Regarding research on gender differences in emotion, which of the following is not true?

References

1. DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M. & Epstein, J. A. Lying in everyday life. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 70, 979–995 (1996).

   Inhaltsverzeichnis Show

   • What is an emotion an emotion is quizlet?
   • Which theory of emotion states that your body?
   • Which scenario supports the Cannon Bard theory of emotion quizlet?
   • What is the general research conclusion regarding the strange situation quizlet?

   Google Scholar 

2. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H. & Cook, J. Beyond misinformation: understanding and coping with the post-truth era. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6, 353–369 (2017).

   Google Scholar 

3. Zarocostas, J. How to fight an infodemic. Lancet 395, 676 (2020).

   PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

4. Lazer, D. M. J. et al. The science of fake news. Science 359, 1094–1096 (2018).

   PubMed  Google Scholar 

5. Bennett, W. L. & Livingston, S. The disinformation order: disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. Eur. J. Commun. 33, 122–139 (2018).

   Google Scholar 

6. Whitten-Woodring, J., Kleinberg, M. S., Thawnghmung, A. & Thitsar, M. T. Poison if you don’t know how to use it: Facebook, democracy, and human rights in Myanmar. Int. J. Press Politics 25, 407–425 (2020).

   Google Scholar 

7. Roozenbeek, J. et al. Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7, 201199 (2020).

   PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

8. Rich, J. in Private and Public Lies. The Discourse of Despotism and Deceit in 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).

9. 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).

10. Herf, J. The Jewish War: Goebbels and the antisemitic campaigns of the Nazi propaganda ministry. Holocaust Genocide Stud. 19, 51–80 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

11. Acerbi, A. Cognitive attraction and online misinformation. Palgrave Commun. 5, 15 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

12. Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S. & Hertwig, R. Citizens versus the internet: confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest. 21, 103–156 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

13. Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A. & Bonneau, R. Tweeting from left to right: is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychol. Sci. 26, 1531–1542 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

14. Del Vicario, M. et al. The spreading of misinformation online. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 554–559 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

15. Garrett, R. K. The echo chamber distraction: disinformation campaigns are the problem not audience fragmentation. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6, 370–376 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

16. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D. & Aral, S. The spread of true and false news online. Science 359, 1146–1151 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

17. Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A. & Yeo, S. K. The lure of rationality: why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Underst. Sci. 25, 400–414 (2016).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

18. Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N. M., Payne, B. K. & Marsh, E. J. Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth. J. Exp. Psychol. 144, 993–1002 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

19. Hornsey, M. J. & Fielding, K. S. Attitude roots and jiu jitsu persuasion: understanding and overcoming the motivated rejection of science. Am. Psychol. 72, 459 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

20. Nisbet, E. C., Cooper, K. E. & Garrett, R. K. The partisan brain: how dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis)trust science. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 658, 36–66 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

21. Schmid, P. & Betsch, C. Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3, 931–939 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

22. Hansson, S. O. Science denial as a form of pseudoscience. Stud. History Philos. Sci. A 63, 39–47 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

23. Amin, A. B. et al. Association of moral values with vaccine hesitancy. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 873–880 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

24. Lewandowsky, S. & Oberauer, K. Motivated rejection of science. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 25, 217–222 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

25. Trevors, G. & Duffy, M. C. Correcting COVID-19 misconceptions requires caution. Educ. Res. 49, 538–542 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

26. Lewandowsky, S. Conspiracist cognition: chaos convenience, and cause for concern. J. Cult. Res. 25, 12–35 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

27. Lewandowsky, S., Stritzke, W. G. K., Freund, A. M., Oberauer, K. & Krueger, J. I. Misinformation, disinformation, and violent conflict: from Iraq and the war on terror to future threats to peace. Am. Psychol. 68, 487–501 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

28. Marsh, E. J., Cantor, A. D. & Brashier, N. M. Believing that humans swallow spiders in their sleep. Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 64, 93–132 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

29. Rapp, D. N. The consequences of reading inaccurate information. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 25, 281–285 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

30. Pantazi, M., Kissine, M. & Klein, O. The power of the truth bias: false information affects memory and judgment even in the absence of distraction. Soc. Cogn. 36, 167–198 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

31. Brashier, N. M. & Marsh, E. J. Judging truth. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 71, 499–515 (2020).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

32. Prike, T., Arnold, M. M. & Williamson, P. The relationship between anomalistic belief misperception of chance and the base rate fallacy. Think. Reason. 26, 447–477 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

33. Uscinski, J. E. et al. Why do people believe COVID-19 conspiracy theories? Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-015 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

34. Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J. & Wänke, M. The truth about the truth: a meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 14, 238–257 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

35. Unkelbach, C., Koch, A., Silva, R. R. & Garcia-Marques, T. Truth by repetition: explanations and implications. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 28, 247–253 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

36. Begg, I. M., Anas, A. & Farinacci, S. Dissociation of processes in belief: source recollection, statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 121, 446–458 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

37. Unkelbach, C. Reversing the truth effect: learning the interpretation of processing fluency in judgments of truth. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Memory Cogn. 33, 219–230 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

38. Wang, W. C., Brashier, N. M., Wing, E. A., Marsh, E. J. & Cabeza, R. On known unknowns: fluency and the neural mechanisms of illusory truth. J. Cognit. Neurosci. 28, 739–746 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

39. Unkelbach, C. & Rom, S. C. A referential theory of the repetition-induced truth effect. Cognition 160, 110–126 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

40. Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D. & Rand, D. G. Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 147, 1865–1880 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

41. Unkelbach, C. & Speckmann, F. Mere repetition increases belief in factually true COVID-19-related information. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 10, 241–247 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

42. Nadarevic, L., Reber, R., Helmecke, A. J. & Köse, D. Perceived truth of statements and simulated social media postings: an experimental investigation of source credibility, repeated exposure, and presentation format. Cognit. Res. Princ. Implic. 5, 56 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

43. Fazio, L. K., Rand, D. G. & Pennycook, G. Repetition increases perceived truth equally for plausible and implausible statements. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 26, 1705–1710 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

44. Brown, A. S. & Nix, L. A. Turning lies into truths: referential validation of falsehoods. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Memory Cogn. 22, 1088–1100 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

45. De keersmaecker, J. et al. Investigating the robustness of the illusory truth effect across individual differences in cognitive ability, need for cognitive closure, and cognitive style. Pers Soc. Psychol. Bull. 46, 204–215 (2020).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

