These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33452666)

  • 1. Can you believe it? An investigation into the impact of retraction source credibility on the continued influence effect.
    Ecker UKH; Antonio LM
    Mem Cognit; 2021 May; 49(4):631-644. PubMed ID: 33452666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The independent effects of source expertise and trustworthiness on retraction believability: The moderating role of vested interest.
    Susmann MW; Wegener DT
    Mem Cognit; 2023 May; 51(4):845-861. PubMed ID: 36460863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The effects of source expertise and trustworthiness on recollection: the case of vaccine misinformation.
    Pluviano S; Della Sala S; Watt C
    Cogn Process; 2020 Aug; 21(3):321-330. PubMed ID: 32333126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Vaccination against misinformation: The inoculation technique reduces the continued influence effect.
    Buczel KA; Szyszka PD; Siwiak A; Szpitalak M; Polczyk R
    PLoS One; 2022; 17(4):e0267463. PubMed ID: 35482715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Not wallowing in misery - retractions of negative misinformation are effective in depressive rumination.
    Chang EP; Ecker UKH; Page AC
    Cogn Emot; 2019 Aug; 33(5):991-1005. PubMed ID: 30319039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The role of discomfort in the continued influence effect of misinformation.
    Susmann MW; Wegener DT
    Mem Cognit; 2022 Feb; 50(2):435-448. PubMed ID: 34533754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Mechanisms in continued influence: The impact of misinformation corrections on source perceptions.
    Westbrook V; Wegener DT; Susmann MW
    Mem Cognit; 2023 Aug; 51(6):1317-1330. PubMed ID: 36988856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Corrections of political misinformation: no evidence for an effect of partisan worldview in a US convenience sample.
    Ecker UKH; Sze BKN; Andreotta M
    Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci; 2021 Apr; 376(1822):20200145. PubMed ID: 33612006
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The rational continued influence of misinformation.
    Connor Desai SA; Pilditch TD; Madsen JK
    Cognition; 2020 Dec; 205():104453. PubMed ID: 33011527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. How Attitudes Impact the Continued Influence Effect of Misinformation: The Mediating Role of Discomfort.
    Susmann MW; Wegener DT
    Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2023 May; 49(5):744-757. PubMed ID: 35227114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Sensitivity to misinformation retractions in the continued influence paradigm: Evidence for stability.
    McIlhiney P; Gignac GE; Weinborn M; Ecker UK
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2022 Jul; 75(7):1259-1271. PubMed ID: 34541938
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The role of familiarity in correcting inaccurate information.
    Swire B; Ecker UKH; Lewandowsky S
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2017 Dec; 43(12):1948-1961. PubMed ID: 28504531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effects of Positive Language and Profession on Trustworthiness and Credibility in Online Health Advice: Experimental Study.
    König L; Jucks R
    J Med Internet Res; 2020 Mar; 22(3):e16685. PubMed ID: 32154786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Do people keep believing because they want to? Preexisting attitudes and the continued influence of misinformation.
    Ecker UK; Lewandowsky S; Fenton O; Martin K
    Mem Cognit; 2014 Feb; 42(2):292-304. PubMed ID: 24005789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Influence of Enthusiastic Language on the Credibility of Health Information and the Trustworthiness of Science Communicators: Insights From a Between-Subject Web-Based Experiment.
    König L; Jucks R
    Interact J Med Res; 2019 Aug; 8(3):e13619. PubMed ID: 31411138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Processing political misinformation: comprehending the Trump phenomenon.
    Swire B; Berinsky AJ; Lewandowsky S; Ecker UK
    R Soc Open Sci; 2017 Mar; 4(3):160802. PubMed ID: 28405366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Correcting false information in memory: manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction.
    Ecker UK; Lewandowsky S; Swire B; Chang D
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2011 Jun; 18(3):570-8. PubMed ID: 21359617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Exploring the neural substrates of misinformation processing.
    Gordon A; Brooks JCW; Quadflieg S; Ecker UKH; Lewandowsky S
    Neuropsychologia; 2017 Nov; 106():216-224. PubMed ID: 28987910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Is it smart to read on your phone? The impact of reading format and culture on the continued influence of misinformation.
    Xu Y; Wong R; He S; Veldre A; Andrews S
    Mem Cognit; 2020 Oct; 48(7):1112-1127. PubMed ID: 32430888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Determinants of the Perceived Credibility of Rebuttals Concerning Health Misinformation.
    Sui Y; Zhang B
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2021 Feb; 18(3):. PubMed ID: 33540869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.