Scholarlink

<p>This research demonstrates that citing scientific sources to correct disinformation can be ineffective or even counterproductive, and offers a potential remedy. Three experiments simulated a WhatsApp conversation about COVID-19 vaccine disinformation, examining corrections in the high-uncertainty context of the early 2021 stage of the pandemic (Studies 1 and 2) and among vaccine skeptics in 2024 (Study 3). A science-based correction backfired during the pandemic and was ineffective among skeptics in 2024. However, a brief, content-agnostic intervention, comprising three simple prompts directing attention to facts and experts, consistently attenuated these patterns. The intervention specifically enhanced the effectiveness of science-based corrections, but not corrections without a source, and it worked even for skeptics who typically distrust science, suggesting it acts by increasing the salience of evidence and expertise. These findings indicate that for science to be an effective antidote to disinformation, individuals may first need a cognitive nudge toward an evidence-oriented mindset.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

When scientific sources fail to convince: evidence-oriented thinking enhances the effectiveness of science-based corrections

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月25日

查看全文
  • Anat Lande-Brenner,
  • Ullrich K. H. Ecker,
  • Ruth Mayo

摘要

This research demonstrates that citing scientific sources to correct disinformation can be ineffective or even counterproductive, and offers a potential remedy. Three experiments simulated a WhatsApp conversation about COVID-19 vaccine disinformation, examining corrections in the high-uncertainty context of the early 2021 stage of the pandemic (Studies 1 and 2) and among vaccine skeptics in 2024 (Study 3). A science-based correction backfired during the pandemic and was ineffective among skeptics in 2024. However, a brief, content-agnostic intervention, comprising three simple prompts directing attention to facts and experts, consistently attenuated these patterns. The intervention specifically enhanced the effectiveness of science-based corrections, but not corrections without a source, and it worked even for skeptics who typically distrust science, suggesting it acts by increasing the salience of evidence and expertise. These findings indicate that for science to be an effective antidote to disinformation, individuals may first need a cognitive nudge toward an evidence-oriented mindset.