46. Unkelbach, C. & Greifeneder, R. Experiential fluency and declarative advice jointly inform judgments of truth. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 79, 78–86 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

47. Fazio, L. K. Repetition increases perceived truth even for known falsehoods. Collabra Psychol. 6, 38 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

48. Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. The psychology of fake news. Trends Cognit. Sci. 25, 388–402 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

49. Murphy, G., Loftus, E. F., Grady, R. H., Levine, L. J. & Greene, C. M. False memories for fake news during Ireland’s abortion referendum. Psychol. Sci. 30, 1449–1459 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

50. Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Lazy, not biased: susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition 188, 39–50 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

51. Stanley, M. L., Barr, N., Peters, K. & Seli, P. Analytic-thinking predicts hoax beliefs and helping behaviors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Think. Reas. 27, 464–477 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

52. Bago, B., Rand, D. G. & Pennycook, G. Fake news, fast and slow: deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149, 1608–1613 (2020).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

53. Brashier, N. M., Eliseev, E. D. & Marsh, E. J. An initial accuracy focus prevents illusory truth. Cognition 194, 104054 (2020).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

54. Briñol, P. & Petty, R. E. Source factors in persuasion: a self-validation approach. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 20, 49–96 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

55. Mackie, D. M., Worth, L. T. & Asuncion, A. G. Processing of persuasive in-group messages. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58, 812–822 (1990).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

56. Mahmoodi, A. et al. Equality bias impairs collective decision-making across cultures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 3835–3840 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

57. Marks, G. & Miller, N. Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: an empirical and theoretical review. Psychol. Bull. 102, 72–90 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

58. Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J. & Jenkins, J. C. Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S. 2002–2010. Clim. Change 114, 169–188 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

59. Lachapelle, E., Montpetit, É. & Gauvin, J.-P. Public perceptions of expert credibility on policy issues: the role of expert framing and political worldviews. Policy Stud. J. 42, 674–697 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

60. Dada, S., Ashworth, H. C., Bewa, M. J. & Dhatt, R. Words matter: political and gender analysis of speeches made by heads of government during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Glob. Health 6, e003910 (2021).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

61. Chung, M. & Jones-Jang, S. M. Red media, blue media, Trump briefings, and COVID-19: examining how information sources predict risk preventive behaviors via threat and efficacy. Health Commun. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.1914386 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

62. Mitchell, K. J. & Johnson, M. K. Source monitoring 15 years later: what have we learned from fMRI about the neural mechanisms of source memory? Psychol. Bull. 135, 638–677 (2009).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

63. Dias, N., Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Emphasizing publishers does not effectively reduce susceptibility to misinformation on social media. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-001 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

64. Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 2521–2526 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

65. Altay, S., Hacquin, A.-S. & Mercier, H. Why do so few people share fake news? It hurts their reputation. N. Media Soc. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820969893 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

66. Rahhal, T. A., May, C. P. & Hasher, L. Truth and character: sources that older adults can remember. Psychol. Sci. 13, 101–105 (2002).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

67. Grinberg, N., Joseph, K., Friedland, L., Swire-Thompson, B. & Lazer, D. Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Science 363, 374–378 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

68. Stanford University Center for an Informed Public, Digital Forensic Research Lab, Graphika, & Stanford Internet Observatory. The long fuse: misinformation and the 2020 election. Stanford Digital Repository https://purl.stanford.edu/tr171zs0069 (2021).

69. Jones, M. O. Disinformation superspreaders: the weaponisation of COVID-19 fake news in the Persian Gulf and beyond. Glob. Discourse 10, 431–437 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

70. Tannenbaum, M. B. et al. Appealing to fear: a meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories. Psychol. Bull. 141, 1178–1204 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

71. Altay, S. & Mercier, H. Happy thoughts: the role of communion in accepting and sharing epistemically suspect beliefs. psyarxiv https://psyarxiv.com/3s4nr/ (2020).

72. Rocklage, M. D., Rucker, D. D. & Nordgren, L. F. Persuasion, emotion, and language: the intent to persuade transforms language via emotionality. Psychol. Sci. 29, 749–760 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

73. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

74. Baum, J. & Abdel, R. R. Emotional news affects social judgments independent of perceived media credibility. Soc. Cognit. Affect. Neurosci. 16, 280–291 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

75. Kim, H., Park, K. & Schwarz, N. Will this trip really be exciting? The role of incidental emotions in product evaluation. J. Consum. Res. 36, 983–991 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

76. Forgas, J. P. Happy believers and sad skeptics? Affective influences on gullibility. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 28, 306–313 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

77. Martel, C., Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Reliance on emotion promotes belief in fake news. Cognit. Res. Princ. Implic. 5, 47 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

78. Forgas, J. P. & East, R. On being happy and gullible: mood effects on skepticism and the detection of deception. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44, 1362–1367 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

79. Koch, A. S. & Forgas, J. P. Feeling good and feeling truth: the interactive effects of mood and processing fluency on truth judgments. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48, 481–485 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

80. Forgas, J. P. Don’t worry be sad! On the cognitive, motivational, and interpersonal benefits of negative mood. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 22, 225–232 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

81. Weeks, B. E. Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: how anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. J. Commun. 65, 699–719 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

82. Han, J., Cha, M. & Lee, W. Anger contributes to the spread of COVID-19 misinformation. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-39 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

83. Graeupner, D. & Coman, A. The dark side of meaning-making: how social exclusion leads to superstitious thinking. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 69, 218–222 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

84. Poon, K.-T., Chen, Z. & Wong, W.-Y. Beliefs in conspiracy theories following ostracism. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 46, 1234–1246 (2020).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

85. Johnson, H. M. & Seifert, C. M. Sources of the continued influence effect: when misinformation in memory affects later inferences. J. Exp. Psychol. Lear. Memory Cogn. 20, 1420–1436 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

86. Chan, M.-P. S., Jones, C. R., Jamieson, K. H. & Albarracín, D. Debunking: a meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychol. Sci. 28, 1531–1546 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

87. Walter, N. & Murphy, S. T. How to unring the bell: a meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation. Commun. Monogr. 85, 423–441 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

88. Walter, N. & Tukachinsky, R. A meta-analytic examination of the continued influence of misinformation in the face of correction: how powerful is it, why does it happen, and how to stop it? Commun. Res. 47, 155–177 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

89. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N. & Cook, J. Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychol.Sci. Public. Interest. 13, 106–131 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

90. Barrera, O., Guriev, S., Henry, E. & Zhuravskaya, E. Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics. J. Public. Econ. 182, 104123 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

91. Swire, B., Berinsky, A. J., Lewandowsky, S. & Ecker, U. K. H. Processing political misinformation: comprehending the Trump phenomenon. R. Soc. Open. Sci. 4, 160802 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

92. Swire, B., Ecker, U. K. H. & Lewandowsky, S. The role of familiarity in correcting inaccurate information. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Memory Cogn. 43, 1948–1961 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

93. Hamby, A., Ecker, U. K. H. & Brinberg, D. How stories in memory perpetuate the continued influence of false information. J. Consum. Psychol. 30, 240–259 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

94. MacFarlane, D., Tay, L. Q., Hurlstone, M. J. & Ecker, U. K. H. Refuting spurious COVID-19 treatment claims reduces demand and misinformation sharing. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 10, 248–258 (2021).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

95. Tay, L. Q., Hurlstone, M. J., Kurz, T. & Ecker, U. K. H. A comparison of prebunking and debunking interventions for implied versus explicit misinformation. Brit. J. Psychol. (in the press).

96. Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S. & Freed, G. L. Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 133, e835–e842 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

97. Poland, G. A. & Spier, R. Fear misinformation, and innumerates: how the Wakefield paper, the press, and advocacy groups damaged the public health. Vaccine 28, 2361–2362 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

98. Lewandowsky, S., Stritzke, W. G. K., Oberauer, K. & Morales, M. Memory for fact, fiction, and misinformation. Psychol. Sci. 16, 190–195 (2005).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

99. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S. & Tang, D. T. W. Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation. Mem. Cogn. 38, 1087–1100 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

100. Kendeou, P., Walsh, E. K., Smith, E. R. & OBrien, E. J. Knowledge revision processes in refutation texts. Discourse Process. 51, 374–397 (2014).

     Google Scholar 

101. Shtulman, A. & Valcarcel, J. Scientific knowledge suppresses but does not supplant earlier intuitions. Cognition 124, 209–215 (2012).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

102. Kendeou, P., Butterfuss, R., Kim, J. & Boekel, M. V. Knowledge revision through the lenses of the three-pronged approach. Mem. Cogn. 47, 33–46 (2019).

     Google Scholar 

103. Ithisuphalap, J., Rich, P. R. & Zaragoza, M. S. Does evaluating belief prior to its retraction influence the efficacy of later corrections? Memory 28, 617–631 (2020).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

104. Ecker, U. K. H., Hogan, J. L. & Lewandowsky, S. Reminders and repetition of misinformation: helping or hindering its retraction? J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6, 185–192 (2017).

     Google Scholar 

105. Brydges, C. R., Gignac, G. E. & Ecker, U. K. H. Working memory capacity, short-term memory capacity, and the continued influence effect: a latent-variable analysis. Intelligence 69, 117–122 (2018).

     Google Scholar 

106. Sanderson, J. A., Gignac, G. E. & Ecker, U. K. H. Working memory capacity, removal efficiency and event specific memory as predictors of misinformation reliance. J. Cognit. Psychol. 33, 518–532 (2021).

     Google Scholar 

107. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Swire, B. & Chang, D. Correcting false information in memory: manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 18, 570–578 (2011).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

108. Yonelinas, A. P. The nature of recollection and familiarity: Aa review of 30 years of research. J. Mem. Lang. 46, 441–517 (2002).

     Google Scholar 

109. Butterfuss, R. & Kendeou, P. Reducing interference from misconceptions: the role of inhibition in knowledge revision. J. Educ. Psychol. 112, 782–794 (2020).

     Google Scholar 

110. Brydges, C. R., Gordon, A. & Ecker, U. K. H. Electrophysiological correlates of the continued influence effect of misinformation: an exploratory study. J. Cognit. Psychol. 32, 771–784 (2020).

     Google Scholar 

111. Gordon, A., Quadflieg, S., Brooks, J. C. W., Ecker, U. K. H. & Lewandowsky, S. Keeping track of ‘alternative facts’: the neural correlates of processing misinformation corrections. NeuroImage 193, 46–56 (2019).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

112. Ecker, U. K. 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).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

113. van der Meer, T. G. L. A. & Jin, Y. Seeking formula for misinformation treatment in public health crises: the effects of corrective information type and source. Health Commun. 35, 560–575 (2020).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

114. Wintersieck, A., Fridkin, K. & Kenney, P. The message matters: the influence of fact-checking on evaluations of political messages. J. Political Mark. 20, 93–120 (2021).

     Google Scholar 

115. Amazeen, M. & Krishna, A. Correcting vaccine misinformation: recognition and effects of source type on misinformation via perceived motivations and credibility. SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3698102 (2020).

     Article  Google Scholar 

116. Vraga, E. K. & Bode, L. I do not believe you: how providing a source corrects health misperceptions across social media platforms. Inf. Commun. Soc. 21, 1337–1353 (2018).

     Google Scholar 

117. Ecker, U. K. H. & Antonio, L. M. Can you believe it? An investigation into the impact of retraction source credibility on the continued influence effect. Mem. Cogn. 49, 631–644 (2021).

     Google Scholar 

118. Guillory, J. J. & Geraci, L. Correcting erroneous inferences in memory: the role of source credibility. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2, 201–209 (2013).

     Google Scholar 

119. Vraga, E. K. & Bode, L. Using expert sources to correct health misinformation in social media. Sci. Commun. 39, 621–645 (2017).

     Google Scholar 

120. Zhang, J., Featherstone, J. D., Calabrese, C. & Wojcieszak, M. Effects of fact-checking social media vaccine misinformation on attitudes toward vaccines. Prev. Med. 145, 106408 (2021).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

121. Connor Desai, S. A., Pilditch, T. D. & Madsen, J. K. The rational continued influence of misinformation. Cognition 205, 104453 (2020).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

122. O’Rear, A. E. & Radvansky, G. A. Failure to accept retractions: a contribution to the continued influence effect. Mem. Cogn. 48, 127–144 (2020).

     Google Scholar 

123. Ecker, U. K. H. & Ang, L. C. Political attitudes and the processing of misinformation corrections. Political Psychol. 40, 241–260 (2019).

