Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions

2019/06/24 by Philipp Schmid, Cornelia Betsch · 1 voice · 7 citations
Social Sciences · Arts and Humanities · #Misinformation and Its Impacts #Climate Change Communication and Perception #Media Influence and Health

paper · doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0632-4

Citations

• The Problem of Units and the Circumstance for POMP
• Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median
• Standardized or simple effect size: What should be reported?
• The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades' Evidence
• Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era.
• The spread of true and false news online
• The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts

Cited by

• General Science Skepticism: Development and Validation of a New Scale
• Deepfakes as a Democratic Threat: Experimental Evidence Shows Noxious Effects That Are Reducible Through Journalistic Fact Checks
• The empathetic refutational interview to tackle vaccine misconceptions: Four randomized experiments.
• Role of science and scientists in public environmental policy debates: The case of EU agrochemical and Nature Restoration Regulations
• Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations.
• Skeptik: A Hybrid Framework for Combating Potential Misinformation in Journalism
• Science Denial

Discussions

• In Diskussionen mit solchen Leuten reicht es, diese Methoden zu benennen. Ihr braucht viel zu lange, um deren Quatsch richtigzustellen, Quellen anzugeben oder im Klein-klein zu diskutieren. Der Effekt [bsky, 17 points, 2 comments]