DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M. & Epstein, J. A. Lying in on a regular basis life. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 70, 979–995 (1996).
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. Okay. H. & Cook, J. Beyond misinformation: understanding and dealing with the post-truth period. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6, 353–369 (2017).
Zarocostas, J. How to battle an infodemic. Lancet 395, 676 (2020).
Google Scholar
Lazer, D. M. J. et al. The science of faux information. Science 359, 1094–1096 (2018).
Google Scholar
Bennett, W. L. & Livingston, S. The disinformation order: disruptive communication and the decline of democratic establishments. Eur. J. Commun. 33, 122–139 (2018).
Whitten-Woodring, J., Kleinberg, M. S., Thawnghmung, A. & Thitsar, M. T. Poison when you don’t understand how to use it: Facebook, democracy, and human rights in Myanmar. Int. J. Press Politics 25, 407–425 (2020).
Roozenbeek, J. et al. Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 world wide. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7, 201199 (2020).
Google Scholar
Rich, J. in Private and Public Lies. The Discourse of Despotism and Deceit within the Graeco-Roman World (Impact of Empire 11) (eds Turner, A. J., Kim On Chong-Cossard, J. H. & Vervaet, F. J.) Vol. 11 167–191 (Brill Academic, 2010).
Hekster, O. in The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power (eds. de Blois, L., Erdkamp, P., Hekster, O., de Kleijn, G. & Mols, S.) 20–35 (J. C. Gieben, 2013).
Herf, J. The Jewish War: Goebbels and the antisemitic campaigns of the Nazi propaganda ministry. Holocaust Genocide Stud. 19, 51–80 (2005).
Acerbi, A. Cognitive attraction and on-line misinformation. Palgrave Commun. 5, 15 (2019).
Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S. & Hertwig, R. Citizens versus the web: confronting digital challenges with cognitive instruments. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest. 21, 103–156 (2020).
Google Scholar
Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A. & Bonneau, R. Tweeting from left to proper: is on-line political communication greater than an echo chamber? Psychol. Sci. 26, 1531–1542 (2015).
Google Scholar
Del Vicario, M. et al. The spreading of misinformation on-line. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 554–559 (2016).
Google Scholar
Garrett, R. Okay. The echo chamber distraction: disinformation campaigns are the issue not viewers fragmentation. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6, 370–376 (2017).
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D. & Aral, S. The unfold of true and false information on-line. Science 359, 1146–1151 (2018).
Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A. & Yeo, S. Okay. The lure of rationality: why does the deficit mannequin persist in science communication? Public Underst. Sci. 25, 400–414 (2016).
Google Scholar
Fazio, L. Okay., Brashier, N. M., Payne, B. Okay. & Marsh, E. J. Knowledge doesn’t shield in opposition to illusory fact. J. Exp. Psychol. 144, 993–1002 (2015).
Hornsey, M. J. & Fielding, Okay. S. Attitude roots and jiu jitsu persuasion: understanding and overcoming the motivated rejection of science. Am. Psychol. 72, 459 (2017).
Google Scholar
Nisbet, E. C., Cooper, Okay. E. & Garrett, R. Okay. The partisan mind: how dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis)belief science. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 658, 36–66 (2015).
Schmid, P. & Betsch, C. Effective methods for rebutting science denialism in public discussions. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3, 931–939 (2019).
Google Scholar
Hansson, S. O. Science denial as a type of pseudoscience. Stud. History Philos. Sci. A 63, 39–47 (2017).
Amin, A. B. et al. Association of ethical values with vaccine hesitancy. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 873–880 (2017).
Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, S. & Oberauer, Okay. Motivated rejection of science. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 25, 217–222 (2016).
Trevors, G. & Duffy, M. C. Correcting COVID-19 misconceptions requires warning. Educ. Res. 49, 538–542 (2020).
Lewandowsky, S. Conspiracist cognition: chaos comfort, and trigger for concern. J. Cult. Res. 25, 12–35 (2021).
Lewandowsky, S., Stritzke, W. G. Okay., Freund, A. M., Oberauer, Okay. & Krueger, J. I. Misinformation, disinformation, and violent battle: from Iraq and the warfare on terror to future threats to peace. Am. Psychol. 68, 487–501 (2013).
Google Scholar
Marsh, E. J., Cantor, A. D. & Brashier, N. M. Believing that people swallow spiders of their sleep. Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 64, 93–132 (2016).
Rapp, D. N. The penalties of studying inaccurate data. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 25, 281–285 (2016).
Pantazi, M., Kissine, M. & Klein, O. The energy of the reality bias: false data impacts reminiscence and judgment even within the absence of distraction. Soc. Cogn. 36, 167–198 (2018).
Brashier, N. M. & Marsh, E. J. Judging fact. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 71, 499–515 (2020).
Google Scholar
Prike, T., Arnold, M. M. & Williamson, P. The relationship between anomalistic belief misperception of likelihood and the bottom price fallacy. Think. Reason. 26, 447–477 (2020).
Uscinski, J. E. et al. Why do individuals consider COVID-19 conspiracy theories? Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-015 (2020).
Google Scholar
Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J. & Wänke, M. The fact concerning the fact: a meta-analytic evaluate of the reality impact. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 14, 238–257 (2010).
Unkelbach, C., Koch, A., Silva, R. R. & Garcia-Marques, T. Truth by repetition: explanations and implications. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 28, 247–253 (2019).
Begg, I. M., Anas, A. & Farinacci, S. Dissociation of processes in belief: supply recollection, assertion familiarity, and the phantasm of fact. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 121, 446–458 (1992).
Unkelbach, C. Reversing the reality impact: studying the interpretation of processing fluency in judgments of fact. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Memory Cogn. 33, 219–230 (2007).
Wang, W. C., Brashier, N. M., Wing, E. A., Marsh, E. J. & Cabeza, R. On recognized unknowns: fluency and the neural mechanisms of illusory fact. J. Cognit. Neurosci. 28, 739–746 (2016).
Unkelbach, C. & Rom, S. C. A referential concept of the repetition-induced fact impact. Cognition 160, 110–126 (2017).
Google Scholar
Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D. & Rand, D. G. Prior publicity will increase perceived accuracy of faux information. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 147, 1865–1880 (2018).
Google Scholar
Unkelbach, C. & Speckmann, F. Mere repetition will increase belief in factually true COVID-19-related data. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 10, 241–247 (2021).
Nadarevic, L., Reber, R., Helmecke, A. J. & Köse, D. Perceived fact of statements and simulated social media postings: an experimental investigation of supply credibility, repeated publicity, and presentation format. Cognit. Res. Princ. Implic. 5, 56 (2020).
