development of future interventions that can be successfully implemented on social media platforms.

Discussion

The review provides the basis for further research on psychological interventions counteracting misinformation. Future research on interventions should aim to combine effective Technocognition and Nudging in the user experience of online services.

Systematic review registration

[https://figshare.com/], identifier [https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14649432.v2].

Effective mitigation of the belief perseverance bias after the retraction of misinformation: Awareness training and counter-speech

The spread and influence of misinformation have become a matter of concern in society as misinformation can negatively impact individuals' beliefs, opinions and, consequently, decisions. Research has shown that individuals persevere in their biased beliefs and opinions even after the retraction of misinformation. This phenomenon is known as the belief perseverance bias. However, research on mitigating the belief perseverance bias after the retraction of misinformation has been limited. Only a few debiasing techniques with limited practical applicability have been proposed, and research on comparing various techniques in terms of their effectiveness has been scarce. This paper contributes to research on mitigating the belief perseverance bias after the retraction of misinformation by proposing counter-speech and awareness-training techniques and comparing them in terms of effectiveness to the existing counter-explanation technique in an experiment with N = 251 participants. To determine changes in opinions, the extent of the belief perseverance bias and the effectiveness of the debiasing techniques in mitigating the belief perseverance bias, we measure participants' opinions four times in the experiment by using Likert items and phi-coefficient measures. The effectiveness of the debiasing techniques is assessed by measuring the difference between the baseline opinions before exposure to misinformation and the opinions after exposure to a debiasing technique. Further, we discuss the efforts of the providers and recipients of debiasing and the practical applicability of the debiasing techniques. The CS technique, with a very large effect size, is the most effective among the three techniques. The CE and AT techniques, with medium effect sizes, are close to being equivalent in terms of their effectiveness. The CS and AT techniques are associated with less cognitive and time effort of the recipients of debiasing than the CE technique, while the AT and CE techniques require less effort from the providers of debiasing than the CS technique.

Does explaining the origins of misinformation improve the effectiveness of a given correction?

Misinformation often has a continuing influence on event-related reasoning even when it is clearly and credibly corrected; this is referred to as the continued influence effect. The present work investigated whether a correction's effectiveness can be improved by explaining the origins of the misinformation. In two experiments, we examined whether a correction that explained misinformation as originating either from intentional deception or an unintentional error was more effective than a correction that only identified the misinformation as false. Experiment 2 found no evidence that corrections explaining the reason the misinformation was presented, were more effective than a correction not accompanied by an explanation, and no evidence of a difference in effectiveness between a correction that explained the misinformation as intentional deception and one that explained it as unintentional error. We replicated this in Experiment 2 and found substantial attenuation of the continued influence effect in a novel scenario with the same underlying structure. Overall, the results suggest that informing people of the cause leading to presentation of misinformation, whether deliberate or accidental, may not be an effective correction strategy over and above stating that the misinformation is false.

Fake news reminders and veracity labels differentially benefit memory and belief accuracy for news headlines

Fake news exposure can negatively affect memory and beliefs, thus sparking debate about whether to repeat misinformation during corrections. The once-prevailing view was that repeating misinformation increases its believability and should thus be avoided. However, misinformation reminders have more recently been shown to enhance memory and belief accuracy. We replicated such reminder benefits in two experiments using news headlines and compared those benefits against the effects of veracity labeling. Specifically, we examined the effects of labeling real news corrections to enhance conflict salience (Experiment 1) and labeling fake news on its debut to encourage intentional forgetting (Experiment 2). Participants first viewed real and fake news headlines with some fake news labeled as false. Participants then saw labeled and unlabeled real news corrections; labeled corrections appeared alone or after fake news reminders. Reminders promoted the best memory and belief accuracy, whereas veracity labels had selective effects. Correction labels led to intermediate memory and belief accuracy, whereas fake news labels improved accuracy for beliefs more than memory. The extent that real and fake news details were recalled together correlated with overall memory and belief differences across conditions, implicating a critical role for integrative encoding that was promoted most by fake news reminders.

