[ad_1]
A recent study suggests that facts alone may not be enough to overcome misinformation. In one experiment, 152 college students who had been exposed to misinformation read one of two articles that aimed to give them accurate, scientifically backed information. Those who read an explanatory article that contained “just the facts” held more misconceptions than those who read a rebuttal article — meaning it specifically called out the false claims before presenting the facts.
Study published in Journal of Research in Science Teaching It provides evidence that debunking misinformation may be better than traditional ways of communicating science.
For this study, the researchers first tested what student participants knew about adding fluoride to water. Then the students read two articles: one contained misinformation that said fluoridation is harmful and the other presented the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and prevents dental disease. Participants all read the same misinformation text, but different groups read an article containing either correct information first, in a traditional “facts only” style, or one containing correct information refuting the misinformation. The study also tested the effects of having participants read the correct article before or after the misinformation.
A post-test showed that students still learned under all four conditions – but the group that performed the worst saw the misinformation first, followed by the “facts only” type text. Those who read the rebuttal article before or after the misinformation had fewer misconceptions. They also had more positive feelings toward the topic.
Because of the abundance of information readily available on the internet, it can be difficult for many people to distinguish between fact and falsehood. This can lead to a problem researchers call “ideological contamination” — when learning incorrect information interferes with learning correct information.
The researchers chose fluoridation for this experiment because it is less politically charged than other scientific topics such as climate change or evolution. However, Danielson and his colleagues recently conducted a meta-analysis of 76 other educational studies, published in the journal Educational Psychologist. They found that the denialist approach works well for a wide range of topics, from non-controversial issues in physics and chemistry to highly controversial issues including climate change and evolution, as well as genetically modified foods and vaccines.
[ad_2]
Source link