Fazio, L. Okay., Rand, D. G. & Pennycook, G. Repetition will increase perceived fact equally for believable and implausible statements. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 26, 1705–1710 (2019).
Brown, A. S. & Nix, L. A. Turning lies into truths: referential validation of falsehoods. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Memory Cogn. 22, 1088–1100 (1996).
De keersmaecker, J. et al. Investigating the robustness of the illusory fact impact throughout particular person variations in cognitive skill, want for cognitive closure, and cognitive type. Pers Soc. Psychol. Bull. 46, 204–215 (2020).
Google Scholar
Unkelbach, C. & Greifeneder, R. Experiential fluency and declarative recommendation collectively inform judgments of fact. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 79, 78–86 (2018).
Fazio, L. Okay. Repetition will increase perceived fact even for recognized falsehoods. Collabra Psychol. 6, 38 (2020).
Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. The psychology of faux information. Trends Cognit. Sci. 25, 388–402 (2021).
Murphy, G., Loftus, E. F., Grady, R. H., Levine, L. J. & Greene, C. M. False reminiscences for faux information throughout Ireland’s abortion referendum. Psychol. Sci. 30, 1449–1459 (2019).
Google Scholar
Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Lazy, not biased: susceptibility to partisan faux information is healthier defined by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition 188, 39–50 (2019).
Google Scholar
Stanley, M. L., Barr, N., Peters, Okay. & Seli, P. Analytic-thinking predicts hoax beliefs and serving to behaviors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Think. Reas. 27, 464–477 (2020).
Bago, B., Rand, D. G. & Pennycook, G. Fake information, quick and gradual: deliberation reduces belief in false (however not true) information headlines. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149, 1608–1613 (2020).
Google Scholar
Brashier, N. M., Eliseev, E. D. & Marsh, E. J. An preliminary accuracy focus prevents illusory fact. Cognition 194, 104054 (2020).
Google Scholar
Briñol, P. & Petty, R. E. Source elements in persuasion: a self-validation method. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 20, 49–96 (2009).
Mackie, D. M., Worth, L. T. & Asuncion, A. G. Processing of persuasive in-group messages. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58, 812–822 (1990).
Google Scholar
Mahmoodi, A. et al. Equality bias impairs collective decision-making throughout cultures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 3835–3840 (2015).
Google Scholar
Marks, G. & Miller, N. Ten years of analysis on the false-consensus impact: an empirical and theoretical evaluate. Psychol. Bull. 102, 72–90 (1987).
Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J. & Jenkins, J. C. Shifting public opinion on local weather change: an empirical evaluation of elements influencing concern over local weather change within the U.S. 2002–2010. Clim. Change 114, 169–188 (2012).
Lachapelle, E., Montpetit, É. & Gauvin, J.-P. Public perceptions of skilled credibility on coverage points: the position of skilled framing and political worldviews. Policy Stud. J. 42, 674–697 (2014).
Dada, S., Ashworth, H. C., Bewa, M. J. & Dhatt, R. Words matter: political and gender evaluation of speeches made by heads of authorities throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Glob. Health 6, e003910 (2021).
Google Scholar
Chung, M. & Jones-Jang, S. M. Red media, blue media, Trump briefings, and COVID-19: analyzing how data sources predict threat preventive behaviors through risk and efficacy. Health Commun. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.1914386 (2021).
Google Scholar
Mitchell, Okay. J. & Johnson, M. Okay. Source monitoring 15 years later: what have we realized from fMRI concerning the neural mechanisms of supply reminiscence? Psychol. Bull. 135, 638–677 (2009).
Google Scholar
Dias, N., Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Emphasizing publishers doesn’t successfully cut back susceptibility to misinformation on social media. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-001 (2020).
Google Scholar
Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Fighting misinformation on social media utilizing crowdsourced judgments of information supply high quality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 2521–2526 (2019).
Google Scholar
Altay, S., Hacquin, A.-S. & Mercier, H. Why accomplish that few individuals share faux information? It hurts their popularity. N. Media Soc. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820969893 (2020).
Google Scholar
Rahhal, T. A., May, C. P. & Hasher, L. Truth and character: sources that older adults can bear in mind. Psychol. Sci. 13, 101–105 (2002).
Google Scholar
Grinberg, N., Joseph, Okay., Friedland, L., Swire-Thompson, B. & Lazer, D. Fake information on Twitter throughout the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Science 363, 374–378 (2019).
Google Scholar
Stanford University Center for an Informed Public, Digital Forensic Research Lab, Graphika, & Stanford Internet Observatory. The lengthy fuse: misinformation and the 2020 election. Stanford Digital Repository https://purl.stanford.edu/tr171zs0069 (2021).
Jones, M. O. Disinformation superspreaders: the weaponisation of COVID-19 faux information within the Persian Gulf and past. Glob. Discourse 10, 431–437 (2020).
Tannenbaum, M. B. et al. Appealing to concern: a meta-analysis of concern attraction effectiveness and theories. Psychol. Bull. 141, 1178–1204 (2015).
Google Scholar
Altay, S. & Mercier, H. Happy ideas: the position of communion in accepting and sharing epistemically suspect beliefs. psyarxiv https://psyarxiv.com/3s4nr/ (2020).
Rocklage, M. D., Rucker, D. D. & Nordgren, L. F. Persuasion, emotion, and language: the intent to persuade transforms language through emotionality. Psychol. Sci. 29, 749–760 (2018).
Google Scholar
Chou, W.-Y. S. & Budenz, A. Considering emotion in COVID-19 vaccine communication: addressing vaccine hesitancy and fostering vaccine confidence. Health Commun. 35, 1718–1722 (2020).
Google Scholar
Baum, J. & Abdel, R. R. Emotional information impacts social judgments impartial of perceived media credibility. Soc. Cognit. Affect. Neurosci. 16, 280–291 (2021).
Kim, H., Park, Okay. & Schwarz, N. Will this journey actually be thrilling? The position of incidental feelings in product analysis. J. Consum. Res. 36, 983–991 (2010).
Forgas, J. P. Happy believers and unhappy skeptics? Affective influences on gullibility. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 28, 306–313 (2019).
Martel, C., Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Reliance on emotion promotes belief in faux information. Cognit. Res. Princ. Implic. 5, 47 (2020).
Forgas, J. P. & East, R. On being joyful and gullible: temper results on skepticism and the detection of deception. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44, 1362–1367 (2008).
Koch, A. S. & Forgas, J. P. Feeling good and feeling fact: the interactive results of temper and processing fluency on fact judgments. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48, 481–485 (2012).
