CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 773Misinformation and Its ImpactsDeception detection and forensic psychologyCommunication and COVID-19 Impact

Countering Misinformation and Fake News Through Inoculation and Prebunking

Open access
Lewandowsky, Stephan, van der Linden, Sander·2021·European Review of Social Psychology
DOI 10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

There has been increasing concern with the growing infusion of misinformation, or “fake news”, into public discourse and politics in many western democracies. Our article first briefly reviews the current state of the literature on conventional countermeasures to misinformation. We then explore proactive measures to prevent misinformation from finding traction in the first place that is based on the psychological theory of “inoculation”. Inoculation rests on the idea that if people are forewarned that they might be misinformed and are exposed to weakened examples of the ways in which they might be misled, they will become more immune to misinformation. We review a number of techniques that can boost people’s resilience to misinformation, ranging from general warnings to more specific instructions about misleading (rhetorical) techniques. We show that based on the available evidence, inoculation appears to be a promising avenue to help protect people from misinformation and “fake news”.

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 · 10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983

Cites

22 of 22 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?

  • One reason for sharing disinformation is to advance political or economic agendas, such as delaying climate change policies or undermining tobacco regulations.

    “One reason for sharing disinformation is to advance political or economic agendas, such as delaying climate change policies or undermining tobacco regulations (Lewandowsky, 2021).”

    From Learning to evaluate sources of science (mis)information on the internet: Assessing students' scientific online reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as Lewandowsky, 2021

    The Conclusion says political actors create misinformation in pursuit of political and economic objectives. The sections on inoculation describe climate misinformation and tobacco-industry efforts to undermine the medical consensus about smoking, but do not say these efforts were intended to delay climate policies or undermine tobacco regulations; no page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Misinformation uptake and resistance to correction are shaped by cognitive, affective, and identity-related processes.

    “These vulnerabilities are consistent with broader literature showing that misinformation uptake and resistance to correction are shaped by cognitive, affective, and identity-related processes (Ecker et al., 2022; Lewandowsky and van der Linden, 2021).”

    From Enhancement of modern defense capabilities by convergence of cognitive neuroscience and artificial intelligence (2026) · cites this paper as Lewandowsky and van der Linden, 2021

  • Evidence suggests that pre-bunking can be quite effective at helping individuals identify and resist science misinformation.

    “Evidence suggests that pre-bunking can be quite effective at helping individuals identify and resist science misinformation (e.g., Lewandowsky & van der Linden, 2021;van der Linden, 2023).”

    From Learning to evaluate sources of science (mis)information on the internet: Assessing students' scientific online reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as Lewandowsky & van der Linden, 2021

