Corrections are effective for science misinformation

Overview

In their impactful pre-registered meta-analysis, Chan and Albarracín¹ aimed to determine the degree to which the public updates science-relevant misinformation following a correction. Based on an impressive 75 studies and 245 effect sizes, the authors conclude that “attempts to debunk science-relevant misinformation were, on average, not successful” (d = 0.11; P = 0.142; 95% confidence interval (CI) = −0.04 to 0.26), with the effect of corrections “smaller than those identified in all other areas” (for example, politics and health²). Here 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 Albarracín

‍

as evidence that corrections have little to no effect on science-relevant misinformation (35% by our estimates; Supplementary Table 1).