Forgas, J. P. Don’t fear be unhappy! On the cognitive, motivational, and interpersonal advantages of destructive temper. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 22, 225–232 (2013).
Weeks, B. E. Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: how anger and anxiousness average the impact of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. J. Commun. 65, 699–719 (2015).
Han, J., Cha, M. & Lee, W. Anger contributes to the unfold of COVID-19 misinformation. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-39 (2020).
Google Scholar
Graeupner, D. & Coman, A. The darkish aspect of meaning-making: how social exclusion leads to superstitious pondering. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 69, 218–222 (2017).
Poon, Okay.-T., Chen, Z. & Wong, W.-Y. Beliefs in conspiracy theories following ostracism. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 46, 1234–1246 (2020).
Google Scholar
Johnson, H. M. & Seifert, C. M. Sources of the continued affect impact: when misinformation in reminiscence impacts later inferences. J. Exp. Psychol. Lear. Memory Cogn. 20, 1420–1436 (1994).
Chan, M.-P. S., Jones, C. R., Jamieson, Okay. H. & Albarracín, D. Debunking: a meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychol. Sci. 28, 1531–1546 (2017).
Google Scholar
Walter, N. & Murphy, S. T. How to unring the bell: a meta-analytic method to correction of misinformation. Commun. Monogr. 85, 423–441 (2018).
Walter, N. & Tukachinsky, R. A meta-analytic examination of the continued affect of misinformation within the face of correction: how highly effective is it, why does it occur, and how to cease it? Commun. Res. 47, 155–177 (2020).
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. Okay. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N. & Cook, J. Misinformation and its correction: continued affect and profitable debiasing. Psychol.Sci. Public. Interest. 13, 106–131 (2012).
Google Scholar
Barrera, O., Guriev, S., Henry, E. & Zhuravskaya, E. Facts, various details, and reality checking in instances of post-truth politics. J. Public. Econ. 182, 104123 (2020).
Swire, B., Berinsky, A. J., Lewandowsky, S. & Ecker, U. Okay. H. Processing political misinformation: comprehending the Trump phenomenon. R. Soc. Open. Sci. 4, 160802 (2017).
Google Scholar
Swire, B., Ecker, U. Okay. H. & Lewandowsky, S. The position of familiarity in correcting inaccurate data. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Memory Cogn. 43, 1948–1961 (2017).
Hamby, A., Ecker, U. Okay. H. & Brinberg, D. How tales in reminiscence perpetuate the continued affect of false data. J. Consum. Psychol. 30, 240–259 (2019).
MacFarlane, D., Tay, L. Q., Hurlstone, M. J. & Ecker, U. Okay. H. Refuting spurious COVID-19 remedy claims reduces demand and misinformation sharing. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 10, 248–258 (2021).
Google Scholar
Tay, L. Q., Hurlstone, M. J., Kurz, T. & Ecker, U. Okay. H. A comparability of prebunking and debunking interventions for implied versus express misinformation. Brit. J. Psychol. (within the press).
Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S. & Freed, G. L. Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 133, e835–e842 (2014).
Google Scholar
Poland, G. A. & Spier, R. Fear misinformation, and innumerates: how the Wakefield paper, the press, and advocacy teams broken the general public well being. Vaccine 28, 2361–2362 (2010).
Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, S., Stritzke, W. G. Okay., Oberauer, Okay. & Morales, M. Memory for reality, fiction, and misinformation. Psychol. Sci. 16, 190–195 (2005).
Google Scholar
Ecker, U. Okay. H., Lewandowsky, S. & Tang, D. T. W. Explicit warnings cut back however don’t get rid of the continued affect of misinformation. Mem. Cogn. 38, 1087–1100 (2010).
Kendeou, P., Walsh, E. Okay., Smith, E. R. & OBrien, E. J. Knowledge revision processes in refutation texts. Discourse Process. 51, 374–397 (2014).
Shtulman, A. & Valcarcel, J. Scientific data suppresses however doesn’t supplant earlier intuitions. Cognition 124, 209–215 (2012).
Google Scholar
Kendeou, P., Butterfuss, R., Kim, J. & Boekel, M. V. Knowledge revision by way of the lenses of the three-pronged method. Mem. Cogn. 47, 33–46 (2019).
Ithisuphalap, J., Rich, P. R. & Zaragoza, M. S. Does evaluating belief prior to its retraction affect the efficacy of later corrections? Memory 28, 617–631 (2020).
Google Scholar
Ecker, U. Okay. H., Hogan, J. L. & Lewandowsky, S. Reminders and repetition of misinformation: serving to or hindering its retraction? J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6, 185–192 (2017).
Brydges, C. R., Gignac, G. E. & Ecker, U. Okay. H. Working reminiscence capability, short-term reminiscence capability, and the continued affect impact: a latent-variable evaluation. Intelligence 69, 117–122 (2018).
Sanderson, J. A., Gignac, G. E. & Ecker, U. Okay. H. Working reminiscence capability, elimination effectivity and occasion particular reminiscence as predictors of misinformation reliance. J. Cognit. Psychol. 33, 518–532 (2021).
Ecker, U. Okay. H., Lewandowsky, S., Swire, B. & Chang, D. Correcting false data in reminiscence: manipulating the energy of misinformation encoding and its retraction. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 18, 570–578 (2011).
Google Scholar
Yonelinas, A. P. The nature of recollection and familiarity: Aa evaluate of 30 years of analysis. J. Mem. Lang. 46, 441–517 (2002).
Butterfuss, R. & Kendeou, P. Reducing interference from misconceptions: the position of inhibition in data revision. J. Educ. Psychol. 112, 782–794 (2020).
Brydges, C. R., Gordon, A. & Ecker, U. Okay. H. Electrophysiological correlates of the continued affect impact of misinformation: an exploratory examine. J. Cognit. Psychol. 32, 771–784 (2020).
Gordon, A., Quadflieg, S., Brooks, J. C. W., Ecker, U. Okay. H. & Lewandowsky, S. Keeping observe of ‘alternative facts’: the neural correlates of processing misinformation corrections. NeuroImage 193, 46–56 (2019).
Google Scholar
Ecker, U. Okay. H., O’Reilly, Z., Reid, J. S. & Chang, E. P. The effectiveness of short-format refutational fact-checks. Br. J. Psychol. 111, 36–54 (2020).
Google Scholar
van der Meer, T. G. L. A. & Jin, Y. Seeking formulation for misinformation remedy in public well being crises: the results of corrective data kind and supply. Health Commun. 35, 560–575 (2020).
