The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 37 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media
Open accessAbstract
Online misinformation continues to have adverse consequences for society. Inoculation theory has been put forward as a way to reduce susceptibility to misinformation by informing people about how they might be misinformed, but its scalability has been elusive both at a theoretical level and a practical level. We developed five short videos that inoculate people against manipulation techniques commonly used in misinformation: emotionally manipulative language, incoherence, false dichotomies, scapegoating, and ad hominem attacks. In seven preregistered studies, i.e., six randomized controlled studies ( n = 6464) and an ecologically valid field study on YouTube ( n = 22,632), we find that these videos improve manipulation technique recognition, boost confidence in spotting these techniques, increase people’s ability to discern trustworthy from untrustworthy content, and improve the quality of their sharing decisions. These effects are robust across the political spectrum and a wide variety of covariates. We show that psychological inoculation campaigns on social media are effective at improving misinformation resilience at scale.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Five short inoculation videos targeting manipulation techniques improved recognition, confidence, trustworthiness discernment, and sharing decisions in six randomized studies (n = 6464) and a YouTube field study (n = 22,632). Effects were robust across the political spectrum and covariates, though the YouTube field effect narrowly missed the preregistered smallest effect size of interest.
Key findings
- In studies 1–5, 16 of 20 preregistered outcome measures were supported; technique-recognition effect sizes ranged from Cohen’s d = 0.28 for scapegoating to d = 0.68 for false dichotomies. Nonsignificant effects were confidence and sharing for incoherence (study 2) and trustworthiness and sharing for scapegoating (study 4).
- Study 6 replicated the emotional-language video: technique recognition P < 0.001, d = 0.67; trustworthiness P < 0.001, d = 0.44; sharing P < 0.001, d = 0.34. Outcome-measure response order did not significantly interact with condition (all P > 0.351).
- In the YouTube field study (study 7), all six headlines combined showed significantly higher correct identification in treatment vs. control (P < 0.001, Cohen’s h = 0.09); emotional language P = 0.009, h = 0.05; false dichotomies P < 0.001, h = 0.13. The overall effect narrowly failed the preregistered SESOI of h = 0.10.
- Moderation analyses found no consistently significant two-way interactions between experimental condition and covariates including gender, age, education, political ideology, news checking, social media use, populism, bullshit receptivity, conspiracy belief, analytical thinking, numeracy, personality, actively open-minded thinking, and misinformation susceptibility.
Methods
- Seven preregistered studies: five randomized controlled studies testing five videos (total n = 5416, U.S. national quota samples), a replication of the emotional-language study (study 6, n = 1068), and an ecologically valid YouTube field study (study 7, n = 22,632).
- In studies 1–6, participants were randomly assigned to watch a 1.5-min inoculation video or a neutral control video, then rated 10 synthetic social media posts (manipulative or neutral) on technique recognition, confidence, trustworthiness, and willingness to share; main outcomes used discernment scores (manipulative vs. neutral difference).
- Study 7 ran two videos as YouTube ads; a random 30% of viewers were shown one test question within 24 hours, and a matched control group answered the same question without seeing an inoculation video. Analyses included independent-samples t tests, Bayesian analyses, moderation regressions, and two-proportion z tests.
Limitations
- The paper states: the field study could not assess how long inoculation effects remain significant beyond the 24-hour window; videos and samples were tailored to U.S. audiences, so transfer to other cultural and linguistic settings is unknown; cross-protection against non-inoculated techniques was not investigated; manipulative and neutral stimuli were not exact mirrors; YouTube participants each saw only a single test item; and the YouTube study assessed susceptibility, not behavior such as sharing or watch time.