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

Research works printed but not linked: 95

  1. Amarasingam, A., & Argentino, M.-A. (2020). The QAnon conspiracy theory: A security threat in the making? CTC Sentinel, 13(7), 37-44.
  2. Autran, B., Carcelain, G., Combadiere, B., & Debre, P. (2004). Therapeutic vaccines for chronic infections. Science, 305, 205-208. doi:10.1126/science.1100600 · DOI
  3. Ballew, M. T., Goldberg, M. H., Rosenthal, S. A., Gustafson, A., & Leiserowitz, A. (2019). Systems thinking as a pathway to global warming beliefs and attitudes through an ecological worldview. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 8214-8219. doi:10.1073/pnas.1819310116 · DOI
  4. Basol, M., Roozenbeek, J., & Linden, S. V. der. (2020). Good news about bad news: Gamified inoculation boosts confidence and cognitive immunity against fake news. Journal of Cognition, 3, 1-9. doi:10.5334/joc.91 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Blassnig, S., Büchel, F., Ernst, N., & Engesser, S. (2019). Populism and informal fallacies: An analysis of right-wing populist rhetoric in election campaigns. Argumentation, 33, 107- 136. doi:10.1007/s10503-018-9461-2 · DOI
  6. Braddock, K. (2019). Vaccinating against hate: Using attitudinal inoculation to confer resistance to persuasion by extremist propaganda. Terrorism and Political Violence. doi:10.1080/09546553.2019.1693370 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press.
  8. Brennen, J. S., Simon, F. M., Howard, P. N., & Nielsen, R. K. (2020). Types, sources, and claims of COVID-19 misinformation. Reuters Institute, University of Oxford.
  9. Broniatowski, D. A., Jamison, A. M., Qi, S., AlKulaib, L., Chen, T., Benton, A., … Dredze, M. (2018). Weaponized health communication: Twitter bots and Russian trolls amplify the vaccine debate. American Journal of Public Health, e1-e7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304567 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Budak, C., Agrawal, D., & El Abbadi, A. (2011). Limiting the spread of misinformation in social networks. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on world wide web -WWW '11. doi:10.1145/1963405.1963499 · DOI
  11. Compton, J. (2009). Threat explication: What we know and don't yet know about a key component of inoculation theory. STAM Journal, 39, 1-18.
  12. Compton, J. (2013). Inoculation theory. In J. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice. SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:10.4135/9781452218410 · DOI
  13. Compton, J. (2019). Prophylactic versus therapeutic inoculation treatments for resistance to influence. Communication Theory. doi:10.1093/ct/qtz004 · DOI
  14. Compton, J. A., & Pfau, M. (2005). Inoculation theory of resistance to influence at maturity: Recent progress in theory development and application and suggestions for future research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 29, 97-146. doi:10.1080/23808985.2005.11679045 · DOI
  15. Compton, J., van der Linden, S., Cook, J., & Basol, M. (2019). Inoculation theory and science communication: Extant findings and new directions. Presented at the Paper presented at the 69th conference of the International Communication Association, Washington, D.C.
  16. Cook, J., Maibach, E., van der Linden, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2018). The consensus handbook. doi:10.13021/G8MM6P · DOI
  17. DeStefano, F., & Thompson, W. W. (2004). MMR vaccine and autism: An update of the scientific evidence. Expert Review of Vaccines, 3, 19-22. doi:10.1586/14760584.3.1.19 · DOI
  18. Dillingham, L. L., & Ivanov, B. (2016). Using postinoculation talk to strengthen generated resistance. Communication Research Reports, 33, 295-302. doi:10.1080/08824096.2016.1224161 · DOI
  19. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cheung, C. S. C., & Maybery, M. T. (2015). He did it! She did it! No, she did not! Multiple causal explanations and the continued influence of misinformation. Journal of Memory and Language, 85, 101-115.
  20. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Swire, B., & Chang, D. (2011). Correcting false information in memory: Manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 570-578. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0065-1 · DOI
  21. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., & Tang, D. T. W. (2010). Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1087- 1100. doi:10.3758/MC.38.8.1087 · DOI
  22. Eckles, D., Gordon, B. R., & Johnson, G. A. (2018). Field studies of psychologically targeted ads face threats to internal validity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, E5254-E5255. doi:10.1073/pnas.1805363115 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Epstein, R., & Robertson, R. E. (2015). The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, E4512-E4521. doi:10.1073/pnas.1419828112 · DOI
  24. Fein, S., McCloskey, A. L., & Tomlinson, T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1215-1226. doi:10.1177/01461672972311008 · DOI
  25. Freeman, D., Loe, B. S., Chadwick, A., Vaccari, C., Waite, F., Rosebrock, L., … al. (2020). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK: The Oxford coronavirus explanations, attitudes, and narratives survey (OCEANS) II. Psychological Medicine, 1-34. doi:10.1017/S0033291720005188 · DOI
  26. Freeman, D., Waite, F., Rosebrock, L., Petit, A., Causier, C., East, A., … Lambe, S. (2020). Coronavirus conspiracy beliefs, mistrust, and compliance with government guidelines in England. Psychological Medicine. doi:10.1017/s0033291720001890 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Gills, B., & Morgan, J. (2020). Global Climate Emergency: After COP24, climate science, urgency, and the threat to humanity. Globalizations, 17, 885-902. doi:10.1080/14747731.2019.1669915 · DOI