     Google Scholar 

124. Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behav. 32, 303–330 (2010).

     Google Scholar 

125. Trevors, G. The roles of identity conflict, emotion, and threat in learning from refutation texts on vaccination and immigration. Discourse Process. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2021.1917950 (2021).

     Article  Google Scholar 

126. Prasad, M. et al. There must be a reason: Osama, Saddam, and inferred justification. Sociol. Inq. 79, 142–162 (2009).

     Google Scholar 

127. Amazeen, M. A., Thorson, E., Muddiman, A. & Graves, L. Correcting political and consumer misperceptions: the effectiveness and effects of rating scale versus contextual correction formats. J. Mass. Commun. Q. 95, 28–48 (2016).

     Google Scholar 

128. Ecker, U. K. H., Sze, B. K. N. & Andreotta, M. Corrections of political misinformation: no evidence for an effect of partisan worldview in a US convenience sample. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 376, 20200145 (2021).

     Google Scholar 

129. Nyhan, B., Porter, E., Reifler, J. & Wood, T. J. Taking fact-checks literally but not seriously? The effects of journalistic fact-checking on factual beliefs and candidate favorability. Political Behav. 42, 939–960 (2019).

     Google Scholar 

130. Wood, T. & Porter, E. The elusive backfire effect: mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behav. 41, 135–163 (2018).

     Google Scholar 

131. Yang, Q., Qureshi, K. & Zaman, T. Mitigating the backfire effect using pacing and leading. arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.00049 (2020).

132. Susmann, M. W. & Wegener, D. T. The role of discomfort in the continued influence effect of misinformation. Memory Cogn. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01232-8 (2021).

     Article  Google Scholar 

133. Cobb, M. D., Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. Beliefs don’t always persevere: how political figures are punished when positive information about them is discredited. Political Psychol. 34, 307–326 (2013).

     Google Scholar 

134. Thorson, E. Belief echoes: the persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Commun. 33, 460–480 (2016).

     Google Scholar 

135. Jaffé, M. E. & Greifeneder, R. Negative is true here and now but not so much there and then. Exp. Psychol. 67, 314–326 (2020).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

136. Ecker, U. K. H. & Rodricks, A. E. Do false allegations persist? Retracted misinformation does not continue to influence explicit person impressions. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 9, 587–601 (2020).

     Google Scholar 

137. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S. & Apai, J. Terrorists brought down the plane! No actually it was a technical fault: processing corrections of emotive information. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 64, 283–310 (2011).

     Google Scholar 

138. Trevors, G., Bohn-Gettler, C. & Kendeou, P. The effects of experimentally induced emotions on revising common vaccine misconceptions. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211017840 (2021).

     Article  Google Scholar 

139. Chang, E. P., Ecker, U. K. H. & Page, A. C. Not wallowing in misery — retractions of negative misinformation are effective in depressive rumination. Cogn. Emot. 33, 991–1005 (2019).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

140. Sangalang, A., Ophir, Y. & Cappella, J. N. The potential for narrative correctives to combat misinformation. J. Commun. 69, 298–319 (2019).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

141. Featherstone, J. D. & Zhang, J. Feeling angry: the effects of vaccine misinformation and refutational messages on negative emotions and vaccination attitude. J. Health Commun. 25, 692–702 (2020).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

142. Brashier, N. M., Pennycook, G., Berinsky, A. J. & Rand, D. G. Timing matters when correcting fake news. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2020043118 (2021).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

143. Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. & Ecker, U. K. H. Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLoS ONE 12, e0175799 (2017).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

144. Hughes, M. G. et al. Discrediting in a message board forum: the effects of social support and attacks on expertise and trustworthiness. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 19, 325–341 (2014).

     Google Scholar 

145. Paynter, J. et al. Evaluation of a template for countering misinformation — real-world autism treatment myth debunking. PLoS ONE 14, e0210746 (2019).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

146. Jolley, D. & Douglas, K. M. Prevention is better than cure: addressing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 47, 459–469 (2017).

     Google Scholar 

147. Vraga, E. K., Kim, S. C., Cook, J. & Bode, L. Testing the effectiveness of correction placement and type on Instagram. Int. J. Press Politics 25, 632–652 (2020).

     Google Scholar 

148. Clayton, K. et al. Real solutions for fake news? Measuring the effectiveness of general warnings and fact-check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social media. Political Behav. 42, 1073–1095 (2019).

     Google Scholar 

149. Dai, Y., Yu, W. & Shen, F. The effects of message order and debiasing information in misinformation correction. Int. J. Commun. 15, 21 (2021).

     Google Scholar 

150. Swire-Thompson, B. et al. Evidence for a limited role of correction format when debunking misinformation. OSF https://osf.io/udny9/ (2021).

151. Gordon, A., Ecker, U. K. H. & Lewandowsky, S. Polarity and attitude effects in the continued-influence paradigm. J. Mem. Lang. 108, 104028 (2019).

     Google Scholar 

152. Grady, R. H., Ditto, P. H. & Loftus, E. F. Nevertheless partisanship persisted: fake news warnings help briefly, but bias returns with time. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 6, 52 (2021).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

153. Schmid, P., Schwarzer, M. & Betsch, C. Weight-of-evidence strategies to mitigate the influence of messages of science denialism in public discussions. J. Cogn. 3, 36 (2020).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

154. Compton, J., van der Linden, S., Cook, J. & Basol, M. Inoculation theory in the post-truth era: extant findings and new frontiers for contested science misinformation, and conspiracy theories. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 15, e12602 (2021).

     Google Scholar 

155. Lewandowsky, S. & van der Linden, S. Countering misinformation and fake news through inoculation and prebunking. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983 (2021).

     Article  Google Scholar 

156. Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S. & Nygren, T. Prebunking interventions based on the psychological theory of inoculation can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. https://doi.org/10.37016//mr-2020-008 (2020).

     Article  Google Scholar 

157. Maertens, R., Roozenbeek, J., Basol, M. & van der Linden, S. Long-term effectiveness of inoculation against misinformation: three longitudinal experiments. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 27, 1–16 (2020).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

158. van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S. & Maibach, E. Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Glob. Chall. 1, 1600008 (2017).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

159. Parker, K. A., Ivanov, B. & Compton, J. Inoculation’s efficacy with young adults’ risky behaviors: can inoculation confer cross-protection over related but untreated issues? Health Commun. 27, 223–233 (2012).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

160. Lewandowsky, S. & Yesilada, M. Inoculating against the spread of Islamophobic and radical-Islamist disinformation. Cognit. Res. Princ. Implic. 6, 57 (2021).