- Evident from the text: laboratory sharing outcomes were self-reported willingness to share rather than observed sharing behavior, and the YouTube field effect was small (h = 0.09) and missed the preregistered SESOI overall.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 37 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Figure 2 and Table 1 show that our preregistered hypotheses (see Materials and Methods) are supported for 16 of 20 outcome measures, except for the confidence and sharing measures for the incoherence video (study 2) and the trustworthiness and sharing measures for the scapegoating video (study 4)”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > RESULTS > Studies 1 to 5: Testing the interventions in the laboratory
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Nonpolitical and fictitious humorous examples avoid any appearance of partisan bias and prevent triggering defensive motivated cognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The manipulative stimuli clearly make use of a specific manipulation technique, and the neutral counterparts do not.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We thus find that watching an inoculation video improves people’s ability to recognize manipulation techniques in social media content and increases their confidence in their ability to do so.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“boost confidence in spotting these techniques”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > RESULTS > Studies 1 to 5: Testing the interventions in the laboratory
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Nonpolitical and fictitious humorous examples avoid any appearance of partisan bias and prevent triggering defensive motivated cognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The manipulative stimuli clearly make use of a specific manipulation technique, and the neutral counterparts do not.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We replicate the results from study 1: Participants in the inoculation group have significantly higher discernment than the control group for technique recognition (P < 0.001, d = 0.67), trustworthiness (P < 0.001, d = 0.44), and sharing (P < 0.001, d = 0.34)”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > RESULTS > Study 6: Replication and order effects
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Nonpolitical and fictitious humorous examples avoid any appearance of partisan bias and prevent triggering defensive motivated cognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The manipulative stimuli clearly make use of a specific manipulation technique, and the neutral counterparts do not.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is true for both the emotional language video (P = 0.009, h = 0.05) and for the false dichotomies video (P < 0.001, h = 0.13).”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > RESULTS > Study 7: Testing the interventions on YouTube
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: YouTube users in the treatment and control groups are comparable except for exposure to the inoculation video.
- Rests on an assumption: The single-item test question embedded within YouTube is a valid measure of manipulation technique recognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The headlines used in study 7 contain a particular manipulation technique.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that there are no consistently significant two-way interactions between the experimental condition and each of the covariates.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > RESULTS > Studies 1 to 6: Moderation analyses
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Nonpolitical and fictitious humorous examples avoid any appearance of partisan bias and prevent triggering defensive motivated cognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The manipulative stimuli clearly make use of a specific manipulation technique, and the neutral counterparts do not.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and the trustworthiness and sharing measures for the scapegoating video (study 4)”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > RESULTS > Studies 1 to 5: Testing the interventions in the laboratory
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Nonpolitical and fictitious humorous examples avoid any appearance of partisan bias and prevent triggering defensive motivated cognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The manipulative stimuli clearly make use of a specific manipulation technique, and the neutral counterparts do not.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We replicate the results from study 1: Participants in the inoculation group have significantly higher discernment than the control group for technique recognition (P < 0.001, d = 0.67), trustworthiness (P < 0.001, d = 0.44), and sharing (P < 0.001, d = 0.34)”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > RESULTS > Study 6: Replication and order effects
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Nonpolitical and fictitious humorous examples avoid any appearance of partisan bias and prevent triggering defensive motivated cognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The manipulative stimuli clearly make use of a specific manipulation technique, and the neutral counterparts do not.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we find that outcome measure response order did not significantly interact with the experimental condition for any of the three outcome measures (all P values > 0.351; see table S50).”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > RESULTS > Study 6: Replication and order effects
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Nonpolitical and fictitious humorous examples avoid any appearance of partisan bias and prevent triggering defensive motivated cognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The manipulative stimuli clearly make use of a specific manipulation technique, and the neutral counterparts do not.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We replicate the results from study 1: Participants in the inoculation group have significantly higher discernment than the control group for technique recognition (P < 0.001, d = 0.67), trustworthiness (P < 0.001, d = 0.44), and sharing (P < 0.001, d = 0.34)”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > RESULTS > Study 6: Replication and order effects
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Nonpolitical and fictitious humorous examples avoid any appearance of partisan bias and prevent triggering defensive motivated cognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The manipulative stimuli clearly make use of a specific manipulation technique, and the neutral counterparts do not.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two-tailed two-proportion z tests show that the proportion of correct answers to all six headlines combined is significantly higher in the treatment compared to the control condition (P < 0.001, Cohen’s h = 0.09).”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > RESULTS > Study 7: Testing the interventions on YouTube
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: YouTube users in the treatment and control groups are comparable except for exposure to the inoculation video.
