The DOI matches its Crossref record; 114 of the 121 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Misinformation: susceptibility, spread, and interventions to immunize the public
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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).”
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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).”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as 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.
Citations
Cites
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
The spread of true and false news online
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aap9559 · Cited by 8,847
Re-epithelialization and immune cell behaviour in an ex vivo human skin model
Rakita, A., Nikolić, N., Mildner, M., Matiasek, J., & Elbe‐Bürger, A. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-56847-4 · Cited by 8,234
Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.31.2.211 · Cited by 6,767
Lazer, D. M. J., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., Metzger, M. J., Nyhan, B., Pennycook, G., Rothschild, D., et al. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aao2998 · Cited by 4,160
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612451018 · Cited by 2,920
The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks
Braman, D., Kahan, D. M., Peters, E. M., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., & Mandel, G. N. (2012) · Scholarly Commons - George Washington University Law School (George Washington University) · Cited by 2,421
The spreading of misinformation online
Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Petroni, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Stanley, H. E., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1517441113 · Cited by 2,407
In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2003) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012 · Cited by 2,397
Zarocostas, J. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30461-x · Cited by 2,344
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Tandoc, E. C. Jr et al. Defining ‘fake news’ a typology of scholarly definitions. Digit. J. 6, 137–153 (2018).
- 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).
- Roozenbeek, J. & van der Linden, S. Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 5, 1–10 (2019).
- 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
- Kahan, D. M. in Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral sciences (eds Scott, R. & Kosslyn, S.) 1–16 (John Wiley & Sons, 2016).
- Papageorgis, D. & McGuire, W. J. The generality of immunity to persuasion produced by pre-exposure to weakened counterarguments. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 62, 475–481 (1961).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Psychological Inoculation against Misinformation: Current Evidence and Future Directions
Traberg, C. S., Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2022) · The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · doi:10.1177/00027162221087936 · Cited by 224
Combating misinformation in the age of LLMs: Opportunities and challenges
Chen, C., & Shu, K. (2024) · AI Magazine · doi:10.1002/aaai.12188 · Cited by 148
Quantifying the impact of misinformation and vaccine-skeptical content on Facebook
Allen, J. N. L., Watts, D. J., & Rand, D. G. (2024) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adk3451 · Cited by 173
A systematic review of communication interventions for countering vaccine misinformation
Whitehead, H. S., French, C. E., Caldwell, D. M., Letley, L. H., & Mounier‐Jack, S. (2023) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.12.059 · Cited by 155
Roozenbeek, J., Culloty, E., & Suiter, J. (2023) · European Psychologist · doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000492 · Cited by 151
Metadata
- Authors
- van der Linden, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Corresponding author
- van der Linden, Sander
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
