This is the list of references for The Debunking Handbook 2020
Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Ecker, U. K. H., Albarracín, D., Amazeen, M. A., Kendeou, P., Lombardi, D., Newman, E. J., Pennycook, G., Porter, E. Rand, D. G., Rapp, D. N., Reifler, J., Roozenbeek, J., Schmid, P., Seifert, C. M., Sinatra, G. M., Swire-Thompson, B., van der Linden, S., Vraga, E. K., Wood, T. J., Zaragoza, M. S. (2020). The Debunking Handbook 2020. Available at https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/
debunking-handbook-2020/
1 Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(6), 1420-1436.
2 Ecker, U. K. H., O’Reilly, Z., Reid, J. S., & Chang, E. P. (2020). The effectiveness of short?format refutational fact?checks. British Journal of Psychology, 111(1), 36-54.
3 Paynter, J., Luskin-Saxby, S., Keen, D., Fordyce, K., Frost, G., Imms, C., ... & Ecker, U. K. H. (2019). Evaluation of a template for countering misinformation—Real-world autism treatment myth debunking. PLOS ONE, 14, e0210746. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0210746.
4 Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the post-truth era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 353-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008.
5 Southwell, B. G., Thorson, E. A., & Sheble, L. (2018). Misinformation among mass audiences as a focus for inquiry. In B. G. Southwell, E. A. Thorson, & L. Sheble (Eds.), Misinformation and mass audiences (pp. 1–14). Austin: University of Texas Press.
6 Gangarosa, E. J., Galazka, A. M., Wolfe, C. R., Phillips, L. M., Miller, E., Chen, R. T., & Gangarosa, R. E. (1998). Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story. The Lancet, 351(9099), 356-361.
7 Freeman, D., Waite, F., Rosebrock, L., Petit, A., Causier, C., East, A., ... & Bold, E. (2020). Coronavirus conspiracy beliefs, mistrust, and compliance with government guidelines in England. Psychological Medicine, 1-30. DOI 10.1017/s0033291720001890.
8 Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 107-112.
9 Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N. M., Payne, B. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2015). Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(5), 993.
10 Henkel, L. A., & Mattson, M. E. (2011). Reading is believing: The truth effect and source credibility. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(4), 1705-1721.
11 Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 1865-1880. DOI10.1037/xge0000465.
12 Stanley, M. L., Yang, B. W., & Marsh, E. J. (2019). When the unlikely becomes likely: Qualifying language does not influence later truth judgments. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(1), 118-129.
13 Unkelbach, C., & Greifeneder, R. (2018). Experiential fluency and declarative advice jointly inform judgments of truth. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 78-86.
14 Brady, W., Gantman, A., & Van Bavel, J. (2020). Attentional capture helps explain why moral and emotional content go viral. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 149, 746-756. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000673
15 Lorenz-Spreen, P., Lewandowsky, S., Sunstein, C. R., & Hertwig, R. (2020). How behavioural sciences can promote truth and, autonomy and democratic discourse online. Nature Human Behaviour. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-020-0889-7.
16 Lyons, B., Merola, V., & Reifler, J. (2019). Not Just Asking Questions: Effects of Implicit and Explicit Conspiracy Information About Vaccines and Genetic Modification. Health Communication, 34, 1741-1750.
17 Marsh, E. J., & Fazio, L. K. (2006). Learning errors from fiction: Difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1140-1149.
18 Rapp, D. N., Hinze, S. R., Slaten, D. G., & Horton, W. S. (2014a) Amazing stories: Acquiring and avoiding inaccurate information from fiction. Discourse Processes, 51, 50-74. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2013.855048.
19 Benkler, Y., Faris, R., Roberts, H., & Zuckerman, E. (2017). Study: Breitbart-led right-wing media ecosystem altered broader media agenda. Columbia Journalism Review, 3, 2017.
20 Vargo, C. J., Guo, L., & Amazeen, M. A. (2018). The agenda-setting power of fake news: A big data analysis of the online media landscape from 2014 to 2016. New media & society, 20, 2028-2049.
21 Swire, B., Berinsky, A. J., Lewandowsky, S., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2017). Processing political misinformation: comprehending the Trump phenomenon. Royal Society Open Science, 4(3), 160802.
