Corrections are Effective for Science Misinformation

Read the full article

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

In their impactful pre-registered meta-analysis, Chan and Albarracín aimed to determine the degree to which the public updates science-relevant misinformation following a correction (e.g., p.1514, paragraph 3). Based on an impressive 74 studies and 205 effect sizes, the authors concluded that “attempts to debunk science-relevant misinformation were, on average, not successful (d=0.19, P=0.131, 95% CI −0.06 to 0.43)”; p.1514), with the effect of corrections “smaller than those identified in all other areas” (p.15171; e.g., politics and health). In this commentary we show that the reported null effect was due to the inappropriate pooling of two distinct effect types into a single estimate. This clarification is necessary because meta-analyses are often perceived as the ‘gold standard’ of evidence, and numerous papers have cited Chan and Albarracín1 as evidence that corrections have little-to-no effect on science-relevant misinformation (35% by our estimates; see Supplementary Table 1).

Article activity feed