Best Practices for Ethical Conduct of Misinformation Research

Abstract. Misinformation can have noxious impacts on cognition, fostering the formation of false beliefs, retroactively distorting memory for events, and influencing reasoning and decision-making even after it has been credibly corrected. Researchers investigating the impacts of real-world misinformation are therefore faced with an ethical issue: they must consider the immediate and long-term consequences of exposing participants to false claims. In this paper, we first present an overview of the ethical risks associated with real-world misinformation. We then report results from a scoping review of ethical practices in misinformation research. We investigated (1) the extent to which researchers report the details of their ethical practices, including issues of informed consent and debriefing, and (2) the specific steps that researchers report taking to protect participants from the consequences of misinformation exposure. We found that fewer than 30% of misinformation papers report any debriefing, and almost no authors assessed the effectiveness of their debriefing procedure. Building on the findings from this review, we evaluate the balance of risk versus reward currently operating in this field and propose a set of guidelines for best practices. Our ultimate goal is to allow researchers the freedom to investigate questions of considerable scientific and societal impact while meeting their ethical obligations to participants.

Benefits and Pitfalls of Debunking Interventions to Counter mRNA Vaccination Misinformation During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Misinformation about mRNA vaccination is a barrier in the global fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, authorities often rely on text-based refutations as a countermeasure. In two experiments (N = 2,444), text-based refutations effectively reduced the belief in misinformation and immunized participants against the impact of a misleading social media post. However, a follow-up (N = 817) questions the longevity of these debunking and prebunking effects. Moreover, the studies reveal potential pitfalls by showing a row of unintended effects of the refutations (lacking effect on intentions, backfire-effects among religious groups, and biased judgments when omitting information about vaccine side effects).

Pandemic control - do's and don'ts from a control theory perspective

Managing a pandemic is a difficult task. Pandemics are part of the dynamics of nonlinear systems with multiple different interactive features that co-adapt to each other (such as humans, animals, and pathogens). The target of controlling such a nonlinear system is best achieved using the control system theory developed in engineering and applied in systems biology. But is this theory and its principles actually used in controlling the current coronavirus disease-19 pandemic? We review the evidence for applying principles in different aspects of pandemic control related to different goals such as disease eradication, disease containment, and short- or long-term economic loss minimization. Successful policies implement multiple measures in concordance with control theory to achieve a robust response. In contrast, unsuccessful policies have numerous failures in different measures or focus only on a single measure (only testing, vaccines, etc.). Successful approaches rely on predictions instead of reactions to compensate for the costs of time delay, on knowledge-based analysis instead of trial-and-error, to control complex nonlinear systems, and on risk assessment instead of waiting for more evidence. Iran is an example of the effects of delayed response due to waiting for evidence to arrive instead of a proper risk analytical approach. New Zealand, Australia, and China are examples of appropriate application of basic control theoretic principles and focusing on long-term adaptive strategies, updating measures with the evolution of the pandemic.

Refuting misconceptions in an introductory psychology course for preservice teachers

This experimental field study (pre-post-follow-up design) with 184 student teachers examined the effectiveness of an intervention to reduce misconceptions about psychology within an introductory psychology course. For this purpose, over the course’s one-semester duration, all students attended six lectures and, in addition, worked individually on six assignments in between. In both, the intervention and control group, assignments covered the same learning content but assignments for the intervention group particularly addressed six topic-related misconceptions, and were designed to bring about conceptual change. These assignments included refutational texts and other tasks that triggered conceptual inconsistency and emphasized students’ use of scientific concepts. Students in the control group completed assignments designed for rehearsal of and elaboration on the topics at hand but were not exposed to the respective misconceptions. The findings demonstrate the efficacy of this slight modification of tasks in reducing students’ misconceptions around psychology. While the groups did not differ in exam performance, the positive associations found between exam performance and high-confidence rejection of psychological myths, and their correlation with evaluativist epistemic beliefs and critical thinking, underline the importance of early interventions in teacher education with the aim of dispelling misconceptions about psychology.

Examining the role of information integration in the continued influence effect using an event segmentation approach

Misinformation regarding the cause of an event often continues to influence an individual’s event-related reasoning, even after they have received a retraction. This is known as the continued influence effect (CIE). Dominant theoretical models of the CIE have suggested the effect arises primarily from failures to retrieve the correction. However, recent research has implicated information integration and memory updating processes in the CIE. As a behavioural test of integration, we applied an event segmentation approach to the CIE paradigm. Event segmentation theory suggests that incoming information is parsed into distinct events separated by event boundaries, which can have implications for memory. As such, when an individual encodes an event report that contains a retraction, the presence of event boundaries should impair retraction integration and memory updating, resulting in an enhanced CIE. Experiments 1 and 2 employed spatial event segmentation boundaries in an attempt to manipulate the ease with which a retraction can be integrated into a participant’s mental event model. While Experiment 1 showed no impact of an event boundary, Experiment 2 yielded evidence that an event boundary resulted in a reduced CIE. To the extent that this finding reflects enhanced retrieval of the retraction relative to the misinformation, it is more in line with retrieval accounts of the CIE.