22 Swire?Thompson, B., Ecker, U. K., Lewandowsky, S., & Berinsky, A. J. (2020). They might be a liar but they’re my liar: Source evaluation and the prevalence of misinformation. Political Psychology, 41, 21-34.
23 Nyhan, B., Porter, E., Reifler, J., & Wood, T. J. (2020). Taking fact-checks literally but not seriously? The effects of journalistic factchecking on factual beliefs and candidate favorability. Political Behavior, 42, 939–960.
24 Aird, M. J., Ecker, U. K., Swire, B., Berinsky, A. J., & Lewandowsky, S. (2018). Does truth matter to voters? The effects of correcting political misinformation in an Australian sample. Royal Society open science, 5(12), 180593.
25 Hamby, A. M., Ecker, U. K. H., & Brinberg, D. (2019). How stories in memory perpetuate the continued influence of false information. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30, 240-259. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1135.
26 MacFarlane, D., Tay, L. Q., Hurlstone, M. J., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2020). Refuting spurious COVID-19 treatment claims reduces demand and misinformation sharing. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/q3mkd.
27 Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Swire, B., & Chang, D. (2011). Correcting false information in memory: Manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(3), 570-578.
28 Mena, P. (2020). Cleaning up social media: The effect of warning labels on likelihood of sharing false news on Facebook. Policy & internet, 12(2), 165-183.
29 McGuire, W. J., & Papageorgis, D. (1962). Effectiveness of forewarning in developing resistance to persuasion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26, 24-34.
30 Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2017). Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLOS ONE, 12(5): e0175799.
31 Amazeen, M.A. (2020). Resisting covert persuasion in digital news: Comparing inoculation and reactance in the processing of native advertising disclosures and article engagement intentions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. DOI 10.1177/1077699020952131.
32 Banas, J. A., & Rains, S. A. (2010). A meta-analysis of research on inoculation theory. Communication Monographs, 77, 281-311.
33 Compton, J. (2013). Inoculation theory. In J. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 220-236). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
34 van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S., & Maibach, E. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1(2), 1600008.
35 Cook, J. (2020). Cranky uncle vs. climate change. New York: Citadel Press.
36 Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2019). Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 12.
37 Maertens, R., Roozenbeek, J., Basol, M., & van der Linden, S. (2020). Long-term effectiveness of inoculation against misinformation: Three longitudinal experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xap0000315.
38 Rapp, D.N., Hinze, S.R., Kohlhepp, K., & Ryskin, R.A. (2014b). Reducing reliance on inaccurate information. Memory & Cognition, 42, 11-26.
39 Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychological Science, 31, 770-780.
40 Hinze, S.R., Slaten, D.G., Horton, W.S., Jenkins, R., & Rapp, D.N. (2014). Pilgrims sailing the Titanic: Plausibility effects on memory for facts and errors. Memory & Cognition, 42, 305-324.
41 Sinatra, G. M., & Lombardi, D. (2020). Evaluating sources of scientific evidence and claims in the post-truth era may require reappraising plausibility judgments. Educational Psychologist, 55, 120-131. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1730181.
42 Wineburg, S., McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., & Ortega, T. (2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning. Stanford Digital Repository. Retrieved January, 8, 2018.
43 Wineburg, S., & McGrew, S. (2019). Lateral reading and the nature of expertise: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information. Teachers College Record 121(11).
44 Donovan, A.M., & Rapp, D.N. (2020). Look it up: Online search reduces the problematic effects of exposures to inaccuracies. Memory & Cognition, 48, 1128-1145.
45 Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (in press). Citizens Versus the Internet: Confronting Digital Challenges With Cognitive Tools. Psychological Science in the Public Interest.
46 Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., & Chadwick. M. (2020). Can corrections spread misinformation to new audiences? Testing for the elusive familiarity backfire effect. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5, 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00241-6.
47 Lakoff, G. (2010). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. University of Chicago Press.
48 Kumkale, G. T., Albarracín, D., & Seignourel, P. J. (2010). The effects of source credibility in the presence or absence of prior attitudes: Implications for the design of persuasive communication campaigns. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(6), 1325-1356.
