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

Publication date: Jun 25, 2026

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.

Open Access PDF

Concepts Keywords
Covid Correction
Effective COVID-19
Science Disinformation
Skeptics Prebunking
Vaccine Trust in science

Semantics

Type Source Name
pathway REACTOME Reproduction
disease MESH included
disease MESH COVID 19
disease MESH measles
pathway KEGG Measles
drug DRUGBANK Nonoxynol-9
disease MESH infertility
disease MESH emergency
drug DRUGBANK Ranitidine
disease MESH image
disease MESH heart attacks
disease MESH inflammation
disease MESH infection
disease MESH confusion
drug DRUGBANK Methionine
drug DRUGBANK Methylergometrine
disease MESH bites
disease MESH Ash
drug DRUGBANK Isosorbide Mononitrate

Original Article

(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *