Ahmed, W., Downing, J., Tuters, M. & Knight, P. Four experts investigate how the 5G coronavirus conspiracy theory began. The Conversation https:\/\/theconversation.com\/four-experts-investigate-how-the-5g-coronavirus-conspiracy-theory-began-139137<\/a> (2020). <\/p>\n Heilweil, R. The conspiracy theory about 5G causing coronavirus, explained. Vox (2020); https:\/\/www.vox.com\/recode\/2020\/4\/24\/21231085\/coronavirus-5g-conspiracy-theory-covid-facebook-youtube<\/a> <\/p>\n Pigliucci, M. & Boudry, M. The dangers of pseudoscience. The New York Times (2013); https:\/\/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com\/2013\/10\/10\/the-dangers-of-pseudoscience\/<\/a> <\/p>\n Gordin, M. D. The problem with pseudoscience: pseudoscience is not the antithesis of professional science but thrives in sciences shadow. EMBO Rep. 18, 1482 (2017). <\/p>\n Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar <\/p>\n Townson, S. Why people fall for pseudoscience (and how academics can fight back). The Guardian (2016); https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/higher-education-network\/2016\/jan\/26\/why-people-fall-for-pseudoscience-and-how-academics-can-fight-back<\/a> <\/p>\n Caulfield, T. Pseudoscience and COVID-19weve had enough already. Nature https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/d41586-020-01266-z<\/a> (2020). <\/p>\n Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar <\/p>\n Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Lazy, not biased: susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition 188, 3950 (2019). <\/p>\n Article PubMed Google Scholar <\/p>\n Vraga, E. K. & Bode, L. Defining misinformation and understanding its bounded nature: using expertise and evidence for describing misinformation. Polit. Commun. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/10584609.2020.1716500<\/a> (2020). <\/p>\n Lewandowsky, S. et al. The Debunking Handbook 2020. Databrary https:\/\/doi.org\/10.17910\/b7.1182<\/a> (2020). <\/p>\n Pennycook, G. et al. Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature 592, 590595 (2021). <\/p>\n Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar <\/p>\n Garrett, R. K., Weeks, B. E. & Neo, R. L. Driving a wedge between evidence and beliefs: how online ideological news exposure promotes political misperceptions. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 21, 331348 (2016). <\/p>\n Article Google Scholar <\/p>\n Lazer, D. M. J. et al. The science of fake news: addressing fake news requires a multidisciplinary effort. Science 359, 10941096 (2018). <\/p>\n Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar <\/p>\n Wyer, R. S. & Unverzagt, W. H. Effects of instructions to disregard information on its subsequent recall and use in making judgments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48, 533549 (1985). <\/p>\n Article PubMed Google Scholar <\/p>\n Greitemeyer, T. Article retracted, but the message lives on. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 21, 557561 (2014). <\/p>\n Article PubMed Google Scholar <\/p>\n McDiarmid, A. D. et al. Psychologists update their beliefs about effect sizes after replication studies. Nat. Hum. Behav.https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/s41562-021-01220-7<\/a> (2021). <\/p>\n Article PubMed Google Scholar <\/p>\n Yousuf, H. et al. A media intervention applying debunking versus non-debunking content to combat vaccine misinformation in elderly in the Netherlands: a digital randomised trial. EClinicalMedicine 35, 100881 (2021). <\/p>\n Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar <\/p>\n Kuru, O. et al. The effects of scientific messages and narratives about vaccination. PLoS ONE 16, e0248328 (2021). <\/p>\n Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar <\/p>\n Anderson, C. A. Inoculation and counterexplanation: debiasing techniques in the perseverance of social theories. Soc. Cogn. 1, 126139 (1982). <\/p>\n Article Google Scholar <\/p>\n Jacobson, N. G. What Does Climate Change Look Like to You? The Role of Internal and External Representations in Facilitating Conceptual Change about the Weather and Climate Distinction (Univ. Southern California, 2022). <\/p>\n Pluviano, S., Watt, C. & Sala, S. D. Misinformation lingers in memory: failure of three pro-vaccination strategies. PLoS ONE 12, 15 (2017). <\/p>\n Article Google Scholar <\/p>\n Maertens, R., Anseel, F. & van der Linden, S. Combatting climate change misinformation: evidence for longevity of inoculation and consensus messaging effects. J. Environ. Psychol. 70, 101455 (2020). <\/p>\n Article Google Scholar <\/p>\n Chan, M. S., Jones, C. R., Jamieson, K. H. & Albarracin, D. Debunking: a meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychol. Sci. 28, 15311546 (2017). <\/p>\n Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar <\/p>\n Janmohamed, K. et al. Interventions to mitigate vaping misinformation: a meta-analysis. J. Health Commun. 27, 8492 (2022). <\/p>\n Article PubMed Google Scholar <\/p>\n Walter, N. & Tukachinsky, R. A meta-analytic examination of the continued influence of misinformation in the face of correction: how powerful is it, why does it happen, and how to stop it? Commun. Res. 47, 155177 (2020). <\/p>\n Article Google Scholar <\/p>\n Walter, N., Cohen, J., Holbert, R. L. & Morag, Y. Fact-checking: a meta-analysis of what works and for whom. Polit. Commun. 37, 350375 (2020). <\/p>\n Article Google Scholar <\/p>\n Walter, N. & Murphy, S. T. How to unring the bell: a meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation. Commun. Monogr. 85, 423441 (2018). <\/p>\n Article Google Scholar <\/p>\n Walter, N., Brooks, J. J., Saucier, C. J. & Suresh, S. Evaluating the impact of attempts to correct health misinformation on social media: a meta-analysis. Health Commun. 36, 17761784 (2021). <\/p>\n Article PubMed Google Scholar <\/p>\n Chan, M. S., Jamieson, K. H. & Albarracn, D. Prospective associations of regional social media messages with attitudes and actual vaccination: A big data and survey study of the influenza vaccine in the United States. Vaccine 38, 62366247 (2020). <\/p>\n Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar <\/p>\n Lawson, V. Z. & Strange, D. News as (hazardous) entertainment: exaggerated reporting leads to more memory distortion for news stories. Psychol. Pop. Media Cult. 4, 188198 (2015). <\/p>\n Article Google Scholar <\/p>\n Nature Microbiology. Exaggerated headline shock. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 377377 (2019). <\/p>\n Article Google Scholar <\/p>\n Pinker, S. The media exaggerates negative news. This distortion has consequences. The Guardian (2018); https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/commentisfree\/2018\/feb\/17\/steven-pinker-media-negative-news<\/a> <\/p>\n CDC. HPV vaccine safety. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services https:\/\/www.cdc.gov\/hpv\/parents\/vaccinesafety.html<\/a> (2021). <\/p>\n Jaber, N. Parent concerns about HPV vaccine safety increasing. National Cancer Institute https:\/\/www.cancer.gov\/news-events\/cancer-currents-blog\/2021\/hpv-vaccine-parents-safety-concerns<\/a> (2021). <\/p>\n Brody, J. E. Why more kids arent getting the HPV vaccine. The New York Times https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/12\/13\/well\/live\/hpv-vaccine-children.html<\/a> (2021). <\/p>\n Walker, K. K., Owens, H. & Zimet, G. We fear the unknown: emergence, route and transfer of hesitancy and misinformation among HPV vaccine accepting mothers. Prev. Med. Rep. 20, 101240 (2020). <\/p>\n Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar <\/p>\n Normile, D. Japan reboots HPV vaccination drive after 9-year gap. Science 376, 14 (2022). <\/p>\n Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar <\/p>\n Larson, H. J. Japans HPV vaccine crisis: act now to avert cervical cancer cases and deaths. Lancet Public Health 5, e184e185 (2020). <\/p>\n Article PubMed Google Scholar <\/p>\n Soroka, S., Fournier, P. & Nir, L. Cross-national evidence of a negativity bias in psychophysiological reactions to news. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 1888818892 (2019). <\/p>\n Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar <\/p>\n Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C. & Vohs, K. D. Bad is stronger than good. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 5, 323370 (2001). <\/p>\n Article Google Scholar <\/p>\n Kunda, Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 108, 480498 (1990). <\/p>\n Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar <\/p>\n Kopko, K. C., Bryner, S. M. K., Budziak, J., Devine, C. J. & Nawara, S. P. In the eye of the beholder? Motivated reasoning in disputed elections. Polit. Behav. 33, 271290 (2011). <\/p>\n Article Google Scholar <\/p>\n Leeper, T. J. & Mullinix, K. J. Motivated reasoning. Oxford Bibliographies https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/OBO\/9780199756223-0237<\/a> (2018). <\/p>\n Johnson, H. M. & Seifert, C. M. Sources of the continued influence effect: when misinformation in memory affects later inferences. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 20, 14201436 (1994). <\/p>\n Article Google Scholar <\/p>\n Wilkes, A. L. & Leatherbarrow, M. Editing episodic memory following the identification of error. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. Sect. A 40, 361387 (1988). <\/p>\n Article Google Scholar <\/p>\n Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S. & Apai, J. Terrorists brought down the plane!No, actually it was a technical fault: processing corrections of emotive information. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 64, 283310 (2011). <\/p>\n Article Google Scholar <\/p>\n Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N. & Cook, J. Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 13, 106131 (2012). <\/p>\n Article PubMed Google Scholar <\/p>\n Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine 33, 459464 (2015). <\/p>\n Article PubMed Google Scholar <\/p>\n Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S. & Freed, G. L. Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 133, e835e842 (2014). <\/p>\n Article PubMed Google Scholar <\/p>\n Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Polit. Behav. 32, 303330 (2010). <\/p>\n Article Google Scholar <\/p>\n Rathje, S., Roozenbeek, J., Traberg, C. S., van Bavel, J. J. & van der Linden, S. Meta-analysis reveals that accuracy nudges have little to no effect for U.S. conservatives: regarding Pennycook et al. (2020). Psychol. Sci. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.25384\/SAGE.12594110.v2<\/a> (2021). <\/p>\n Greene, C. M., Nash, R. A. & Murphy, G. Misremembering Brexit: partisan bias and individual predictors of false memories for fake news stories among Brexit voters. Memory 29, 587604 (2021). <\/p>\n Article PubMed Google Scholar <\/p>\n Gawronski, B. Partisan bias in the identification of fake news. Trends Cogn. Sci. 25, 723724 (2021). <\/p>\n Article PubMed Google Scholar <\/p>\n Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Lack of partisan bias in the identification of fake (versus real) news. Trends Cogn. Sci. 25, 725726 (2021). <\/p>\n Article PubMed Google Scholar <\/p>\n Borukhson, D., Lorenz-Spreen, P. & Ragni, M. When does an individual accept misinformation? An extended investigation through cognitive modeling. Comput. Brain Behav. 5, 244260 (2022). <\/p>\n Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar <\/p>\n Roozenbeek, J. et al. Susceptibility to misinformation is consistent across question framings and response modes and better explained by myside bias and partisanship than analytical thinking susceptibility to misinformation. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 17, 547573 (2022). <\/p>\n Article Google Scholar <\/p>\n Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N. & Cook, F. L. The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Polit. Behav. 36, 235262 (2014). <\/p>\n Article Google Scholar <\/p>\n Hameleers, M. & van der Meer, T. G. L. A. Misinformation and polarization in a high-choice media environment: how effective are political fact-checkers? Commun. Res. 47, 227250 (2020). <\/p>\n <\/p>\n See the rest here: Ahmed, W., Downing, J., Tuters, M. & Knight, P. Four experts investigate how the 5G coronavirus conspiracy theory began. Continue reading
\nA meta-analysis of correction effects in science-relevant ... - Nature.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"