49 Cone, J., Flaharty, K., & Ferguson, M. J. (2019). Believability of evidence matters for correcting social impressions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 9802-9807. doi:10.1073/pnas.1903222116.
50 Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243-281.
51 Amazeen, M. A., & Krishna, A. (2020). Correcting vaccine misinformation: Effects of source attributes and recall on misinformation belief and persuasive outcomes. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3698102.
52 Swire, B., Ecker, U. K. H., & Lewandowsky, S. (2017). The role of familiarity in correcting inaccurate information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(12), 1948.
53 Walter, N., & Tukachinsky, R. (2020). 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?. Communication Research, 47(2), 155-177.
54 Sparks, J. R., & Rapp, D. N. (2011). Readers’ reliance on source credibility in the service of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(1), 230.
55 Albarracín, D., Kumkale, G. T., & Poyner-Del Vento, P. (2017). How people can become persuaded by weak messages presented by credible communicators: Not all sleeper effects are created equal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 171-180. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2016.06.009.
56 Dias, N., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Emphasizing publishers does not effectively reduce susceptibility to misinformation on social media. The Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 1. doi:10.37016/mr-2020-001.
57 Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. Journal of personality, 88(2), 185-200.
58 Ecker, U. K. H., & Antonio, L. (2020). Can you believe it? An investigation into the impact of retraction source credibility on the continued influence effect. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qt4w8.
59 Guillory, J. J., & Geraci, L. (2013). Correcting erroneous inferences in memory: The role of source credibility. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(4), 201-209.
60 Durantini, M. R., Albarracín, D., Mitchell, A. L., Earl, A. N., & Gillette, J. C. (2006). Conceptualizing the influence of social agents of behavior change: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of HIV-prevention interventionists for different groups. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 212-248. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.212.
61 Vraga, E. K., & Bode, L. (2017). Using expert sources to correct health misinformation in social media. Science Communication, 39(5), 621-645.
62 van der Meer, T. G., & Jin, Y. (2020). Seeking formula for misinformation treatment in public health crises: The effects of corrective information type and source. Health Communication, 35(5), 560-575.
63 Cook, J., & Lewandowsky, S. (2016). Rational irrationality: Modeling climate change belief polarization using Bayesian networks.
Topics in Cognitive Science, 8, 160-179. doi:10.1111/tops.12186.
64 Krishna, A. (2018). Poison or prevention? Understanding the linkages between vaccine-negative individuals’ knowledge deficiency, motivations, and active communication behaviors. Health Communication, 33, 1088-1096.
65 Scheufele, D. A., & Krause, N. M. (2019). Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), 7662-7669.
66 Schmid, P., & Betsch, C. (2019). Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(9), 931-939.
67 Wood, T., & Porter, E. (2019). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior, 41(1), 135-163.
68 Porter, E., & Wood, T. J. (2019). False Alarm: The Truth About Political Mistruths in the Trump Era. Cambridge University Press.
69 Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Jayawardana, K., & Mladenovic, A. (2019). Refutations of equivocal claims: No evidence for an ironic effect of counterargument number. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8, 98-107.
70 Swire-Thompson, B., DeGutis, J., & Lazer, D. (2020). Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. DOI 10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.06.006.
71 Ecker, U. K. H., Hogan, J. L., & Lewandowsky, S. (2017). Reminders and repetition of misinformation: Helping or hindering its retraction? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(2), 185-192.
72 Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330.
73 Ecker, U., Sze, B., & Andreotta, M. (2020). No effect of partisan worldview on corrections of political misinformation. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bszm4.
74 Haglin, K. (2017). The limitations of the backfire effect. Research & Politics, 4(3), 2053168017716547.
75 Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication research, 39, 701-723.
76 Grinberg, N., Joseph, K., Friedland, L., Swire-Thompson, B., & Lazer, D. (2019). Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Science, 363(6425), 374-378.
77 Guess, A. M., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2020). Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election. Nature human behaviour, 4(5), 472-480.
78 Hart, W., Albarracín, D., Eagly, A. H., Brechan, I., Lindberg, M. J., & Merrill, L. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: a metaanalysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 555-588.
79 Lewandowsky, S., & Oberauer, K. (2016). Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 217-222.
80 Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., & Tang, D. T. (2010). Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation. Memory & Cognition, 38(8), 1087-1100.