Web-Based Perspectives of Deemed Consent Organ Donation Legislation in Nova Scotia: Thematic Analysis of Commentary in Facebook Groups

Background

The Canadian province of Nova Scotia recently became the first jurisdiction in North America to implement deemed consent organ donation legislation. Changing the consent models constituted one aspect of a larger provincial program to increase organ and tissue donation and transplantation rates. Deemed consent legislation can be controversial among the public, and public participation is integral to the successful implementation of the program.

Objective

Social media constitutes key spaces where people express opinions and discuss topics, and social media discourse can influence public perceptions. This project aimed to examine how the public in Nova Scotia responded to legislative changes in Facebook groups.

Methods

Using Facebook's search engine, we searched for posts in public Facebook groups using the terms "deemed consent," "presumed consent," "opt out," or "organ donation" and "Nova Scotia," appearing from January 1, 2020, to May 1, 2021. The finalized data set included 2337 comments on 26 relevant posts in 12 different public Nova Scotia-based Facebook groups. We conducted thematic and content analyses of the comments to determine how the public responded to the legislative changes and how the participants interacted with one another in the discussions.

Results

Our thematic analysis revealed principal themes that supported and critiqued the legislation, raised specific issues, and reflected on the topic from a neutral perspective. Subthemes showed individuals presenting perspectives through a variety of themes, including compassion, anger, frustration, mistrust, and a range of argumentative tactics. The comments included personal narratives, beliefs about the government, altruism, autonomy, misinformation, and reflections on religion and death. Content analysis revealed that Facebook users reacted to popular comments with "likes" more than other reactions. Comments with the most reactions included both negative and positive perspectives about the legislation. Personal donation and transplantation success stories, as well as attempts to correct misinformation, were some of the most "liked" positive comments.

Conclusions

The findings provide key insights into perspectives of individuals from Nova Scotia on deemed consent legislation, as well as organ donation and transplantation broadly. The insights derived from this analysis can contribute to public understanding, policy creation, and public outreach efforts that might occur in other jurisdictions considering the enactment of similar legislation.

EXPRESS: Combining Refutations and Social Norms Increases Belief Change

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.

Investigation of the determinants for misinformation correction effectiveness on social media during COVID-19 pandemic

The rapid dissemination of misinformation in social media during the COVID-19 pandemic triggers panic and threatens the pandemic preparedness and control. Correction is a crucial countermeasure to debunk misperceptions. However, the effective mechanism of correction on social media is not fully verified. Previous works focus on psychological theories and experimental studies, while the applicability of conclusions to the actual social media is unclear. This study explores determinants governing the effectiveness of misinformation corrections on social media with a combination of a data-driven approach and related theories on psychology and communication. Specifically, referring to the Backfire Effect, Source Credibility, and Audience’s role in dissemination theories, we propose five hypotheses containing seven potential factors (regarding correction content and publishers’ influence), e.g., the proportion of original misinformation and warnings of misinformation. Then, we obtain 1487 significant COVID-19 related corrections on Microblog between January 1st, 2020 and April 30th, 2020, and conduct annotations, which characterize each piece of correction based on the aforementioned factors. We demonstrate several promising conclusions through a comprehensive analysis of the dataset. For example, mentioning excessive original misinformation in corrections would not undermine people’s believability within a short period after reading; warnings of misinformation in a demanding tone make correction worse; determinants of correction effectiveness vary among different topics of misinformation. Finally, we build a regression model to predict correction effectiveness. These results provide practical suggestions on misinformation correction on social media, and a tool to guide practitioners to revise corrections before publishing, leading to ideal efficacies.