     Google Scholar 

161. Ivanov, B. et al. The general content of postinoculation talk: recalled issue-specific conversations following inoculation treatments. West. J. Commun. 79, 218–238 (2015).

     Google Scholar 

162. Amazeen, M. A. & Vargo, C. J. Sharing native advertising on Twitter: content analyses examining disclosure practices and their inoculating influence. Journal. Stud. 22, 916–933 (2021).

     Google Scholar 

163. Jones-Jang, S. M., Mortensen, T. & Liu, J. Does media literacy help identification of fake news? Information literacy helps but other literacies don’t. Am. Behav. Sci. 65, 371–388 (2019).

     Google Scholar 

164. Khan, M. L. & Idris, I. K. Recognise misinformation and verify before sharing: a reasoned action and information literacy perspective. Behav. Inf. Technol. 38, 1194–1212 (2019).

     Google Scholar 

165. Machete, P. & Turpin, M. The use of critical thinking to identify fake news: a systematic literature review. Lecture Notes Comput. Sci. 12067, 235–246 (2020).

     Google Scholar 

166. Vraga, E. K., Tully, M., Maksl, A., Craft, S. & Ashley, S. Theorizing news literacy behaviors. Commun. Theory 31, 1–21 (2020).

     Google Scholar 

167. Wineburg, S., McGrew, S., Breakstone, J. & Ortega, T. Evaluating information: the cornerstone of civic online reasoning. SDR https://purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934 (2016).

168. Breakstone, J. et al. Lateral reading: college students learn to critically evaluate internet sources in an online course. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-56 (2021).

     Article  Google Scholar 

169. Choy, M. & Chong, M. Seeing through misinformation: a framework for identifying fake online news. arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03508 (2018).

170. Amazeen, M. A. & Bucy, E. P. Conferring resistance to digital disinformation: the inoculating influence of procedural news knowledge. J. Broadcasting Electron. Media 63, 415–432 (2019).

     Google Scholar 

171. Guess, A. M. et al. A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 15536–15545 (2020).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

172. Hameleers, M. Separating truth from lies: comparing the effects of news media literacy interventions and fact-checkers in response to political misinformation in the US and Netherlands. Inf. Commun. Soc. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2020.1764603 (2020).

     Article  Google Scholar 

173. Tully, M., Vraga, E. K. & Bode, L. Designing and testing news literacy messages for social media. Mass. Commun. Soc. 23, 22–46 (2019).

     Google Scholar 

174. Roozenbeek, J. & van der Linden, S. Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Palgrave Commun. 5, 65 (2019).

     Google Scholar 

175. Roozenbeek, J. & van der Linden, S. Breaking Harmony Square: a game that inoculates against political misinformation. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-47 (2020).

     Article  Google Scholar 

176. Micallef, N., Avram, M., Menczer, F. & Patil, S. Fakey. Proc. ACM Human Comput. Interact. 5, 1–27 (2021).

     Google Scholar 

177. Katsaounidou, A., Vrysis, L., Kotsakis, R., Dimoulas, C. & Veglis, A. MAthE the game: a serious game for education and training in news verification. Educ. Sci. 9, 155 (2019).

     Google Scholar 

178. Mihailidis, P. & Viotty, S. Spreadable spectacle in digital culture: civic expression, fake news, and the role of media literacies in post-fact society. Am. Behav. Sci. 61, 441–454 (2017).

     Google Scholar 

179. Carnahan, D., Bergan, D. E. & Lee, S. Do corrective effects last? Results from a longitudinal experiment on beliefs toward immigration in the U.S. Political Behav. 43, 1227–1246 (2021).

     Google Scholar 

180. Wintersieck, A. L. Debating the truth. Am. Politics Res. 45, 304–331 (2017).

     Google Scholar 

181. Mosleh, M., Martel, C., Eckles, D. & Rand, D. in Proc. 2021 CHI Conf. Human Factors Computing Systems 2688–2700 (ACM, 2021).

182. Swire-Thompson, B., Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S. & Berinsky, A. J. They might be a liar but they’re my liar: source evaluation and the prevalence of misinformation. Political Psychol. 41, 21–34 (2019).

     Google Scholar 

183. Lewandowsky, S. et al. The Debunking Handbook 2020 (George Mason Univ., 2020)

184. Kendeou, P., Smith, E. R. & O’Brien, E. J. Updating during reading comprehension: why causality matters. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Memory Cogn. 39, 854–865 (2013).

     Google Scholar 

185. Schwarz, N., Newman, E. & Leach, W. Making the truth stick & the myths fade: lessons from cognitive psychology. Behav. Sci. Policy 2, 85–95 (2016).

     Google Scholar 

186. Van Boekel, M., Lassonde, K. A., O’Brien, E. J. & Kendeou, P. Source credibility and the processing of refutation texts. Mem. Cogn. 45, 168–181 (2017).

     Google Scholar 

187. Margolin, D. B., Hannak, A. & Weber, I. Political fact-checking on Twitter: when do corrections have an effect? Political Commun. 35, 196–219 (2017).

     Google Scholar 

188. Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J. & Griskevicius, V. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol. Sci. 18, 429–434 (2007).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

189. Chinn, S., Lane, D. S. & Hart, P. S. In consensus we trust? Persuasive effects of scientific consensus communication. Public Underst. Sci. 27, 807–823 (2018).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

190. Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E. & Vaughan, S. The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 399–404 (2013).

     Google Scholar 

191. van der Linden, S. L., Clarke, C. E. & Maibach, E. W. Highlighting consensus among medical scientists increases public support for vaccines: evidence from a randomized experiment. BMC Public Health 15, 1207 (2015).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

192. van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A. & Maibach, E. Scientific agreement can neutralize politicization of facts. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 2–3 (2017).

     Google Scholar 

193. Vlasceanu, M. & Coman, A. The impact of social norms on health-related belief update. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12313 (2021).

194. Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. The roles of information deficits and identity threat in the prevalence of misperceptions. J. Elect. Public Opin. Parties 29, 222–244 (2018).