- Rests on an assumption: The single-item test question embedded within YouTube is a valid measure of manipulation technique recognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The headlines used in study 7 contain a particular manipulation technique.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 21
- Probably not a substantial claim. 38
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When considering each video on its own, the SESOI was not met for the emotional language video but it was met for the false dichotomies video”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > RESULTS > Study 7: Testing the interventions on YouTube
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: YouTube users in the treatment and control groups are comparable except for exposure to the inoculation video.
- Rests on an assumption: The single-item test question embedded within YouTube is a valid measure of manipulation technique recognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The headlines used in study 7 contain a particular manipulation technique.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, although we find significant effects for both videos, we narrowly failed to reach our preregistered smallest effect size of interest (SESOI) of h = 0.10, with an observed effect size of h = 0.09 across all six items.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > RESULTS > Study 7: Testing the interventions on YouTube
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: YouTube users in the treatment and control groups are comparable except for exposure to the inoculation video.
- Rests on an assumption: The single-item test question embedded within YouTube is a valid measure of manipulation technique recognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The headlines used in study 7 contain a particular manipulation technique.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As part of this study, a total of around 967,000 YouTube users watched one of the inoculation videos.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > RESULTS > Study 7: Testing the interventions on YouTube
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: YouTube users in the treatment and control groups are comparable except for exposure to the inoculation video.
- Rests on an assumption: The single-item test question embedded within YouTube is a valid measure of manipulation technique recognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The headlines used in study 7 contain a particular manipulation technique.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, the videos improve people’s ability to distinguish trustworthy and untrustworthy content, as well as the quality of their sharing decisions (i.e., they are either less likely to share manipulative content with others or more likely to share neutral/non-manipulative content).”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“improve the quality of their sharing decisions”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > RESULTS > Studies 1 to 5: Testing the interventions in the laboratory
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Nonpolitical and fictitious humorous examples avoid any appearance of partisan bias and prevent triggering defensive motivated cognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The manipulative stimuli clearly make use of a specific manipulation technique, and the neutral counterparts do not.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, discernment is significantly higher in the inoculation condition than the control condition for all three outcome measures when looking at each of the three response orders individually (all P values < 0.003; see table S51)”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > RESULTS > Study 6: Replication and order effects
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Nonpolitical and fictitious humorous examples avoid any appearance of partisan bias and prevent triggering defensive motivated cognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The manipulative stimuli clearly make use of a specific manipulation technique, and the neutral counterparts do not.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Crucially, we replicated these results in an ecologically valid setting on YouTube, boosting manipulation technique recognition by about 5% on average”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: YouTube users in the treatment and control groups are comparable except for exposure to the inoculation video.
- Rests on an assumption: The single-item test question embedded within YouTube is a valid measure of manipulation technique recognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The headlines used in study 7 contain a particular manipulation technique.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nineteen of 23 hypothesized effects from studies 1 to 6 were significant, and three of the four effects that were not significant were in the hypothesized direction.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > DISCUSSION
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Nonpolitical and fictitious humorous examples avoid any appearance of partisan bias and prevent triggering defensive motivated cognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The manipulative stimuli clearly make use of a specific manipulation technique, and the neutral counterparts do not.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although our field study found that the videos were effective within a 24-hour window (with a median time of 18.4 hours between watching the video and responding to the survey question)”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > DISCUSSION
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: YouTube users in the treatment and control groups are comparable except for exposure to the inoculation video.