Google Scholar
Wintersieck, A., Fridkin, Okay. & Kenney, P. The message issues: the affect of fact-checking on evaluations of political messages. J. Political Mark. 20, 93–120 (2021).
Amazeen, M. & Krishna, A. Correcting vaccine misinformation: recognition and results of supply kind on misinformation through perceived motivations and credibility. SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3698102 (2020).
Google Scholar
Vraga, E. Okay. & Bode, L. I don’t consider you: how offering a supply corrects well being misperceptions throughout social media platforms. Inf. Commun. Soc. 21, 1337–1353 (2018).
Ecker, U. Okay. H. & Antonio, L. M. Can you consider it? An investigation into the influence of retraction supply credibility on the continued affect impact. Mem. Cogn. 49, 631–644 (2021).
Guillory, J. J. & Geraci, L. Correcting inaccurate inferences in reminiscence: the position of supply credibility. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2, 201–209 (2013).
Vraga, E. Okay. & Bode, L. Using skilled sources to appropriate well being misinformation in social media. Sci. Commun. 39, 621–645 (2017).
Zhang, J., Featherstone, J. D., Calabrese, C. & Wojcieszak, M. Effects of fact-checking social media vaccine misinformation on attitudes towards vaccines. Prev. Med. 145, 106408 (2021).
Google Scholar
Connor Desai, S. A., Pilditch, T. D. & Madsen, J. Okay. The rational continued affect of misinformation. Cognition 205, 104453 (2020).
Google Scholar
O’Rear, A. E. & Radvansky, G. A. Failure to settle for retractions: a contribution to the continued affect impact. Mem. Cogn. 48, 127–144 (2020).
Ecker, U. Okay. H. & Ang, L. C. Political attitudes and the processing of misinformation corrections. Political Psychol. 40, 241–260 (2019).
Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behav. 32, 303–330 (2010).
Trevors, G. The roles of identification battle, emotion, and risk in studying from refutation texts on vaccination and immigration. Discourse Process. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2021.1917950 (2021).
Google Scholar
Prasad, M. et al. There should be a purpose: Osama, Saddam, and inferred justification. Sociol. Inq. 79, 142–162 (2009).
Amazeen, M. A., Thorson, E., Muddiman, A. & Graves, L. Correcting political and client misperceptions: the effectiveness and results of score scale versus contextual correction codecs. J. Mass. Commun. Q. 95, 28–48 (2016).
Ecker, U. Okay. H., Sze, B. Okay. N. & Andreotta, M. Corrections of political misinformation: no proof for an impact of partisan worldview in a US comfort pattern. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 376, 20200145 (2021).
Nyhan, B., Porter, E., Reifler, J. & Wood, T. J. Taking fact-checks actually however not significantly? The results of journalistic fact-checking on factual beliefs and candidate favorability. Political Behav. 42, 939–960 (2019).
Wood, T. & Porter, E. The elusive backfire impact: mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behav. 41, 135–163 (2018).
Yang, Q., Qureshi, Okay. & Zaman, T. Mitigating the backfire impact utilizing pacing and main. arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.00049 (2020).
Susmann, M. W. & Wegener, D. T. The position of discomfort within the continued affect impact of misinformation. Memory Cogn. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01232-8 (2021).
Google Scholar
Cobb, M. D., Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. Beliefs don’t all the time persevere: how political figures are punished when optimistic details about them is discredited. Political Psychol. 34, 307–326 (2013).
Thorson, E. Belief echoes: the persistent results of corrected misinformation. Political Commun. 33, 460–480 (2016).
Jaffé, M. E. & Greifeneder, R. Negative is true right here and now however not a lot there and then. Exp. Psychol. 67, 314–326 (2020).
Google Scholar
Ecker, U. Okay. H. & Rodricks, A. E. Do false allegations persist? Retracted misinformation doesn’t proceed to affect express individual impressions. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 9, 587–601 (2020).
Ecker, U. Okay. H., Lewandowsky, S. & Apai, J. Terrorists introduced down the airplane! No truly it was a technical fault: processing corrections of emotive data. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 64, 283–310 (2011).
Trevors, G., Bohn-Gettler, C. & Kendeou, P. The results of experimentally induced feelings on revising widespread vaccine misconceptions. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211017840 (2021).
Google Scholar
Chang, E. P., Ecker, U. Okay. H. & Page, A. C. Not wallowing in distress — retractions of destructive misinformation are efficient in depressive rumination. Cogn. Emot. 33, 991–1005 (2019).
Google Scholar
Sangalang, A., Ophir, Y. & Cappella, J. N. The potential for narrative correctives to fight misinformation. J. Commun. 69, 298–319 (2019).
Google Scholar
Featherstone, J. D. & Zhang, J. Feeling offended: the results of vaccine misinformation and refutational messages on destructive feelings and vaccination perspective. J. Health Commun. 25, 692–702 (2020).
Google Scholar
Brashier, N. M., Pennycook, G., Berinsky, A. J. & Rand, D. G. Timing issues when correcting faux information. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2020043118 (2021).
Google Scholar
Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. & Ecker, U. Okay. H. Neutralizing misinformation by way of inoculation: exposing deceptive argumentation strategies reduces their affect. PLoS ONE 12, e0175799 (2017).
Google Scholar
Hughes, M. G. et al. Discrediting in a message board discussion board: the results of social help and assaults on experience and trustworthiness. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 19, 325–341 (2014).
Paynter, J. et al. Evaluation of a template for countering misinformation — real-world autism remedy fable debunking. PLoS ONE 14, e0210746 (2019).
Google Scholar
Jolley, D. & Douglas, Okay. M. Prevention is healthier than remedy: addressing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 47, 459–469 (2017).
Vraga, E. Okay., Kim, S. C., Cook, J. & Bode, L. Testing the effectiveness of correction placement and kind on Instagram. Int. J. Press Politics 25, 632–652 (2020).
Clayton, Okay. et al. Real options for faux information? Measuring the effectiveness of basic warnings and fact-check tags in decreasing belief in false tales on social media. Political Behav. 42, 1073–1095 (2019).
Dai, Y., Yu, W. & Shen, F. The results of message order and debiasing data in misinformation correction. Int. J. Commun. 15, 21 (2021).
Swire-Thompson, B. et al. Evidence for a restricted position of correction format when debunking misinformation. OSF https://osf.io/udny9/ (2021).
Gordon, A., Ecker, U. Okay. H. & Lewandowsky, S. Polarity and perspective results within the continued-influence paradigm. J. Mem. Lang. 108, 104028 (2019).