     Google Scholar 

195. Danielson, R. W., Sinatra, G. M. & Kendeou, P. Augmenting the refutation text effect with analogies and graphics. Discourse Process. 53, 392–414 (2016).

     Google Scholar 

196. Dixon, G. N., McKeever, B. W., Holton, A. E., Clarke, C. & Eosco, G. The power of a picture: overcoming scientific misinformation by communicating weight-of-evidence information with visual exemplars. J. Commun. 65, 639–659 (2015).

     Google Scholar 

197. van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D. & Maibach, E. W. How to communicate the scientific consensus on climate change: plain facts, pie charts or metaphors? Clim. Change 126, 255–262 (2014).

     Google Scholar 

198. Steffens, M. S., Dunn, A. G., Wiley, K. E. & Leask, J. How organisations promoting vaccination respond to misinformation on social media: a qualitative investigation. BMC Public Health 19, 1348 (2019).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

199. Hyland-Wood, B., Gardner, J., Leask, J. & Ecker, U. K. H. Toward effective government communication strategies in the era of COVID-19. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 8, 30 (2021).

     Google Scholar 

200. Sherman, D. K. & Cohen, G. L. Accepting threatening information: self-affirmation and the reduction of defensive biases. Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci. 11, 119–123 (2002).

     Google Scholar 

201. Carnahan, D., Hao, Q., Jiang, X. & Lee, H. Feeling fine about being wrong: the influence of self-affirmation on the effectiveness of corrective information. Hum. Commun. Res. 44, 274–298 (2018).

     Google Scholar 

202. Vraga, E. K. & Bode, L. Correction as a solution for health misinformation on social media. Am. J. Public Health 110, S278–S280 (2020).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

203. Bode, L. & Vraga, E. K. In related news, that was wrong: the correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media. J. Commun. 65, 619–638 (2015).

     Google Scholar 

204. Vraga, E. K. & Bode, L. Addressing COVID-19 misinformation on social media preemptively and responsively. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 27, 396–403 (2021).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

205. Vijaykumar, S. et al. How shades of truth and age affect responses to COVID-19 (mis)information: randomized survey experiment among WhatsApp users in UK and Brazil. Humanit. Soc. Sci.Commun. 8, 88 (2021).

     Google Scholar 

206. Bode, L. & Vraga, E. K. See something say something: correction of global health misinformation on social media. Health Commun. 33, 1131–1140 (2017).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

207. Pennycook, G. et al. Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature 592, 590–595 (2021).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

208. Matz, S. C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G. & Stillwell, D. J. Psychological targeting as an effective approach to digital mass persuasion. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 12714–12719 (2017).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

209. Vargo, C. J., Guo, L. & Amazeen, M. A. The agenda-setting power of fake news: a big data analysis of the online media landscape from 2014 to 2016. N. Media Soc. 20, 2028–2049 (2018).

     Google Scholar 

210. Allington, D., Duffy, B., Wessely, S., Dhavan, N. & Rubin, J. Health-protective behavior, social media usage and conspiracy belief during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Psychol. Med. 51, 1763–1769 (2020).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

211. Cook, J., Bedford, D. & Mandia, S. Raising climate literacy through addressing misinformation: case studies in agnotology-based learning. J. Geosci. Educ. 62, 296–306 (2014).

     Google Scholar 

212. Amazeen, M. A. News in an era of content confusion: effects of news use motivations and context on native advertising and digital news perceptions. Journal. Mass. Commun. Q. 97, 161–187 (2020).

     Google Scholar 

213. Lawrence, R. G. & Boydstun, A. E. What we should really be asking about media attention to Trump. Political Commun. 34, 150–153 (2016).

     Google Scholar 

214. Schmid, P., MacDonald, N. E., Habersaat, K. & Butler, R. Commentary to: How to respond to vocal vaccine deniers in public. Vaccine 36, 196–198 (2018).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

215. Shelby, A. & Ernst, K. Story and science. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 9, 1795–1801 (2013).

     Google Scholar 

216. Lazić, A. & Žeželj, I. A systematic review of narrative interventions: lessons for countering anti-vaccination conspiracy theories and misinformation. Public Underst. Sci. 30, 644–670 (2021).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

217. Ecker, U. K. H., Butler, L. H. & Hamby, A. You don’t have to tell a story! A registered report testing the effectiveness of narrative versus non-narrative misinformation corrections. Cognit. Res. Princ. Implic. 5, 64 (2020).

     Google Scholar 

218. Van Bavel, J. J., Reinero, D. A., Spring, V., Harris, E. A. & Duke, A. Speaking my truth: why personal experiences can bridge divides but mislead. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2100280118 (2021).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

219. Merpert, A., Furman, M., Anauati, M. V., Zommer, L. & Taylor, I. Is that even checkable? An experimental study in identifying checkable statements in political discourse. Commun. Res. Rep. 35, 48–57 (2017).

     Google Scholar 

220. Amazeen, M. A. & Wojdynski, B. W. Reducing native advertising deception: revisiting the antecedents and consequences of persuasion knowledge in digital news contexts. Mass. Commun. Soc. 22, 222–247 (2019).

     Google Scholar 

221. Peacock, C., Masullo, G. M. & Stroud, N. J. What’s in a label? The effect of news labels on perceived credibility. Journalism https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920971522 (2020).

     Article  Google Scholar 

222. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S. & Chadwick, M. Can corrections spread misinformation to new audiences? Testing for the elusive familiarity backfire effect. Cognit. Res. Princ. Implic. 5, 41 (2020).

     Google Scholar 

223. McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. Combatting misinformation requires recognizing its types and the factors that facilitate its spread and resonance. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6, 389–396 (2017).

     Google Scholar 

224. Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. Defeating the merchants of doubt. Nature 465, 686–687 (2010).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

225. Golovchenko, Y., Hartmann, M. & Adler-Nissen, R. State media and civil society in the information warfare over Ukraine: citizen curators of digital disinformation. Int. Aff. 94, 975–994 (2018).

     Google Scholar 

226. Tandoc, E. C., Lim, Z. W. & Ling, R. Defining fake news. Digit. Journal. 6, 137–153 (2017).

     Google Scholar 

227. Mosleh, M., Pennycook, G., Arechar, A. A. & Rand, D. G. Cognitive reflection correlates with behavior on Twitter. Nat. Commun. 12, 921 (2021).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

228. Scheufele, D. A. & Krause, N. M. Science audiences misinformation, and fake news. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 7662–7669 (2019).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

229. Yesilada, M. & Lewandowsky, S. A systematic review: the YouTube recommender system and pathways to problematic content. psyarxiv https://psyarxiv.com/6pv5c/ (2021).

