Refutational approaches are more effective in combating science misinformation rather than just stating facts, according to a study.
Researchers found that among 152 college students exposed to misinformation, those who read an article purely carrying facts retained more misconceptions than those who read an article with a refutation.
The findings are published in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
"Refutational approaches seem to work really well. While it's always best to get out in front as a teacher or communicator, students have smartphones. They're going to run into misinformation quickly. If we take this refutational approach, we’re more likely to overcome misinformation," lead author Robert Danielson, a Washington State University educational psychology researcher, said.
For the study, the researchers first tested what the student participants knew about putting fluoride in water.
The students then read two articles: one with false information saying that fluoridation is harmful and another presenting the scientific consensus that has found fluoridation is safe and prevents dental disease.
The participants all read the same misinformation text, but different groups read an article with the correct information either in a traditional stating-the-facts style or one that first refuted the misinformation, before presenting the facts.
The researchers also tested the effects of having the participants read the correct article before, or after, the misinformation.
The results revealed that the students learned in all four situations. However, the group that saw the misinformation first, followed by mere facts, performed the worst, the researchers found.
Those who had read the refutation article either before, or after, the misinformation had fewer misconceptions. They also had more positive emotions toward the subject, the authors found.
"Our findings indicate that reading refutation texts led to significantly fewer misconceptions and reduced negative emotions," the authors wrote.
With a profusion of information easily available on the internet, it can be hard for many people to sort fact from falsehood. This can cause a problem which the researchers call "conceptual contamination" -- when learning incorrect information interferes with learning the correct information.
"Your mind doesn't discriminate for content. Whether it's a correct conception or a misconception, it just kind of absorbs it all," Danielson said.
"People can learn misconceptions pretty easily, and there's no shortage of that online," he added.
In a meta-analysis of 76 educational studies, Danielson and his team found that the refutational approach works well for a wide range of topics - from noncontroversial issues in physics and chemistry to highly controversial ones, including climate change and evolution as well as genetically modified foods and vaccines.
The analysis was recently published in the journal Educational Psychologist.
Follow us