Grady, R. H., Ditto, P. H. & Loftus, E. F. Nevertheless partisanship persevered: faux information warnings assist briefly, however bias returns with time. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 6, 52 (2021).
Google Scholar
Schmid, P., Schwarzer, M. & Betsch, C. Weight-of-evidence methods to mitigate the affect of messages of science denialism in public discussions. J. Cogn. 3, 36 (2020).
Google Scholar
Compton, J., van der Linden, S., Cook, J. & Basol, M. Inoculation concept within the post-truth period: extant findings and new frontiers for contested science misinformation, and conspiracy theories. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 15, e12602 (2021).
Lewandowsky, S. & van der Linden, S. Countering misinformation and faux information by way of inoculation and prebunking. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983 (2021).
Google Scholar
Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S. & Nygren, T. Prebunking interventions based mostly on the psychological concept of inoculation can cut back susceptibility to misinformation throughout cultures. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. https://doi.org/10.37016//mr-2020-008 (2020).
Google Scholar
Maertens, R., Roozenbeek, J., Basol, M. & van der Linden, S. Long-term effectiveness of inoculation in opposition to misinformation: three longitudinal experiments. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 27, 1–16 (2020).
Google Scholar
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S. & Maibach, E. Inoculating the general public in opposition to misinformation about local weather change. Glob. Chall. 1, 1600008 (2017).
Google Scholar
Parker, Okay. A., Ivanov, B. & Compton, J. Inoculation’s efficacy with younger adults’ dangerous behaviors: can inoculation confer cross-protection over associated however untreated points? Health Commun. 27, 223–233 (2012).
Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, S. & Yesilada, M. Inoculating in opposition to the unfold of Islamophobic and radical-Islamist disinformation. Cognit. Res. Princ. Implic. 6, 57 (2021).
Ivanov, B. et al. The basic content material of postinoculation discuss: recalled issue-specific conversations following inoculation therapies. West. J. Commun. 79, 218–238 (2015).
Amazeen, M. A. & Vargo, C. J. Sharing native promoting on Twitter: content material analyses analyzing disclosure practices and their inoculating affect. Journal. Stud. 22, 916–933 (2021).
Jones-Jang, S. M., Mortensen, T. & Liu, J. Does media literacy assist identification of faux information? Information literacy helps however different literacies don’t. Am. Behav. Sci. 65, 371–388 (2019).
Khan, M. L. & Idris, I. Okay. Recognise misinformation and confirm earlier than sharing: a reasoned motion and data literacy perspective. Behav. Inf. Technol. 38, 1194–1212 (2019).
Machete, P. & Turpin, M. The use of essential pondering to determine faux information: a scientific literature evaluate. Lecture Notes Comput. Sci. 12067, 235–246 (2020).
Vraga, E. Okay., Tully, M., Maksl, A., Craft, S. & Ashley, S. Theorizing information literacy behaviors. Commun. Theory 31, 1–21 (2020).
Wineburg, S., McGrew, S., Breakstone, J. & Ortega, T. Evaluating data: the cornerstone of civic on-line reasoning. SDR https://purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934 (2016).
Breakstone, J. et al. Lateral studying: school college students study to critically consider web sources in a web based course. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-56 (2021).
Google Scholar
Choy, M. & Chong, M. Seeing by way of misinformation: a framework for figuring out faux on-line information. arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03508 (2018).
Amazeen, M. A. & Bucy, E. P. Conferring resistance to digital disinformation: the inoculating affect of procedural information data. J. Broadcasting Electron. Media 63, 415–432 (2019).
Guess, A. M. et al. A digital media literacy intervention will increase discernment between mainstream and false information within the United States and India. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 15536–15545 (2020).
Google Scholar
Hameleers, M. Separating fact from lies: evaluating the results of information media literacy interventions and fact-checkers in response to political misinformation within the US and Netherlands. Inf. Commun. Soc. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2020.1764603 (2020).
Google Scholar
Tully, M., Vraga, E. Okay. & Bode, L. Designing and testing information literacy messages for social media. Mass. Commun. Soc. 23, 22–46 (2019).
Roozenbeek, J. & van der Linden, S. Fake information recreation confers psychological resistance in opposition to on-line misinformation. Palgrave Commun. 5, 65 (2019).
Roozenbeek, J. & van der Linden, S. Breaking Harmony Square: a recreation that inoculates in opposition to political misinformation. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-47 (2020).
Google Scholar
Micallef, N., Avram, M., Menczer, F. & Patil, S. Fakey. Proc. ACM Human Comput. Interact. 5, 1–27 (2021).
Katsaounidou, A., Vrysis, L., Kotsakis, R., Dimoulas, C. & Veglis, A. MAthE the sport: a severe recreation for training and coaching in information verification. Educ. Sci. 9, 155 (2019).
Mihailidis, P. & Viotty, S. Spreadable spectacle in digital tradition: civic expression, faux information, and the position of media literacies in post-fact society. Am. Behav. Sci. 61, 441–454 (2017).
Carnahan, D., Bergan, D. E. & Lee, S. Do corrective results final? Results from a longitudinal experiment on beliefs towards immigration within the U.S. Political Behav. 43, 1227–1246 (2021).
Wintersieck, A. L. Debating the reality. Am. Politics Res. 45, 304–331 (2017).
Mosleh, M., Martel, C., Eckles, D. & Rand, D. in Proc. 2021 CHI Conf. Human Factors Computing Systems 2688–2700 (ACM, 2021).
Swire-Thompson, B., Ecker, U. Okay. H., Lewandowsky, S. & Berinsky, A. J. They may be a liar however they’re my liar: supply analysis and the prevalence of misinformation. Political Psychol. 41, 21–34 (2019).
Lewandowsky, S. et al. The Debunking Handbook 2020 (George Mason Univ., 2020)
Kendeou, P., Smith, E. R. & O’Brien, E. J. Updating throughout studying comprehension: why causality issues. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Memory Cogn. 39, 854–865 (2013).
Schwarz, N., Newman, E. & Leach, W. Making the reality stick & the myths fade: classes from cognitive psychology. Behav. Sci. Policy 2, 85–95 (2016).
Van Boekel, M., Lassonde, Okay. A., O’Brien, E. J. & Kendeou, P. Source credibility and the processing of refutation texts. Mem. Cogn. 45, 168–181 (2017).
Margolin, D. B., Hannak, A. & Weber, I. Political fact-checking on Twitter: when do corrections have an impact? Political Commun. 35, 196–219 (2017).
Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J. & Griskevicius, V. The constructive, harmful, and reconstructive energy of social norms. Psychol. Sci. 18, 429–434 (2007).