- Rests on an assumption: The single-item test question embedded within YouTube is a valid measure of manipulation technique recognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The headlines used in study 7 contain a particular manipulation technique.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“over a period of 15 days, the videos were shown to about 5.4 million people, or around 350,000 per day (see table S56).”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > DISCUSSION
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In total, 22,632 participants (11,432 treatment and 11,200 control) answered a test question.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > MATERIALS AND METHODS > Sample and procedure
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 22,632Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Over this period, the videos were shown to about 5.4 million YouTube users.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > MATERIALS AND METHODS > Sample and procedure
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A total of 967,347 people watched either the emotional language video (422,371 views) or the false dichotomies video (544,976 views) as a YouTube ad for 30 s or more; see table S56.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > MATERIALS AND METHODS > Sample and procedure
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 967,347Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The average cost per 30-s video view was $0.05.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > MATERIALS AND METHODS > Sample and procedure
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“Establishing what counts as factual information is epistemologically difficult, particularly in the context of politics (9);”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] S. Coleman, The elusiveness of political truth: From the conceit of objectivity to intersubjective judgement. Eur. J. Commun. 33, 157– 171 (2018). source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Debunking misinformation is also problematic because correcting misinformation does not always nullify its effects entirely, a phenomenon known as the “continued influence effect” (13).”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] S. Lewandowsky, U. K. H. Ecker, C. M. Seifert, N. Schwarz, J. Cook, Misinformation and its correction. Psychol. Sci. Public Interes. 13, 106– 131 (2012). 26173286 source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“belief in misinformation about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been linked to reduced willingness to get vaccinated against the disease and lower intentions to comply with public health measures (2, 3).”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] J. Roozenbeek, C. R. Schneider, S. Dryhurst, J. Kerr, A. L. J. Freeman, G. Recchia, A. M. van der Bles, S. van der Linden, Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7, 201199 (2020). 33204475 PMC7657933 source
- Not checked yetcites [3] S. Loomba, A. de Figueiredo, S. J. Piatek, K. de Graaf, H. J. Larson, Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 337– 348 (2021). 33547453 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Inoculation theory follows a medical immunization analogy and posits that it is possible to build psychological resistance against unwanted persuasion attempts, much like medical inoculations build physiological resistance against pathogens.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] W. J. McGuire, D. Papageorgis, The relative efficacy of various types of prior belief-defense in producing immunity against persuasion. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 62, 327– 337 (1961). 13773992 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“prebunking has gained prominence as a means to preemptively build resilience against anticipated exposure to misinformation (4).”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4] J. Roozenbeek, S. van der Linden, Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 5, 1– 10 (2019).
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“testing the effectiveness of interventions in the real world (as opposed to a laboratory setting) is complicated (6).”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] G. Pennycook, Z. Epstein, M. Mosleh, A. Arechar, D. Eckles, D. G. Rand, Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature 592, 590– 595 (2021). 33731933 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Online misinformation continues to have adverse consequences for society.”
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · plain
“Online misinformation is an important societal problem (1).”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] S. Lewandowsky, U. K. H. Ecker, J. Cook, Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “Post-Truth” era. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6, 353– 369 (2017). source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These five techniques were taken from the broader literature on argumentation and manipulation strategies and are consistently identified as epistemologically dubious: (i) using emotionally manipulative rhetoric to evoke outrage, anger, or other strong emotions (18, 22), (ii) the use of incoherent or mutually exclusive arguments (23), (iii) presenting false dichotomies or dilemmas (24), (iv) scape”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > INTRODUCTION > The present research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18] C. Carrasco-Farré, The fingerprints of misinformation: How deceptive content differs from reliable sources in terms of cognitive effort and appeal to emotions. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 9, 162 (2022). source
- Not checked yetcites [22] W. J. Brady, J. A. Wills, J. T. Jost, J. A. Tucker, J. J. Van Bavel, Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 7313– 7318 (2017). 28652356 PMC5514704 source
- Not checked yetcites [23] S. Lewandowsky, J. Cook, E. A. Lloyd, The “Alice in Wonderland” mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: Simulating coherence by conspiracism. Synthese 195, 175– 196 (2016). source