230. Bursztyn, L., Rao, A., Roth, C. & Yanagizawa-Drott, D. Misinformation during a pandemic. NBER https://www.nber.org/papers/w27417 (2020).

231. Simonov, A., Sacher, S., Dubé, J.-P. & Biswas, S. The persuasive effect of Fox News: non-compliance with social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. NBER https://www.nber.org/papers/w27237 (2020).

232. Bechmann, A. Tackling disinformation and infodemics demands media policy changes. Digit. Journal. 8, 855–863 (2020).

     Google Scholar 

233. Marsden, C., Meyer, T. & Brown, I. Platform values and democratic elections: how can the law regulate digital disinformation? Comput. Law Security Rev. 36, 105373 (2020).

     Google Scholar 

234. Saurwein, F. & Spencer-Smith, C. Combating disinformation on social media: multilevel governance and distributed accountability in Europe. Digit. Journal. 8, 820–841 (2020).

     Google Scholar 

235. Tenove, C. Protecting democracy from disinformation: normative threats and policy responses. Int. J. Press Politics 25, 517–537 (2020).

     Google Scholar 

236. Reisach, U. The responsibility of social media in times of societal and political manipulation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 291, 906–917 (2021).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

237. Lewandowsky, S. et al. Technology and democracy: understanding the influence of online technologies on political behaviour and decision-making. Publ. Office Eur. Union https://doi.org/10.2760/593478 (2020).

     Article  Google Scholar 

238. Blasio, E. D. & Selva, D. Who is responsible for disinformation? European approaches to social platforms’ accountability in the post-truth era. Am. Behav. Scientist 65, 825–846 (2021).

     Google Scholar 

239. Pickard, V. Restructuring democratic infrastructures: a policy approach to the journalism crisis. Digit. J. 8, 704–719 (2020).

     Google Scholar 

240. Barzilai, S. & Chinn, C. A. A review of educational responses to the post-truth condition: four lenses on post-truth problems. Educ. Psychol. 55, 107–119 (2020).

     Google Scholar 

241. Lee, N. M. Fake news, phishing, and fraud: a call for research on digital media literacy education beyond the classroom. Commun. Educ. 67, 460–466 (2018).

     Google Scholar 

242. Sinatra, G. M. & Lombardi, D. Evaluating sources of scientific evidence and claims in the post-truth era may require reappraising plausibility judgments. Educ. Psychol. 55, 120–131 (2020).

     Google Scholar 

243. Vraga, E. K. & Bode, L. Leveraging institutions, educators, and networks to correct misinformation: a commentary on Lewandowsky, Ecker, and Cook. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6, 382–388 (2017).

     Google Scholar 

244. Lorenz-Spreen, P., Lewandowsky, S., Sunstein, C. R. & Hertwig, R. How behavioural sciences can promote truth, autonomy and democratic discourse online. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 1102–1109 (2020).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

245. Tsipursky, G., Votta, F. & Mulick, J. A. A psychological approach to promoting truth in politics: the pro-truth pledge. J. Soc. Political Psychol. 6, 271–290 (2018).

     Google Scholar 

246. Bak-Coleman, J. B. et al. Combining interventions to reduce the spread of viral misinformation. OSF https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/4jtvm/ (2021).

247. Ognyanova, K., Lazer, D., Robertson, R. E. & Wilson, C. Misinformation in action: fake news exposure is linked to lower trust in media, higher trust in government when your side is in power. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-024 (2020).

     Article  Google Scholar 

248. Swire-Thompson, B. & Lazer, D. Public health and online misinformation: challenges and recommendations. Annu. Rev. Public Health 41, 433–451 (2020).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

249. Boele-Woelki, K., Francisco, J. S., Hahn, U. & Herz, J. How we can rebuild trust in science and why we must. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 57, 13696–13697 (2018).

     Google Scholar 

250. Klein, O. et al. A practical guide for transparency in psychological science. Collabra Psychol. 4, 20 (2018).

     Google Scholar 

251. Masullo, G. M., Curry, A. L., Whipple, K. N. & Murray, C. The story behind the story: examining transparency about the journalistic process and news outlet credibility. Journal. Pract. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2020.1870529 (2021).

     Article  Google Scholar 

252. Amazeen, M. A. Checking the fact-checkers in 2008: predicting political ad scrutiny and assessing consistency. J. Political Mark. 15, 433–464 (2014).

     Google Scholar 

253. Hahl, O., Kim, M. & Sivan, E. W. Z. The authentic appeal of the lying demagogue: proclaiming the deeper truth about political illegitimacy. Am. Sociol. Rev. 83, 1–33 (2018).

     Google Scholar 

254. Jaiswal, J., LoSchiavo, C. & Perlman, D. C. Disinformation, misinformation and inequality-driven mistrust in the time of COVID-19: lessons unlearned from AIDS denialism. AIDS Behav. 24, 2776–2780 (2020).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

255. Cheon, B. K., Melani, I. & Hong, Y. How USA-centric is psychology? An archival study of implicit assumptions of generalizability of findings to human nature based on origins of study samples. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 11, 928–937 (2020).

     Google Scholar 

256. Swire-Thompson, B., DeGutis, J. & Lazer, D. Searching for the backfire effect: measurement and design considerations. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 9, 286–299 (2020).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

257. Wang, Y., McKee, M., Torbica, A. & Stuckler, D. Systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media. Soc. Sci. Med. 240, 112552 (2019).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

258. Bastani, P. & Bahrami, M. A. COVID-19 related misinformation on social media: a qualitative study from Iran. J. Med. Internet Res. https://doi.org/10.2196/18932 (2020).

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

259. Arata, N. B., Torneo, A. R. & Contreras, A. P. Partisanship, political support, and information processing among President Rodrigo Duterte’s supporters and non-supporters. Philippine Political Sci. J. 41, 73–105 (2020).

     Google Scholar 

260. Islam, A. K. M. N., Laato, S., Talukder, S. & Sutinen, E. Misinformation sharing and social media fatigue during COVID-19: an affordance and cognitive load perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 159, 120201 (2020).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

261. Xu, Y., Wong, R., He, S., Veldre, A. & Andrews, S. Is it smart to read on your phone? The impact of reading format and culture on the continued influence of misinformation. Mem. Cogn. 48, 1112–1127 (2020).