Google Scholar
Chinn, S., Lane, D. S. & Hart, P. S. In consensus we belief? Persuasive results of scientific consensus communication. Public Underst. Sci. 27, 807–823 (2018).
Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E. & Vaughan, S. The pivotal position of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 399–404 (2013).
van der Linden, S. L., Clarke, C. E. & Maibach, E. W. Highlighting consensus amongst medical scientists will increase public help for vaccines: proof from a randomized experiment. BMC Public Health 15, 1207 (2015).
Google Scholar
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A. & Maibach, E. Scientific settlement can neutralize politicization of details. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 2–3 (2017).
Vlasceanu, M. & Coman, A. The influence of social norms on health-related belief replace. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12313 (2021).
Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. The roles of data deficits and identification risk within the prevalence of misperceptions. J. Elect. Public Opin. Parties 29, 222–244 (2018).
Danielson, R. W., Sinatra, G. M. & Kendeou, P. Augmenting the refutation textual content impact with analogies and graphics. Discourse Process. 53, 392–414 (2016).
Dixon, G. N., McKeever, B. W., Holton, A. E., Clarke, C. & Eosco, G. The energy of an image: overcoming scientific misinformation by speaking weight-of-evidence data with visible exemplars. J. Commun. 65, 639–659 (2015).
van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D. & Maibach, E. W. How to talk the scientific consensus on local weather change: plain details, pie charts or metaphors? Clim. Change 126, 255–262 (2014).
Steffens, M. S., Dunn, A. G., Wiley, Okay. E. & Leask, J. How organisations selling vaccination reply to misinformation on social media: a qualitative investigation. BMC Public Health 19, 1348 (2019).
Google Scholar
Hyland-Wood, B., Gardner, J., Leask, J. & Ecker, U. Okay. H. Toward efficient authorities communication methods within the period of COVID-19. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 8, 30 (2021).
Sherman, D. Okay. & Cohen, G. L. Accepting threatening data: self-affirmation and the discount of defensive biases. Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci. 11, 119–123 (2002).
Carnahan, D., Hao, Q., Jiang, X. & Lee, H. Feeling nice about being unsuitable: the affect of self-affirmation on the effectiveness of corrective data. Hum. Commun. Res. 44, 274–298 (2018).
Vraga, E. Okay. & Bode, L. Correction as an answer for well being misinformation on social media. Am. J. Public Health 110, S278–S280 (2020).
Google Scholar
Bode, L. & Vraga, E. Okay. In associated information, that was unsuitable: the correction of misinformation by way of associated tales performance in social media. J. Commun. 65, 619–638 (2015).
Vraga, E. Okay. & Bode, L. Addressing COVID-19 misinformation on social media preemptively and responsively. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 27, 396–403 (2021).
Google Scholar
Vijaykumar, S. et al. How shades of fact and age have an effect on responses to COVID-19 (mis)data: randomized survey experiment amongst WhatsApp customers in UK and Brazil. Humanit. Soc. Sci.Commun. 8, 88 (2021).
Bode, L. & Vraga, E. Okay. See one thing say one thing: correction of world well being misinformation on social media. Health Commun. 33, 1131–1140 (2017).
Google Scholar
Pennycook, G. et al. Shifting consideration to accuracy can cut back misinformation on-line. Nature 592, 590–595 (2021).
Google Scholar
Matz, S. C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G. & Stillwell, D. J. Psychological concentrating on as an efficient method to digital mass persuasion. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 12714–12719 (2017).
Google Scholar
Vargo, C. J., Guo, L. & Amazeen, M. A. The agenda-setting energy of faux information: a giant knowledge evaluation of the web media panorama from 2014 to 2016. N. Media Soc. 20, 2028–2049 (2018).
Allington, D., Duffy, B., Wessely, S., Dhavan, N. & Rubin, J. Health-protective conduct, social media utilization and conspiracy belief throughout the COVID-19 public well being emergency. Psychol. Med. 51, 1763–1769 (2020).
Google Scholar
Cook, J., Bedford, D. & Mandia, S. Raising local weather literacy by way of addressing misinformation: case research in agnotology-based studying. J. Geosci. Educ. 62, 296–306 (2014).
Amazeen, M. A. News in an period of content material confusion: results of information use motivations and context on native promoting and digital information perceptions. Journal. Mass. Commun. Q. 97, 161–187 (2020).
Lawrence, R. G. & Boydstun, A. E. What we should always actually be asking about media consideration to Trump. Political Commun. 34, 150–153 (2016).
Schmid, P., MacDonald, N. E., Habersaat, Okay. & Butler, R. Commentary to: How to reply to vocal vaccine deniers in public. Vaccine 36, 196–198 (2018).
Google Scholar
Shelby, A. & Ernst, Okay. Story and science. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 9, 1795–1801 (2013).
Lazić, A. & Žeželj, I. A scientific evaluate of narrative interventions: classes for countering anti-vaccination conspiracy theories and misinformation. Public Underst. Sci. 30, 644–670 (2021).
Google Scholar
Ecker, U. Okay. H., Butler, L. H. & Hamby, A. You don’t have to inform a narrative! A registered report testing the effectiveness of narrative versus non-narrative misinformation corrections. Cognit. Res. Princ. Implic. 5, 64 (2020).
Van Bavel, J. J., Reinero, D. A., Spring, V., Harris, E. A. & Duke, A. Speaking my fact: why private experiences can bridge divides however mislead. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2100280118 (2021).
Google Scholar
Merpert, A., Furman, M., Anauati, M. V., Zommer, L. & Taylor, I. Is that even checkable? An experimental examine in figuring out checkable statements in political discourse. Commun. Res. Rep. 35, 48–57 (2017).
Amazeen, M. A. & Wojdynski, B. W. Reducing native promoting deception: revisiting the antecedents and penalties of persuasion data in digital information contexts. Mass. Commun. Soc. 22, 222–247 (2019).
Peacock, C., Masullo, G. M. & Stroud, N. J. What’s in a label? The impact of information labels on perceived credibility. Journalism https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920971522 (2020).
Google Scholar
Ecker, U. Okay. H., Lewandowsky, S. & Chadwick, M. Can corrections unfold misinformation to new audiences? Testing for the elusive familiarity backfire impact. Cognit. Res. Princ. Implic. 5, 41 (2020).
McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. Combatting misinformation requires recognizing its sorts and the elements that facilitate its unfold and resonance. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6, 389–396 (2017).
Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. Defeating the retailers of doubt. Nature 465, 686–687 (2010).
