Combatting the persuasive effects of misinformation: Forewarning versus debunking revisited

Abstract

We posit that research into misinformation interventions puts too much focus on informational outcomes (e.g. perceived accuracy of misinformation), and too little on persuasive outcomes (e.g. inferred beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors). Because of the informational outcome focus, common misinformation interventions (i.e. forewarning and debunking) have not been systematically tested for their ability to mitigate persuasive effects. In two preregistered experiments ( N = 657 and N = 427), we tested the effectiveness of forewarning versus debunking for positive and negative misinformation, focusing on attitudes and behavioral intentions as outcome measures. Results show that, as hypothesized, post-exposure corrections are most effective in reducing misinformation’s persuasive effects; pre-exposure corrections in fact do not significantly reduce persuasive effects. We also corroborate prior findings that especially effects of negative misinformation are resistant to corrections. Based on our results, we advise media outlets to not only rely on forewarnings, but to also correct misinformation after user exposure.