A Supplementary Approach for Effective Anti-Doping Education: A Pilot Study Applying Refutation Texts to Modify Misperception of the Whereabouts System

Background: Over the past twenty years, a multifaceted anti-doping system was established to detect, deter, and prevent doping among athletes. However, perception of the whereabouts system has been a controversial issue. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the effects of refutation text intervention on the perception of the whereabouts system. Methods: In two studies, we tested whether (1) detailed refutation texts are perceived as more effective than simply refuting with a true or false claim among 132 athletes (47.73% female, mean age = 20.99 ± 2.11), and if (2) refutation text intervention can alter the perception of the whereabouts system among 177 athletes (53.11% female, mean age = 21.17 ± 2.27). Descriptive statistics were calculated, followed by a one-sample T-test, independent T-test, chi-square test, and a repeated-measures analysis of variance. Results: The results demonstrate that five true/false statements were developed as refutation texts, and the mean accuracy of the true/false test is less than the probability of guess (p < 0.05, d = −0.18). In addition, detailed refutation texts evoked significantly greater perceived effectiveness than the simple refutation texts (p < 0.01, d = 0.66). Furthermore, the refutation text intervention enhanced the positive perception of the whereabouts system (p < 0.01, η² = 0.15). Conclusions: Our findings support the efficacy of refutation texts to improve the misperception of anti-doping regimes among athletes and have implications for future education prevention initiatives.

COVID-19 myth-busting: an experimental study

Background

COVID-19 misinformation is a danger to public health. A range of formats are used by health campaigns to correct beliefs but data on their effectiveness is limited. We aimed to identify A) whether three commonly used myth-busting formats are effective for correcting COVID-19 myths, immediately and after a delay, and B) which is the most effective.

Methods

We tested whether three common correction formats could reduce beliefs in COVID-19 myths: (i) question-answer, ii) fact-only, (ii) fact-myth. n = 2215 participants (n = 1291 after attrition), UK representative of age and gender, were randomly assigned to one of the three formats. n = 11 myths were acquired from fact-checker websites and piloted to ensure believability. Participants rated myth belief at baseline, were shown correction images (the intervention), and then rated myth beliefs immediately post-intervention and after a delay of at least 6 days. A partial replication, n = 2084 UK representative, was also completed with immediate myth rating only. Analysis used mixed models with participants and myths as random effects.

Results

Myth agreement ratings were significantly lower than baseline for all correction formats, both immediately and after the delay; all β’s > 0.30, p’s < .001. Thus, all formats were effective at lowering beliefs in COVID-19 misinformation.

Correction formats only differed where baseline myth agreement was high, with question-answer and fact-myth more effective than fact-only immediately; β = 0.040, p = .022 (replication set: β = 0.053, p = .0075) and β = − 0.051, p = .0059 (replication set: β = − 0.061, p < .001), respectively. After the delay however, question-answer was more effective than fact-myth, β = 0.040, p =. 031.

Conclusion

Our results imply that COVID-19 myths can be effectively corrected using materials and formats typical of health campaigns. Campaign designers can use our results to choose between correction formats. When myth belief was high, question-answer format was more effective than a fact-only format immediately post-intervention, and after delay, more effective than fact-myth format.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-12464-3.

A comparison of prebunking and debunking interventions for implied versus explicit misinformation

Psychological research has offered valuable insights into how to combat misinformation. The studies conducted to date, however, have three limitations. First, pre-emptive ("prebunking") and retroactive ("debunking") interventions have mostly been examined in parallel, and thus it is unclear which of these two predominant approaches is more effective. Second, there has been a focus on misinformation that is explicitly false, but implied misinformation that uses literally true information to mislead is common in the real world. Finally, studies have relied mainly on questionnaire measures of reasoning, neglecting behavioural impacts of misinformation and interventions. To offer incremental progress towards addressing these three issues, we conducted an experiment (N = 735) involving misinformation on fair trade. We contrasted the effectiveness of prebunking versus debunking and the impacts of implied versus explicit misinformation, and incorporated novel measures assessing consumer behaviours (i.e., willingness-to-pay; information seeking; online misinformation promotion) in addition to standard questionnaire measures. In general, both prebunking and debunking reduced misinformation reliance. We also found that individuals tended to rely more on explicit than implied misinformation both with and without interventions.

Active Annotation in Evaluating the Credibility of Web-Based Medical Information: Guidelines for Creating Training Data Sets for Machine Learning

Background

The spread of false medical information on the web is rapidly accelerating. Establishing the credibility of web-based medical information has become a pressing necessity. Machine learning offers a solution that, when properly deployed, can be an effective tool in fighting medical misinformation on the web.

Objective

The aim of this study is to present a comprehensive framework for designing and curating machine learning training data sets for web-based medical information credibility assessment. We show how to construct the annotation process. Our main objective is to support researchers from the medical and computer science communities. We offer guidelines on the preparation of data sets for machine learning models that can fight medical misinformation.

Methods

We begin by providing the annotation protocol for medical experts involved in medical sentence credibility evaluation. The protocol is based on a qualitative study of our experimental data. To address the problem of insufficient initial labels, we propose a preprocessing pipeline for the batch of sentences to be assessed. It consists of representation learning, clustering, and reranking. We call this process active annotation.

Results

We collected more than 10,000 annotations of statements related to selected medical subjects (psychiatry, cholesterol, autism, antibiotics, vaccines, steroids, birth methods, and food allergy testing) for less than US $7000 by employing 9 highly qualified annotators (certified medical professionals), and we release this data set to the general public. We developed an active annotation framework for more efficient annotation of noncredible medical statements. The application of qualitative analysis resulted in a better annotation protocol for our future efforts in data set creation.

Conclusions

The results of the qualitative analysis support our claims of the efficacy of the presented method.

Older and younger adults' revision of health misconceptions

Although ample younger adult research has detailed effective strategies for revising misconceptions, research with older adults is less extensive. Older adults may be less able to correct errors in knowledge due to age-related changes in cognition, but it is also possible that older adults' revision of misconceptions has been limited by methodologies which do not provide adequate support for correction. In two experiments, we examined how older and younger adults revise health-related misconceptions when provided with cognitive support in the form of explicit detailed feedback and an immediate test. Older and younger adults in Experiment 1 answered true/false health statements, received feedback with a detailed explanation of the correct response, took an additional test on the same statements immediately following the initial test, and completed a final test 1-week later. Older and younger adults corrected a similar proportion of misconceptions immediately and maintained most of those revisions across a 1-week delay. In Experiment 2, older adults corrected the same proportion of misconceptions on the final test regardless of whether or not they received a test immediately following feedback. Overall, older adults revised health misconceptions as effectively as did younger adults but variables influencing correction (e.g., belief in feedback) may differ.

Addressing Myths and Vaccine Hesitancy: A Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVES

Evidence on repeating vaccination misinformation or "myths" in debunking text is inconclusive; repeating myths may unintentionally increase agreement with myths or help discredit myths. In this study we aimed to compare the effect of repeating vaccination myths and other text-based debunking strategies on parents' agreement with myths and their intention to vaccinate their children.

METHODS

For this online experiment we recruited 788 parents of children aged 0 to 5 years; 454 (58%) completed the study. We compared 3 text-based debunking strategies (repeating myths, posing questions, or making factual statements) and a control. We measured changes in agreement with myths and intention to vaccinate immediately after the intervention and at least 1 week later. The primary analysis compared the change in agreement with vaccination myths from baseline, between groups, at each time point after the intervention.

RESULTS

There was no evidence that repeating myths increased agreement with myths compared with the other debunking strategies or the control. Posing questions significantly decreased agreement with myths immediately after the intervention compared with the control (difference: -0.30 points, 99.17% confidence interval: -0.58 to -0.02, P = .004, d = 0.39). There was no evidence of a difference between other debunking strategies or the control at either time point, or on intention to vaccinate.

CONCLUSIONS

Debunking strategies that repeat vaccination myths do not appear to be inferior to strategies that do not repeat myths.

Continued influence of misinformation in times of COVID-19

Health-related misinformation, especially in times of a global health crisis, can have severe negative consequences on public health. In the current studies, we investigated the persuasive impact of COVID-19-related misinformation, and whether the valence of the misinformation and recipients' degree of overconfidence affect this impact. In two pre-registered experimental studies, participants (N = 403; N = 437) were exposed to either a positive or a negative news article describing a fictional hospital's high COVID-19 recovery/mortality rates. Half of the participants subsequently received a correction. Attitudes towards the hospital were measured before and after exposure. Results of both studies showed that, as expected, corrections reduced the persuasive impact of misinformation. But whereas some persuasive impact remained for corrected negative misinformation (a continued influence effect), it reversed for corrected positive information, causing people to have more negative attitudes towards the hospital than before exposure to any information (a backfire effect). These results corroborate prior suggestions that continued influence effects are asymmetric: negative misinformation is harder to neutralise than positive misinformation. Participants' overconfidence degrees did not have a moderating role in misinformation effects. Even though corrections decrease the persuasive impact of health-related misinformation, continued influence remains for negative misinformation.