  28. Godlee, F., Smith, J., & Marcovitch, H. (2011). Wakefield's article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent: Clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 342, 64-66.
  29. Grinberg, N., Joseph, K., Friedland, L., Swire-Thompson, B., & Lazer, D. (2019). Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Science, 363, 374-378. doi:10.1126/science.aau2706 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Guess, A., & Coppock, A. (2018). Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. British Journal of Political Science. doi:10.1017/s0007123418000327 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Guess, A. M., Lockett, D., Lyons, B., Montgomery, J. M., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2020). "Fake news" may have limited effects on political participation beyond increasing beliefs in false claims. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. doi:10.37016/mr-2020-004 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Guess, A. M., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. (2019). Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances, 5, eaau4586. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aau4586 · DOI · Paper page
  33. U.S. election. Nature Human Behavior, in press.
  34. Heawood, J. (2018). Pseudo-public political speech: Democratic implications of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Information Polity, 23, 429-434. doi:10.3233/IP-180009 · DOI
  35. Ivanov, B., Parker, K. A., & Dillingham, L. L. (2018). Testing the limits of inoculation-generated resistance. Western Journal of Communication, 82, 648-665. doi:10.1080/10570314.2018.1454600 · DOI
  36. Jacobson, G. C. (2010). Perception, memory, and partisan polarization on the iraq war. Political Science Quarterly, 125, 31-56.
  37. Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 1420-1436.
  38. Johnson, N. F., Velásquez, N., Restrepo, N. J., Leahy, R., Gabriel, N., Oud, S. E., … Lupu, Y. (2020). The online competition between pro-and anti-vaccination views. Nature. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2281-1 · DOI
  39. Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M. (2017). Prevention is better than cure: Addressing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47, 459-469. doi:10.1111/jasp.12453 Misinformation and Inoculation 51 · DOI
  40. Jolley, D., & Paterson, J. L. (2020). Pylons ablaze: Examining the role of 5G COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and support for violence. British Journal of Social Psychology. doi:10.1111/bjso.12394 · DOI
  41. Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2020). Citizens Versus the Internet: Confronting Digital Challenges With Cognitive Tools. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 21, 103-156. doi:10.1177/1529100620946707 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Kucharski, A. (2016). Study epidemiology of fake news. Nature, 540, 525-525. doi:10.1038/540525a · DOI
  43. Lewandowsky, S. (2020). Wilful construction of ignorance: A tale of two ontologies. In R. Hertwig & C. Engel (Eds.), Deliberate ignorance: Choosing not to know (pp. 101-117). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  44. Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2017a). Letting the gorilla emerge from the mist: Getting past post-truth. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 418- 424. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.11.002 · DOI
  45. Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Fay, N., & Gignac, G. E. (2019a). Science by social media: Attitudes towards climate change are mediated by perceived social consensus. Memory & Cognition, 47, 1445-1456. doi:10.3758/s13421-019-00948-y · DOI
  46. Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., & Lloyd, E. (2016). The "Alice in Wonderland" mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: Simulating coherence by conspiracism. Synthese, 195, 175- 196. doi:10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Oberauer, K., Brophy, S., Lloyd, E. A., & Marriott, M. (2015). Recurrent fury: Conspiratorial discourse in the blogosphere triggered by research on the role of conspiracist ideation in climate denial. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3, 142-178. doi:10.5964/jspp.v3i1.443 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017b). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the post-truth era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 353-369. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Lewandowsky, S., Griffiths, T. L., & Kalish, M. L. (2009). The wisdom of individuals: Exploring people's knowledge about everyday events using iterated learning. Cognitive Science, 33, 969-998. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01045.x · DOI
  50. Lewandowsky, S., Lloyd, E. A., & Brophy, S. (2018). When THUNCing Trumps thinking: What distant alternative worlds can tell us about the real world. Argumenta, 3, 217-231. doi:10.23811/52.arg2017.lew.llo.bro · DOI
  51. Lewandowsky, S., Pilditch, T. D., Madsen, J. K., Oreskes, N., & Risbey, J. S. (2019b). Influence and seepage: An evidence-resistant minority can affect public opinion and scientific belief formation. Cognition, 188, 124-139. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2019.01.011 · DOI
  52. Lewandowsky, S., Stritzke, W. G. K., Oberauer, K., & Morales, M. (2005). Memory for fact, fiction, and misinformation: The Iraq War 2003. Psychological Science, 16, 190-195. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00802.x · DOI
