How to unring the bell: A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation

Abstract

The study reports on a meta-analysis of attempts to correct misinformation (k = 65). Results indicate that corrective messages have a moderate influence on belief in misinformation (r = .35); however, it is more difficult to correct for misinformation in the context of politics (r = .15) and marketing (r = .18) than health (r = .27). Correction of real-world misinformation is more challenging (r = .14), as opposed to constructed misinformation (r = .48). Rebuttals (r = .38) are more effective than forewarnings (r = .16), and appeals to coherence (r = .55) outperform fact-checking (r = .25), and appeals to credibility (r = .14).