     Google Scholar 

262. Lyons, B., Mérola, V., Reifler, J. & Stoeckel, F. How politics shape views toward fact-checking: evidence from six European countries. Int. J. Press Politics 25, 469–492 (2020).

     Google Scholar 

263. Porter, E. & Wood, T. J. The global effectiveness of fact-checking: evidence from simultaneous experiments in Argentina, Nigeria, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2104235118 (2021).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

264. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Chang, E. P. & Pillai, R. The effects of subtle misinformation in news headlines. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 20, 323–335 (2014).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

265. Powell, D., Bian, L. & Markman, E. M. When intents to educate can misinform: inadvertent paltering through violations of communicative norms. PLoS ONE 15, e0230360 (2020).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

266. Rich, P. R. & Zaragoza, M. S. The continued influence of implied and explicitly stated misinformation in news reports. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Memory Cogn. 42, 62–74 (2016).

     Google Scholar 

267. Shen, C. et al. Fake images: the effects of source intermediary and digital media literacy on contextual assessment of image credibility online. N. Media Soc. 21, 438–463 (2018).

     Google Scholar 

268. Barari, S., Lucas, C. & Munger, K. Political deepfakes are as credible as other fake media and (sometimes) real media. OSF https://osf.io/cdfh3/ (2021).

269. Young, D. G., Jamieson, K. H., Poulsen, S. & Goldring, A. Fact-checking effectiveness as a function of format and tone: evaluating FactCheck.org and FlackCheck.org. Journal. Mass. Commun. Q. 95, 49–75 (2017).

     Google Scholar 

270. Vraga, E. K., Kim, S. C. & Cook, J. Testing logic-based and humor-based corrections for science health, and political misinformation on social media. J. Broadcasting Electron. Media 63, 393–414 (2019).

     Google Scholar 

271. Dunn, A. G. et al. Mapping information exposure on social media to explain differences in HPV vaccine coverage in the United States. Vaccine 35, 3033–3040 (2017).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

272. Marinescu, I. E., Lawlor, P. N. & Kording, K. P. Quasi-experimental causality in neuroscience and behavioural research. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 891–898 (2018).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

273. Van Bavel, J. J. et al. Political psychology in the digital (mis)information age: a model of news belief and sharing. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 15, 84–113 (2021).

     Google Scholar 

274. Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D. & Rich, R. F. Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. J. Politics 62, 790–816 (2000).

     Google Scholar 

275. Shelke, S. & Attar, V. Source detection of rumor in social network: a review. Online Soc. Netw. Media 9, 30–42 (2019).

     Google Scholar 

276. Brady, W. J., Gantman, A. P. & Van Bavel, J. J. Attentional capture helps explain why moral and emotional content go viral. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149, 746–756 (2020).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

277. Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A. & Van Bavel, J. J. Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7313–7318 (2017).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

278. Fazio, L. Pausing to consider why a headline is true or false can help reduce the sharing of false news. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-009 (2020).

     Article  Google Scholar 

279. Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G. & Rand, D. G. Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychol. Sci. 31, 770–780 (2020).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

280. 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).

281. 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).

282. Altay, S., Araujo, Ede & Mercier, H. If this account is true, it is most enormously wonderful: interestingness-if-true and the sharing of true and false news. Digital Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1941163 (2021).

     Article  Google Scholar 

283. Brady, W. J., Crockett, M. J. & Van Bavel, J. J. The MAD model of moral contagion: The role of motivation, attention, and design in the spread of moralized content online. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15, 978–1010 (2020).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

284. Crockett, M. J. Moral outrage in the digital age. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 769–771 (2017).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

285. Petersen, M. B., Osmundsen, M. & Arceneaux, K. The “need for chaos” and motivations to share hostile political rumors. psyarxiv https://psyarxiv.com/6m4ts/ (2020).

286. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Jayawardana, K. & Mladenovic, A. Refutations of equivocal claims: no evidence for an ironic effect of counterargument number. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 8, 98–107 (2019).

     Google Scholar 

287. Skurnik, I., Yoon, C., Park, D. C. & Schwarz, N. How warnings about false claims become recommendations. J. Consum. Res. 31, 713–724 (2005).

     Google Scholar 

288. Schwarz, N., Sanna, L. J., Skurnik, I. & Yoon, C. Metacognitive experiences and the intricacies of setting people straight: implications for debiasing and public information campaigns. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 39, 127–161 (2007).

     Google Scholar 

289. Cameron, K. A. et al. Patient knowledge and recall of health information following exposure to facts and myths message format variations. Patient Educ. Counsel. 92, 381–387 (2013).

     Google Scholar 

290. Wahlheim, C. N., Alexander, T. R. & Peske, C. D. Reminders of everyday misinformation statements can enhance memory for and belief in corrections of those statements in the short term. Psychol. Sci. 31, 1325–1339 (2020).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

291. Autry, K. S. & Duarte, S. E. Correcting the unknown: negated corrections may increase belief in misinformation. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 35, 960–975 (2021).

     Google Scholar 

292. Pluviano, S., Watt, C. & Della Sala, S. Misinformation lingers in memory: failure of three pro-vaccination strategies. PLoS ONE 12, e0181640 (2017).

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

293. Taber, C. S. & Lodge, M. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Am. J. Political. Sci. 50, 755–769 (2006).

     Google Scholar 

294. Nyhan, B., Reifler, J. & Ubel, P. A. The hazards of correcting myths about health care reform. Med. Care 51, 127–132 (2013).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

295. Hart, P. S. & Nisbet, E. C. Boomerang effects in science communication. Commun. Res. 39, 701–723 (2011).

     Google Scholar 

296. Swire-Thompson, B., Miklaucic, N., Wihbey, J., Lazer, D. & DeGutis, J. Backfire effects after correcting misinformation are strongly associated with reliability. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. (in the press).

297. Zhou, J. Boomerangs versus javelins: how polarization constrains communication on climate change. Environ. Politics 25, 788–811 (2016).

     Google Scholar 

Download references

What is an emotion an emotion is quizlet?

Which theory of emotion states that your body?

Which scenario supports the Cannon Bard theory of emotion quizlet?

What is the general research conclusion regarding the strange situation quizlet?