Google Scholar
Golovchenko, Y., Hartmann, M. & Adler-Nissen, R. State media and civil society within the data warfare over Ukraine: citizen curators of digital disinformation. Int. Aff. 94, 975–994 (2018).
Tandoc, E. C., Lim, Z. W. & Ling, R. Defining faux information. Digit. Journal. 6, 137–153 (2017).
Mosleh, M., Pennycook, G., Arechar, A. A. & Rand, D. G. Cognitive reflection correlates with conduct on Twitter. Nat. Commun. 12, 921 (2021).
Google Scholar
Scheufele, D. A. & Krause, N. M. Science audiences misinformation, and faux information. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 7662–7669 (2019).
Google Scholar
Yesilada, M. & Lewandowsky, S. A scientific evaluate: the YouTube recommender system and pathways to problematic content material. psyarxiv https://psyarxiv.com/6pv5c/ (2021).
Bursztyn, L., Rao, A., Roth, C. & Yanagizawa-Drott, D. Misinformation throughout a pandemic. NBER https://www.nber.org/papers/w27417 (2020).
Simonov, A., Sacher, S., Dubé, J.-P. & Biswas, S. The persuasive impact of Fox News: non-compliance with social distancing throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. NBER https://www.nber.org/papers/w27237 (2020).
Bechmann, A. Tackling disinformation and infodemics calls for media coverage modifications. Digit. Journal. 8, 855–863 (2020).
Marsden, C., Meyer, T. & Brown, I. Platform values and democratic elections: how can the legislation regulate digital disinformation? Comput. Law Security Rev. 36, 105373 (2020).
Saurwein, F. & Spencer-Smith, C. Combating disinformation on social media: multilevel governance and distributed accountability in Europe. Digit. Journal. 8, 820–841 (2020).
Tenove, C. Protecting democracy from disinformation: normative threats and coverage responses. Int. J. Press Politics 25, 517–537 (2020).
Reisach, U. The accountability of social media in instances of societal and political manipulation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 291, 906–917 (2021).
Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, S. et al. Technology and democracy: understanding the affect of on-line applied sciences on political behaviour and decision-making. Publ. Office Eur. Union https://doi.org/10.2760/593478 (2020).
Google Scholar
Blasio, E. D. & Selva, D. Who is accountable for disinformation? European approaches to social platforms’ accountability within the post-truth period. Am. Behav. Scientist 65, 825–846 (2021).
Pickard, V. Restructuring democratic infrastructures: a coverage method to the journalism disaster. Digit. J. 8, 704–719 (2020).
Barzilai, S. & Chinn, C. A. A evaluate of academic responses to the post-truth situation: 4 lenses on post-truth issues. Educ. Psychol. 55, 107–119 (2020).
Lee, N. M. Fake information, phishing, and fraud: a name for analysis on digital media literacy training past the classroom. Commun. Educ. 67, 460–466 (2018).
Sinatra, G. M. & Lombardi, D. Evaluating sources of scientific proof and claims within the post-truth period might require reappraising plausibility judgments. Educ. Psychol. 55, 120–131 (2020).
Vraga, E. Okay. & Bode, L. Leveraging establishments, educators, and networks to appropriate misinformation: a commentary on Lewandowsky, Ecker, and Cook. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6, 382–388 (2017).
Lorenz-Spreen, P., Lewandowsky, S., Sunstein, C. R. & Hertwig, R. How behavioural sciences can promote fact, autonomy and democratic discourse on-line. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 1102–1109 (2020).
Google Scholar
Tsipursky, G., Votta, F. & Mulick, J. A. A psychological method to selling fact in politics: the pro-truth pledge. J. Soc. Political Psychol. 6, 271–290 (2018).
Bak-Coleman, J. B. et al. Combining interventions to cut back the unfold of viral misinformation. OSF https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/4jtvm/ (2021).
Ognyanova, Okay., Lazer, D., Robertson, R. E. & Wilson, C. Misinformation in motion: faux information publicity is linked to decrease belief in media, greater belief in authorities when your aspect is in energy. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-024 (2020).
Google Scholar
Swire-Thompson, B. & Lazer, D. Public well being and on-line misinformation: challenges and suggestions. Annu. Rev. Public Health 41, 433–451 (2020).
Google Scholar
Boele-Woelki, Okay., Francisco, J. S., Hahn, U. & Herz, J. How we are able to rebuild belief in science and why we should. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 57, 13696–13697 (2018).
Klein, O. et al. A sensible information for transparency in psychological science. Collabra Psychol. 4, 20 (2018).
Masullo, G. M., Curry, A. L., Whipple, Okay. N. & Murray, C. The story behind the story: analyzing transparency concerning the journalistic course of and information outlet credibility. Journal. Pract. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2020.1870529 (2021).
Google Scholar
Amazeen, M. A. Checking the fact-checkers in 2008: predicting political advert scrutiny and assessing consistency. J. Political Mark. 15, 433–464 (2014).
Hahl, O., Kim, M. & Sivan, E. W. Z. The genuine attraction of the mendacity demagogue: proclaiming the deeper fact about political illegitimacy. Am. Sociol. Rev. 83, 1–33 (2018).
Jaiswal, J., LoSchiavo, C. & Perlman, D. C. Disinformation, misinformation and inequality-driven distrust within the time of COVID-19: classes unlearned from AIDS denialism. AIDS Behav. 24, 2776–2780 (2020).
Google Scholar
Cheon, B. Okay., Melani, I. & Hong, Y. How USA-centric is psychology? An archival examine of implicit assumptions of generalizability of findings to human nature based mostly on origins of examine samples. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 11, 928–937 (2020).
Swire-Thompson, B., DeGutis, J. & Lazer, D. Searching for the backfire impact: measurement and design issues. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 9, 286–299 (2020).
Google Scholar
Wang, Y., McKee, M., Torbica, A. & Stuckler, D. Systematic literature evaluate on the unfold of health-related misinformation on social media. Soc. Sci. Med. 240, 112552 (2019).
Google Scholar
Bastani, P. & Bahrami, M. A. COVID-19 associated misinformation on social media: a qualitative examine from Iran. J. Med. Internet Res. https://doi.org/10.2196/18932 (2020).
Google Scholar
Arata, N. B., Torneo, A. R. & Contreras, A. P. Partisanship, political help, and data processing amongst President Rodrigo Duterte’s supporters and non-supporters. Philippine Political Sci. J. 41, 73–105 (2020).
Islam, A. Okay. M. N., Laato, S., Talukder, S. & Sutinen, E. Misinformation sharing and social media fatigue throughout COVID-19: an affordance and cognitive load perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 159, 120201 (2020).