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“traditional inoculation research has focused on building resilience against specific persuasive attacks (15).”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] J. Compton, in The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion: Developments in Theory and Practice, J. P. Dillard, L. Shen, Eds. (SAGE Publications Inc., ed. 2, 2013), pp. 220–236. source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each post was randomly either manipulative (i.e., it made use of a manipulation technique) or a neutral counterpart (similar in content and length to the manipulative post but not making use of the manipulation technique).”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > INTRODUCTION > The present research
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Psychological inoculation treatments contain two core components (15): (i) a forewarning that induces a perceived threat of an impending attack on one’s attitudes and (ii) exposure to a weakened (micro)dose of misinformation that contains a preemptive refutation (or prebunk) of the anticipated misleading arguments or persuasion techniques.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] J. Compton, in The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion: Developments in Theory and Practice, J. P. Dillard, L. Shen, Eds. (SAGE Publications Inc., ed. 2, 2013), pp. 220–236. source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These tropes, which include manipulation techniques such as logical fallacies (20) and emotionally manipulative language (18), can be analyzed and used for inoculation without prior knowledge of specific misleading content, thus potentially providing broad resilience against social media or news content that draws on one or more of the techniques that someone has been inoculated against.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] E. K. Vraga, S. C. Kim, J. Cook, Testing logic-based and humor-based corrections for science, health, and political misinformation on social media. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 63, 393– 414 (2019). source
- Not checked yetcites [18] C. Carrasco-Farré, The fingerprints of misinformation: How deceptive content differs from reliable sources in terms of cognitive effort and appeal to emotions. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 9, 162 (2022). source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In seven preregistered studies”
- Also stated in: § The present research · plain
“We conducted seven preregistered studies to test the effectiveness of these videos as a way to inoculate people against online misinformation”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > Abstract
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § The present research · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In studies 1 to 6, participants were randomly assigned to watch either a 1.5-min inoculation video or a neutral control video of approximately equal length.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > INTRODUCTION > The present research
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“how to reduce misinformation susceptibility in real-world environments where misinformation is regularly consumed (such as social media and video sharing platforms) remains an open question (21).”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] H. O.-Y. Li, A. Bailey, D. Huynh, J. Chan, YouTube as a source of information on COVID-19: A pandemic of misinformation? BMJ Glob. Heal. 5, e002604 (2020). PMC7228483 32409327 source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✗ Asserted: fails✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
In the paper
“priming people to be more mindful of accuracy (through so-called accuracy nudges or accuracy prompts) was found to prompt Twitter users to share more high-quality sources such as CNN and the New York Times (6).”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] G. Pennycook, Z. Epstein, M. Mosleh, A. Arechar, D. Eckles, D. G. Rand, Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature 592, 590– 595 (2021). 33731933 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The relative reduced effectiveness of the scapegoating and incoherence videos compared to the other three videos may be explained by variations in baseline discernment across techniques (i.e., participants in the control group were better at identifying the scapegoating/incoherence technique than other techniques even without an intervention)”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > RESULTS > Studies 1 to 5: Testing the interventions in the laboratory
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Nonpolitical and fictitious humorous examples avoid any appearance of partisan bias and prevent triggering defensive motivated cognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The manipulative stimuli clearly make use of a specific manipulation technique, and the neutral counterparts do not.
In the paper
“we were unable to investigate to what extent watching one inoculation video confers psychological resistance against manipulation techniques against which people were not specifically inoculated, a phenomenon known as “cross-protection” (48).”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [48] K. A. Parker, S. A. Rains, B. Ivanov, Examining the “blanket of protection” conferred by inoculation: The effects of inoculation messages on the cross-protection of related attitudes. Commun. Monogr. 83, 49– 68 (2016). source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across seven high-powered preregistered studies including a field experiment on YouTube, with a total of nearly 30,000 participants, we find that watching short inoculation videos improves people’s ability to identify manipulation techniques commonly used in online misinformation, both in a laboratory setting and in a real-world environment where exposure to misinformation is common.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Nonpolitical and fictitious humorous examples avoid any appearance of partisan bias and prevent triggering defensive motivated cognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The manipulative stimuli clearly make use of a specific manipulation technique, and the neutral counterparts do not.
