Cited by 573Misinformation and Its ImpactsCommunication and COVID-19 ImpactVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy

Misinformation: susceptibility, spread, and interventions to immunize the public

Open access
van der Linden, Sander·2022·Nature Medicine

Abstract

The spread of misinformation poses a considerable threat to public health and the successful management of a global pandemic. For example, studies find that exposure to misinformation can undermine vaccination uptake and compliance with public-health guidelines. As research on the science of misinformation is rapidly emerging, this conceptual Review summarizes what we know along three key dimensions of the infodemic: susceptibility, spread, and immunization. Extant research is evaluated on the questions of why (some) people are (more) susceptible to misinformation, how misinformation spreads in online social networks, and which interventions can help to boost psychological immunity to misinformation. Implications for managing the infodemic are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41591-022-01713-6

Cites

115 of 115 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Based on various theories, researchers have identified political orientation, belief in conspiracy theories, and trust in institutions as individual variables that may motivate belief in misinformation.

    “Based on various theories, such as the theory of motivated reasoning, which explains that decisions are often based on pre-determined goals and desirability rather than an accurate reflection of the evidence (Kunda, 1990), researchers have identified a few individual variables that may motivate the person to believe misinformation they are exposed to.These include political orientation (Chen et al”

    From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as van der Linden, 2022

    The Susceptibility section (page not supplied) identifies political orientation as associated with susceptibility to misinformation, and the motivated-reasoning discussion explains how political identity may shape belief. The paper mentions conspiracy theories as misinformation or intervention targets, but the passages do not identify prior belief in conspiracy theories or trust in institutions as individual variables motivating belief in misinformation. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The inattention account posits that being bombarded with information, coupled with limited time and resources, interferes with individuals' ability to accurately reflect on content.

    “The so-called inattention account posits that being bombarded with information, coupled with limited time and resources, interferes with individuals' ability to accurately reflect on the content (van der Linden, 2022).”
  • Age and social media use may be important in the context of misinformation.

    “Starting with sociodemographic variables, previous literature has revealed that age and social media use may be important in the context of misinformation (van der Linden, 2022).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 121 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Marsh, E. J. & Yang, B. W. in Misinformation and Mass Audiences (eds Southwell, B. G., Thorson, E. A., & Sheble, L) 15-34 (University of Texas Press, 2018).
  2. Rathje, S et al. Meta-analysis reveals that accuracy nudges have little to no effect for US conservatives: Regarding Pennycook et al. (2020). Psychol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.25384/SAGE.12594110.v2 (2021). · DOI
  3. Kahan, D. M. in Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral sciences (eds Scott, R. & Kosslyn, S.) 1-16 (John Wiley & Sons, 2016).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van der Linden, S.
Venue
Nature Medicine
Published
2022-03
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
460-467
ISSN
  • 1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-170X
OpenAlex
W4220844191
Cited by
570
References
121
Citations by year
2026: 106 · 2025: 130 · 2024: 161 · 2023: 126 · 2022: 47
FWCI
19.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Keywords
misinformation, infodemic, misinformation susceptibility, misinformation spread, social networking sites, psychological immunity, misinformation interventions, vaccine uptake, public health recommendations, pandemic response
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Communication, Humans, Pandemics, Social Media

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review