Google Scholar
Xu, Y., Wong, R., He, S., Veldre, A. & Andrews, S. Is it good to learn in your cellphone? The influence of studying format and tradition on the continued affect of misinformation. Mem. Cogn. 48, 1112–1127 (2020).
Lyons, B., Mérola, V., Reifler, J. & Stoeckel, F. How politics form views towards fact-checking: proof from six European nations. Int. J. Press Politics 25, 469–492 (2020).
Porter, E. & Wood, T. J. The world effectiveness of fact-checking: proof from simultaneous experiments in Argentina, Nigeria, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2104235118 (2021).
Google Scholar
Ecker, U. Okay. H., Lewandowsky, S., Chang, E. P. & Pillai, R. The results of delicate misinformation in information headlines. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 20, 323–335 (2014).
Google Scholar
Powell, D., Bian, L. & Markman, E. M. When intents to educate can misinform: inadvertent paltering by way of violations of communicative norms. PLoS ONE 15, e0230360 (2020).
Google Scholar
Rich, P. R. & Zaragoza, M. S. The continued affect of implied and explicitly said misinformation in information experiences. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Memory Cogn. 42, 62–74 (2016).
Shen, C. et al. Fake photos: the results of supply middleman and digital media literacy on contextual evaluation of picture credibility on-line. N. Media Soc. 21, 438–463 (2018).
Barari, S., Lucas, C. & Munger, Okay. Political deepfakes are as credible as different faux media and (generally) actual media. OSF https://osf.io/cdfh3/ (2021).
Young, D. G., Jamieson, Okay. H., Poulsen, S. & Goldring, A. Fact-checking effectiveness as a perform of format and tone: evaluating FactTest.org and FlackCheck.org. Journal. Mass. Commun. Q. 95, 49–75 (2017).
Vraga, E. Okay., Kim, S. C. & Cook, J. Testing logic-based and humor-based corrections for science well being, and political misinformation on social media. J. Broadcasting Electron. Media 63, 393–414 (2019).
Dunn, A. G. et al. Mapping data publicity on social media to clarify variations in HPV vaccine protection within the United States. Vaccine 35, 3033–3040 (2017).
Google Scholar
Marinescu, I. E., Lawlor, P. N. & Kording, Okay. P. Quasi-experimental causality in neuroscience and behavioural analysis. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 891–898 (2018).
Google Scholar
Van Bavel, J. J. et al. Political psychology within the digital (mis)data age: a mannequin of information belief and sharing. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 15, 84–113 (2021).
Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D. & Rich, R. F. Misinformation and the foreign money of democratic citizenship. J. Politics 62, 790–816 (2000).
Shelke, S. & Attar, V. Source detection of rumor in social community: a evaluate. Online Soc. Netw. Media 9, 30–42 (2019).
Brady, W. J., Gantman, A. P. & Van Bavel, J. J. Attentional seize helps clarify why ethical and emotional content material go viral. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149, 746–756 (2020).
Google Scholar
Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A. & Van Bavel, J. J. Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content material in social networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7313–7318 (2017).
Google Scholar
Fazio, L. Pausing to contemplate why a headline is true or false might help cut back the sharing of false information. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-009 (2020).
Google Scholar
Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G. & Rand, D. G. Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: experimental proof for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychol. Sci. 31, 770–780 (2020).
Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. Many Americans Say Made-up News is a Critical Problem That Needs to be Fixed https://www.journalism.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2019/06/PJ_2019.06.05_Misinformation_FINAL-1.pdf (2019).
Pew Research Center. Many Americans Believe Fake News is Sowing Confusion https://www.journalism.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2016/12/PJ_2016.12.15_fake-news_FINAL.pdf (2016).
Altay, S., Araujo, Ede & Mercier, H. If this account is true, it’s most enormously fantastic: interestingness-if-true and the sharing of true and false information. Digital Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1941163 (2021).
Google Scholar
Brady, W. J., Crockett, M. J. & Van Bavel, J. J. The MAD mannequin of ethical contagion: The position of motivation, consideration, and design within the unfold of moralized content material on-line. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15, 978–1010 (2020).
Google Scholar
Crockett, M. J. Moral outrage within the digital age. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 769–771 (2017).
Google Scholar
Petersen, M. B., Osmundsen, M. & Arceneaux, Okay. The “need for chaos” and motivations to share hostile political rumors. psyarxiv https://psyarxiv.com/6m4ts/ (2020).
Ecker, U. Okay. H., Lewandowsky, S., Jayawardana, Okay. & Mladenovic, A. Refutations of equivocal claims: no proof for an ironic impact of counterargument quantity. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 8, 98–107 (2019).
Skurnik, I., Yoon, C., Park, D. C. & Schwarz, N. How warnings about false claims change into suggestions. J. Consum. Res. 31, 713–724 (2005).
Schwarz, N., Sanna, L. J., Skurnik, I. & Yoon, C. Metacognitive experiences and the intricacies of setting individuals straight: implications for debiasing and public data campaigns. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 39, 127–161 (2007).
Cameron, Okay. A. et al. Patient data and recall of well being data following publicity to details and myths message format variations. Patient Educ. Counsel. 92, 381–387 (2013).
Wahlheim, C. N., Alexander, T. R. & Peske, C. D. Reminders of on a regular basis misinformation statements can improve reminiscence for and belief in corrections of these statements within the quick time period. Psychol. Sci. 31, 1325–1339 (2020).
Google Scholar
Autry, Okay. S. & Duarte, S. E. Correcting the unknown: negated corrections might enhance belief in misinformation. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 35, 960–975 (2021).
Pluviano, S., Watt, C. & Della Sala, S. Misinformation lingers in reminiscence: failure of three pro-vaccination methods. PLoS ONE 12, e0181640 (2017).
Google Scholar
Taber, C. S. & Lodge, M. Motivated skepticism within the analysis of political opinions. Am. J. Political. Sci. 50, 755–769 (2006).
Nyhan, B., Reifler, J. & Ubel, P. A. The hazards of correcting myths about well being care reform. Med. Care 51, 127–132 (2013).
Google Scholar
Hart, P. S. & Nisbet, E. C. Boomerang results in science communication. Commun. Res. 39, 701–723 (2011).
Swire-Thompson, B., Miklaucic, N., Wihbey, J., Lazer, D. & DeGutis, J. Backfire results after correcting misinformation are strongly related to reliability. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. (within the press).
Zhou, J. Boomerangs versus javelins: how polarization constrains communication on local weather change. Environ. Politics 25, 788–811 (2016).
Recommend
