Sadly, the authors of the meta-analysis do not want to respond to our letter. They did issue a correction to their work, in response to our letter. This correction, however, does not address the issues with the work.
Please take caution with this meta-analysis!
Why? In short, 1) wrong effects were included and sometimes excluded, 2) wrong experimental conditions were included, 3) sample size estimates are implausible, and 4) active versus passive inoculation was incorrectly conceptualized. All these concerns and more are explained in the letter.
The original work (www.jmir.org/2023/1/e49255) was published in 2023 and has since received a lot of attention. We now urge researchers, practitioners, and others who rely on this work to use caution.
Now out in @jmirpub.bsky.social: a letter to the editor detailing serious issues with an influential meta-analysis on psychological inoculation and misinformation (www.jmir.org/2025/1/e64430/).
"A survey of more than 500 political scientists finds that the vast majority think the United States is moving swiftly from liberal democracy toward some form of authoritarianism." www.npr.org/2025/04/22/n...
Please share! Call for Research Collaborators: Cross-Cultural Study on the Continued Influence of Misinformation
We invite researchers to join The Continued Influence Effect of Misinformation Across Cultures (CINEMAC) Mega-Study.
More details here: forms.gle/o7mEYtZxFzsM...
Congrats, Niels! I hope we can meet sometime once you get settled in Wageningen. Nijmegen is just around the corner ;)
It was about time someone developed a proper science literacy measure! This scale looks very promising ✨
Truth Sandwich 🥪
Reporting on politics these days is a challenge.
Use the Truth Sandwich.
State facts, then the falsehood, then facts again. Facts first and last. Don’t amplify falsehoods without context.
This is a useful reminder for journalists and in public discussions
Graphic @newslit.org
Our global study on the state of trust in scientists is now out in Nature Human Behaviour! 🥳
With a team of 241 researchers, we surveyed 71,922 people in 68 countries, providing the largest dataset on trust in scientists post-pandemic 👇🧵https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02090-5
Get this. Just had a paper rejected.
Main reason? Didn’t use multi item measurement.
What constructs? What time did you go to bed…what time did you get out of bed…etc.
This holiday season let’s be a little more reflective and a little less reflexive about measurement “rules”
Excited to share my first Bluesky post! 🌟 It’s a teaser for our #ICA25 #SciComm preconference on #ScienceCommunication Research, happening June 12, 2025 in Denver, CO. Looking forward to your Extended Abstracts by January 24! 🔗 #CfP: cdn.ymaws.com/www.icahdq.o...
A screenshot with a highlighted line demonstrating an inconsistent p-value and test statistic
Statcheck demonstrating its value once again. I detect a p-value inconsistent with reported statistical results in about every third paper I review michelenuijten.shinyapps.io/statcheck-web/
Communicating scientific agreement on climate increases perceived consensus and belief in human-caused climate change across the globe, including amongst skeptics and those with lower trust in climate science.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Our new work complements amazing research published recently, which found similar results in a large international study.
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
...while the effect on consensus perceptions is substantial, the effect on belief in climate change is small.
So, short and scalable consensus messages can be part of communicators’ toolkit to address climate denial across the globe, more is needed to boost its effects.
*First post here, exciting!*🦋
I would like to share our recent research on climate science consensus communication. We know such messages can inform people, but most research was conducted in the US.
We now find that the informing effect of consensus messaging is very robust internationally. But…