81 Seifert, C. M. (2002) The continued influence of misinformation in memory: What makes a correction effective? Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 44, 265–292.
82 Guzzetti, B. J. (2000). Learning counter-intuitive science concepts: What have we learned from over a decade of research? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16, 89-98.
83 Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, E. J. (2014). The Knowledge Revision Components (KReC) framework: Processes and mechanisms. In D. Rapp, & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing Inaccurate Information: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives from Cognitive Science and the Educational Sciences, Cambridge: MIT.
84 Begg, I. M., Anas, A., & Farinacci, S. (1992). Dissociation of processes in belief: Source recollection, statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 446.
85 Brashier, N. M., Eliseev, E. D., & Marsh, E. J. (2020). An initial accuracy focus prevents illusory truth. Cognition, 194, 1040.
86 Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N. M., Payne, B. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2015). Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(5), 993.
87 Fein, S., McCloskey, A. L., & Tomlinson, T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1215-1226.
88 Elsey, J. W., & Kindt, M. (2017). Tackling maladaptive memories through reconsolidation: From neural to clinical science. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 142, 108-117.
89 Kendeou, P., Butterfuss, R., Kim, J., & Van Boekel, M. (2019). Knowledge Revision Through the Lenses of the Three-Pronged Approach. Memory & Cognition, 47, 33-46.
90 Chan, M. P. S., Jones, C. R., Hall Jamieson, K., & Albarracin, D. (2017). Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1531-1546.
91 Kendeou, P., Smith, E. R., & O’Brien, E.J. (2013). Updating during reading comprehension: Why causality matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 854–865.
92 Rich, P. R., & Zaragoza, M.S. (2020). Correcting Misinformation in News Stories: An Investigation of Correction Timing and Correction Durability. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.04.001.
93 Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., & Lloyd, E. (2018). The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: simulating coherence by conspiracism. Synthese, 195, 175-196.
94 Oppenheimer, D. M. (2006). Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: Problems with using long words needlessly. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 139-156.
95 Fenn, E., Ramsay, N., Kantner, J., Pezdek, K., & Abed, E. (2019). Nonprobative photos increase truth, like, and share judgments in a simulated social media environment. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(2), 131-138.
96 Newman, E. J., Garry, M., Bernstein, D. M., Kantner, J., & Lindsay, D. S. (2012). Nonprobative photographs (or words) inflate truthiness. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(5), 969-974.
97 Newman, E. J., Garry, M., Unkelbach, C., Bernstein, D. M., Lindsay, D. S., & Nash, R. A. (2015). Truthiness and falsiness of trivia claims depend on judgmental contexts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(5), 1337.
98 Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 219–235. doi: 10.1177/1088868309341564.
99 Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 8(3), 338-342.
100 Schwarz, N., Newman, E., & Leach, W. (2016). Making the truth stick and the myths fade: Lessons from cognitive psychology. Behavioral Science & Policy, 2(1), 85–95.
101 Becker, J., Porter, E., & Centola, D. (2019). The wisdom of partisan crowds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 10717-10722.
102 Bode, L., & Vraga, E. K. (2018). See something, say something: Correction of global health misinformation on social media. Health Communication, 33(9), 1131-1140.
103 Bode, L., & Vraga, E. K. (2015). In related news, that was wrong: The correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 619-638.
104 Clayton, K., Blair, S., Busam, J. A., Forstner, S., Glance, J., Green, G., ... & Sandhu, M. (2019). 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 Behavior, 1-23.
105 Vraga, E. K., Kim, S. C., Cook, J., & Bode, L. (2020). Testing the Effectiveness of Correction Placement and Type on Instagram. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 1940161220919082.
106 McKeever, B.W., McKeever, R., Holton, A.E., & Li, J.Y. (2016). Silent majority: Childhood vaccinations and antecedents to communicative action. Mass Communication and Society, 19(4), 476-498. DOI: 10.1080/15205436.2016.1148172.
107 Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 24(2), 43–51.
108 Van Duyn, E. (2018). Hidden democracy: political dissent in rural America. Journal of Communication, 68, 965-987.
Posted by John Cook on Monday, 26 October, 2020
 |
The Skeptical Science website by Skeptical Science is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. |