The effects of repeating false and misleading information on belief

False and misleading information is readily accessible in people's environments, oftentimes reaching people repeatedly. This repeated exposure can significantly affect people's beliefs about the world, as has been noted by scholars in political science, communication, and cognitive, developmental, and social psychology. In particular, repetition increases belief in false information, even when the misinformation contradicts prior knowledge. We review work across these disciplines, identifying factors that may heighten, diminish, or have no impact on these adverse effects of repetition on belief. Specifically, we organize our discussion around variations in what information is repeated, to whom the information is repeated, how people interact with this repetition, and how people's beliefs are measured. A key cross-disciplinary theme is that the most influential factor is how carefully or critically people process the false information. However, several open questions remain when comparing findings across different fields and approaches. We conclude by noting a need for more interdisciplinary work to help resolve these questions, as well as a need for more work in naturalistic settings so that we can better understand and combat the effects of repeated circulation of false and misleading information in society. This article is categorized under: Psychology > Memory Psychology > Reasoning and Decision Making.

Timing matters when correcting fake news

Countering misinformation can reduce belief in the moment, but corrective messages quickly fade from memory. We tested whether the longer-term impact of fact-checks depends on when people receive them. In two experiments (total N = 2,683), participants read true and false headlines taken from social media. In the treatment conditions, “true” and “false” tags appeared before, during, or after participants read each headline. Participants in a control condition received no information about veracity. One week later, participants in all conditions rated the same headlines’ accuracy. Providing fact-checks after headlines (debunking) improved subsequent truth discernment more than providing the same information during (labeling) or before (prebunking) exposure. This finding informs the cognitive science of belief revision and has practical implications for social media platform designers.

The Psychology of Fake News

We synthesize a burgeoning literature investigating why people believe and share false or highly misleading news online. Contrary to a common narrative whereby politics drives susceptibility to fake news, people are 'better' at discerning truth from falsehood (despite greater overall belief) when evaluating politically concordant news. Instead, poor truth discernment is associated with lack of careful reasoning and relevant knowledge, and the use of heuristics such as familiarity. Furthermore, there is a substantial disconnect between what people believe and what they share on social media. This dissociation is largely driven by inattention, more so than by purposeful sharing of misinformation. Thus, interventions can successfully nudge social media users to focus more on accuracy. Crowdsourced veracity ratings can also be leveraged to improve social media ranking algorithms.

Can you believe it? An investigation into the impact of retraction source credibility on the continued influence effect

The continued influence effect refers to the finding that people often continue to rely on misinformation in their reasoning even if the information has been retracted. The present study aimed to investigate the extent to which the effectiveness of a retraction is determined by its credibility. In particular, we aimed to scrutinize previous findings suggesting that perceived trustworthiness but not perceived expertise of the retraction source determines a retraction's effectiveness, and that continued influence arises only if a retraction is not believed. In two experiments, we found that source trustworthiness but not source expertise indeed influences retraction effectiveness, with retractions from low-trustworthiness sources entirely ineffective. We also found that retraction belief is indeed a predictor of continued reliance on misinformation, but that substantial continued influence effects can still occur with retractions designed to be and rated as highly credible.

Refuting Spurious COVID-19 Treatment Claims Reduces Demand and Misinformation Sharing

The COVID-19 pandemic has seen a surge of health misinformation, which has had serious consequences including direct harm and opportunity costs. We investigated (N = 678) the impact of such misinformation on hypothetical demand (i.e., willingness-to-pay) for an unproven treatment, and propensity to promote (i.e., like or share) misinformation online. This is a novel approach, as previous research has used mainly questionnaire-based measures of reasoning. We also tested two interventions to counteract the misinformation, contrasting a tentative refutation based on materials used by health authorities with an enhanced refutation based on best-practice recommendations. We found prior exposure to misinformation increased misinformation promotion (by 18%). Both tentative and enhanced refutations reduced demand (by 18% and 25%, respectively) as well as misinformation promotion (by 29% and 55%). The fact that enhanced refutations were more effective at curbing promotion of misinformation highlights the need for debunking interventions to follow current best-practice guidelines.

You don't have to tell a story! A registered report testing the effectiveness of narrative versus non-narrative misinformation corrections

Misinformation often has an ongoing effect on people's memory and inferential reasoning even after clear corrections are provided; this is known as the continued influence effect. In pursuit of more effective corrections, one factor that has not yet been investigated systematically is the narrative versus non-narrative format of the correction. Some scholars have suggested that a narrative format facilitates comprehension and retention of complex information and may serve to overcome resistance to worldview-dissonant corrections. It is, therefore, a possibility that misinformation corrections are more effective if they are presented in a narrative format versus a non-narrative format. The present study tests this possibility. We designed corrections that are either narrative or non-narrative, while minimizing differences in informativeness. We compared narrative and non-narrative corrections in three preregistered experiments (total N = 2279). Experiment 1 targeted misinformation contained in fictional event reports; Experiment 2 used false claims commonly encountered in the real world; Experiment 3 used real-world false claims that are controversial, in order to test the notion that a narrative format may facilitate corrective updating primarily when it serves to reduce resistance to correction. In all experiments, we also manipulated test delay (immediate vs. 2 days), as any potential benefit of the narrative format may only arise in the short term (if the story format aids primarily with initial comprehension and updating of the relevant mental model) or after a delay (if the story format aids primarily with later correction retrieval). In all three experiments, it was found that narrative corrections are no more effective than non-narrative corrections. Therefore, while stories and anecdotes can be powerful, there is no fundamental benefit of using a narrative format when debunking misinformation.

Online Quizzes with Closed Questions in Formal Assessment: How Elaborate Feedback can Promote Learning

Online-quizzes are an economic and objective method for formative assessment in universities. However, closed questions have been criticized for promoting shallow learning and resulting often in poor learning outcomes. These disadvantages can be overcome by embedding closed questions in effective instructional designs involving feedback. In the present field study, a final sample of N = 496 students completed the same online quiz, consisting of 60 true–false statements on the biological bases of psychology in two sessions. In order to enhance the benefit of formative testing on students’ test achievement in Session 2, students received elaborate feedback (i.e., by providing explanations for the in-/correctness) for half of their answers in Session 1, and corrective feedback (i.e., just indicating the in-/correctness) for the other half. The results showed that students scored higher in Session 2 if elaborate feedback had been provided in Session 1, compared with when corrective feedback was provided. More specifically, students profited more from elaborate feedback on incorrect answers in Session 1 than from feedback on correct answers. As a practical recommendation, self-administered formative tests with closed-question format should at least provide explanations why students’ answers are incorrect.

Searching for the Backfire Effect: Measurement and Design Considerations

One of the most concerning notions for science communicators, fact-checkers, and advocates of truth, is the backfire effect; this is when a correction leads to an individual increasing their belief in the very misconception the correction is aiming to rectify. There is currently a debate in the literature as to whether backfire effects exist at all, as recent studies have failed to find the phenomenon, even under theoretically favorable conditions. In this review, we summarize the current state of the worldview and familiarity backfire effect literatures. We subsequently examine barriers to measuring the backfire phenomenon, discuss approaches to improving measurement and design, and conclude with recommendations for fact-checkers. We suggest that backfire effects are not a robust empirical phenomenon, and more reliable measures, powerful designs, and stronger links between experimental design and theory could greatly help move the field ahead.

Can corrections spread misinformation to new audiences? Testing for the elusive familiarity backfire effect

Misinformation often continues to influence inferential reasoning after clear and credible corrections are provided; this effect is known as the continued influence effect. It has been theorized that this effect is partly driven by misinformation familiarity. Some researchers have even argued that a correction should avoid repeating the misinformation, as the correction itself could serve to inadvertently enhance misinformation familiarity and may thus backfire, ironically strengthening the very misconception that it aims to correct. While previous research has found little evidence of such familiarity backfire effects, there remains one situation where they may yet arise: when correcting entirely novel misinformation, where corrections could serve to spread misinformation to new audiences who had never heard of it before. This article presents three experiments (total N = 1718) investigating the possibility of familiarity backfire within the context of correcting novel misinformation claims and after a 1-week study-test delay. While there was variation across experiments, overall there was substantial evidence against familiarity backfire. Corrections that exposed participants to novel misinformation did not lead to stronger misconceptions compared to a control group never exposed to the false claims or corrections. This suggests that it is safe to repeat misinformation when correcting it, even when the audience might be unfamiliar with the misinformation.