  53. Maertens, R., Anseel, F., & van der Linden, S. (2020). Combatting climate change misinformation: Evidence for longevity of inoculation and consensus messaging effects. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 101455. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101455 · DOI
  54. Matz, S. C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G., & Stillwell, D. J. (2018a). Reply to Sharp et al.: Psychological targeting produces robust effects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, E7891-E7891. doi:10.1073/pnas.1811106115 · DOI
  55. Matz, S. C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G., & Stillwell, D. J. (2018b). Reply to Eckles et al.: facebook's optimization algorithms are highly unlikely to explain the effects of psychological targeting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi:10.1073/pnas.1806854115 · DOI
  56. McCright, A. M., Charters, M., Dentzman, K., & Dietz, T. (2016). Examining the effectiveness of climate change frames in the face of a climate change denial counter-frame. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8, 76-97. doi:10.1111/tops.12171 · DOI · Paper page
  57. McGuire, W. J. (1961). Resistance to persuasion conferred by active and passive prior refutation of the same and alternative counterarguments. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 326-332. doi:10.1037/h0048344 · DOI
  58. McGuire, W. J. (1964). Some contemporary approaches. In Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 191-229). Elsevier. doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60052-0 · DOI
  59. McGuire, W. J. (1970). Vaccine for brainwash. Psychology Today, 3(9), 36-64.
  60. McGuire, W. J., & Papageorgis, D. (1962). Effectiveness of forewarning in developing resistance to persuasion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26, 24-34. doi:10.1086/267068 · DOI
  61. McNutt, J., & Boland, K. (2007). Astroturf, technology and the future of community mobilization: Implications for nonprofit theory. The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 34, 165-178.
  62. Merpert, A., Furman, M., Anauati, M. V., Zommer, L., & Taylor, I. (2018). Is that even checkable? An experimental study in identifying checkable statements in political discourse. Communication Research Reports, 35, 48-57. doi:10.1080/08824096.2017.1366303 · DOI
  63. Mortensen, C. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2010). Full-cycle social psychology for theory and application. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 53-63. doi:10.1111/j.1751- 9004.2009.00239.x · DOI
  64. Murphy, G., Loftus, E. F., Grady, R. H., Levine, L. J., & Greene, C. M. (2019). False memories for fake news during Ireland's abortion referendum. Psychological Science. doi:10.1177/0956797619864887 · DOI
  65. Niederdeppe, J., Gollust, S. E., & Barry, C. L. (2014). Inoculation in competitive framing examining message effects on policy preferences. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78, 634-655. doi:10.1093/poq/nfu026 · DOI
  66. Nyhan, B., Porter, E., Reifler, J., & Wood, T. J. (2019). Taking fact-checks literally but not seriously? The effects of journalistic fact-checking on factual beliefs and candidate favorability. Political Behavior. doi:10.1007/s11109-019-09528-x · DOI
  67. Ognyanova, K., Lazer, D., Robertson, R. E., & Wilson, C. (2020). Misinformation in action: Fake news exposure is linked to lower trust in media, higher trust in government when your side is in power. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. doi:10.37016/mr- 2020-024 · DOI · Paper page
  68. Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing.
  69. Parker, K. A., Ivanov, B., & Compton, J. (2012). Inoculation's efficacy with young adults' risky behaviors: Can inoculation confer cross-protection over related but untreated issues? Health Communication, 27, 223-233. doi:10.1080/10410236.2011.575541 · DOI
  70. Parker, K. A., Rains, S. A., & Ivanov, B. (2016). Examining the "blanket of protection" conferred by inoculation: The effects of inoculation messages on the cross-protection of related attitudes. Communication Monographs, 83, 49-68. doi:10.1080/03637751.2015.1030681 · DOI · Paper page
  71. Peretti-Watel, P., Seror, V., Cortaredona, S., Launay, O., Raude, J., Verger, P., … Ward, J. K. (2020). A future vaccination campaign against COVID-19 at risk of vaccine hesitancy and politicisation. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(20)30426-6 · DOI
  72. Pfau, M., Ivanov, B., Houston, B., Haigh, M., Sims, J., Gilchrist, E., … Richert, N. (2005). Inoculation and mental processing: The instrumental role of associative networks in the process of resistance to counterattitudinal influence. Communication Monographs, 72, 414-441. doi:10.1080/03637750500322578 · DOI
  73. Poland, G. A., & Spier, R. (2010). Fear, misinformation, and innumerates: How the Wakefield paper, the press, and advocacy groups damaged the public health. Vaccine, 28, 2361- 2362.
  74. Pryor, B., & Steinfatt, T. M. (1978). THE EFFECTS OF INITIAL BELIEF LEVEL ON INOCULATION THEORY AND ITS PROPOSED MECHANISMS. Human Communication Research, 4, 217-230. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00611.x · DOI
  75. Quick, B. L., Scott, A. M., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2011). A close examination of trait reactance and issue involvement as moderators of psychological reactance theory. Journal of Health Communication, 16, 660-679. doi:10.1080/10810730.2011.551989 · DOI
  76. Richards, A. S., & Banas, J. A. (2015). Inoculating against reactance to persuasive health messages. Health Communication, 30, 451-460. doi:10.1080/10410236.2013.867005 · DOI
  77. Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2018). The fake news game: Actively inoculating against the risk of misinformation. Journal of Risk Research 22(5), 570-580. doi:10.1080/13669877.2018.1443491 · DOI
  78. Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2019). Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Nature Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 5 (65). doi:10.1057/s41599-019-0279-9 · DOI · Paper page
  79. Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2020). Breaking Harmony Square: A game that "inoculates" against political misinformation. The Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review 1(8). doi: 10.37016/mr-2020-47 · DOI
  80. Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S., & Nygren, T. (2020). Prebunking interventions based on the psychological theory of "inoculation" can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review 1(2). doi:10.37016//mr-2020- 008 · DOI
  81. Roozenbeek, J., Schneider, C. R., Dryhurst, S., Kerr, J., Freeman, A. L., Recchia, G., ... & van der Linden, S. (2020b). Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. Royal Society Open Science, 7(10), 201199. doi: 10.1098/rsos.201199 · DOI · Paper page
  82. Sharp, B., Danenberg, N., & Bellman, S. (2018). Psychological targeting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, E7890-E7890. doi:10.1073/pnas.1810436115 · DOI
  83. Soroka, S., Fournier, P., & Nir, L. (2019). Cross-national evidence of a negativity bias in psychophysiological reactions to news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 18888-18892. doi:10.1073/pnas.1908369116 · DOI · Paper page
  84. Swire, B., Berinsky, A. J., Lewandowsky, S., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2017). Processing political misinformation: Comprehending the Trump phenomenon. Royal Society Open Science, 4, 160802. doi:10.1098/rsos.160802 · DOI
  85. Swire, B., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2017). Misinformation and its correction: Cognitive mechanisms and recommendations for mass communication. In B. Southwell, E. A. Thorson, & L. Sheble (Eds.), Misinformation and mass audiences. Austin, tx: University of texas press.
  86. Swire-Thompson, B., Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., & Berinsky, A. J. (2020). They might be a liar but they're my liar: Source evaluation and the prevalence of misinformation. Political Psychology, 41, 21-34. doi:10.1111/pops.12586 · DOI
  87. Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2004). Source credibility and attitude certainty: A metacognitive analysis of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 427-442. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_11 · DOI
  88. van der Linden, S. (2019). Countering science denial. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(9), 889-890. doi: 10.1038/s41562-019-0631-5 · DOI
  89. van der Linden, S., & Roozenbeek, J. (2020). Psychological inoculation against fake news. In R. Greifeneder, M. Jaffé, E.J. Newman, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), The psychology of fake news: Misinformation and Inoculation 62 Accepting, sharing, and correcting misinformation (pp 147-169). London, UK: Psychology Press.
  90. Walter, N., & Murphy, S. T. (2018). How to unring the bell: A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation. Communication Monographs, 85, 423-441. doi:10.1080/03637751.2018.1467564 · DOI · Paper page
  91. Watson, L. (2018). Systematic epistemic rights violations in the media: A Brexit case study. Social Epistemology, 32, 88-102. doi:10.1080/02691728.2018.1440022 · DOI
  92. Wood, M. L. M. (2007). Rethinking the inoculation analogy: Effects on subjects with differing preexisting attitudes. Human Communication Research, 33, 357-378. doi:10.1111/j.1468- 2958.2007.00303.x · DOI
  93. Wood, T., & Porter, E. (2018). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes' steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior. doi:10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y · DOI · Paper page
  94. Youyou, W., Kosinski, M., & Stillwell, D. (2015). Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 1036-1040. doi:10.1073/pnas.1418680112 · DOI · Paper page
  95. Zerback, T., Töpfl, F., & Knöpfle, M. (2020). The disconcerting potential of online disinformation: Persuasive effects of astroturfing comments and three strategies for inoculation against them. New Media & Society. doi:10.1177/1461444820908530 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lewandowsky, S., & van der Linden, S.
Affiliations
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
  • Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge
Corresponding author
Lewandowsky, Stephan
ORCID
Venue
European Review of Social Psychology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2021-02-22
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
348-384
ISSN
  • 1046-3283 (ISSN-L)
  • 1479-277X
DOI
10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983
OpenAlex
W3130700834
Cited by
773
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 144 · 2025: 181 · 2024: 154 · 2023: 173 · 2022: 91 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 1
FWCI
154.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • European Review of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
Keywords
misinformation, fake news, inoculation, prebunking, misinformation resistance, political communication, public discourse

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