- Rests on an assumption: YouTube users in the treatment and control groups are comparable except for exposure to the inoculation video.
- Rests on an assumption: The single-item test question embedded within YouTube is a valid measure of manipulation technique recognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The headlines used in study 7 contain a particular manipulation technique.
In the paper
“These effect sizes are also generally larger than those of existing scalable interventions. For comparison, digital literacy tips (consisting of a short text pointing out various ways to spot false news, such as looking at the validity of the source) were found to improve detection of false headlines with a Cohen’s d of 0.20 (45).”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [45] A. M. Guess, M. Lerner, B. Lyons, J. M. Montgomery, B. Nyhan, J. Reifler, N. Sircar, A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 15536– 15545 (2020). 32571950 PMC7355018 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“participants in our YouTube field study each only saw a single test item, as it was only possible to embed a single question at the end of YouTube videos”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > DISCUSSION
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The single-item test question embedded within YouTube is a valid measure of manipulation technique recognition.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We show that these interventions are effective for people with different ideological backgrounds and cognitive styles and are generalizable to a wide variety of key issue domains.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Nonpolitical and fictitious humorous examples avoid any appearance of partisan bias and prevent triggering defensive motivated cognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The manipulative stimuli clearly make use of a specific manipulation technique, and the neutral counterparts do not.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“our YouTube field study only assessed misinformation susceptibility and not people’s behavior (such as the sharing of misinformation with others or for how long people watch low-quality content on YouTube).”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > DISCUSSION
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“both the videos and the study were tailored to U.S. audiences, and our samples consisted of U.S. residents.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > DISCUSSION
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our field study thus confirms that inoculation videos could be run as public-service ads ahead of potentially harmful content and thereby easily scaled across millions of users.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: YouTube users in the treatment and control groups are comparable except for exposure to the inoculation video.
- Rests on an assumption: The single-item test question embedded within YouTube is a valid measure of manipulation technique recognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The headlines used in study 7 contain a particular manipulation technique.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When optimizing for views (rather than survey responses) and with a larger budget, it is very doable to reach millions of people.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All stimuli were reviewed by four experts and covered the use of manipulation techniques in contexts in which misinformation is common (such as climate change) but did not cover the same topics as the inoculation videos (see note x in the Supplementary Materials).”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > MATERIALS AND METHODS > Stimuli
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each sample was nationally balanced on the U.S. population on age, gender, and ethnicity.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > MATERIALS AND METHODS > Sample and procedure
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 6,464Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For studies 1 to 5, we preregistered that we would first collect a pilot sample of n = 200 responses (halting data collection at this point and analyzing the pilot data) to ensure that the survey was properly implemented and responses were collected correctly. After ensuring this, we resumed data collection for the remaining 884 target responses.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > MATERIALS AND METHODS
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 200Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In seven preregistered studies (and one pilot study), we tested the efficacy of each of these videos using a randomized controlled design.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > MATERIALS AND METHODS
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In seven preregistered studies (and one pilot study), we tested the efficacy of each of these videos using a randomized controlled design.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > MATERIALS AND METHODS
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants were randomly assigned to one of three response orders (after being randomly assigned to an experimental condition): MTS (n = 364), TSM (n = 361), or SMT (n = 343).”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > MATERIALS AND METHODS > Outcome measures
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the ad hominem study (study 5), an error in the approval process meant that the preregistration was approved by all authors after data were already collected; however, the wording of the preregistration itself was not changed.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > MATERIALS AND METHODS
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We therefore conducted a stimulus validation test (using sentiment analysis) to confirm whether the manipulative stimuli capture the intended dimension of (manipulative) emotionality (and the neutral stimuli do not), for which we refer to Supplementary Analyses.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > MATERIALS AND METHODS > Stimuli
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In study 7, because of the limitations of the YouTube brand lift survey feature, we were only able to implement one test question per participant.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > MATERIALS AND METHODS > Outcome measures
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For both the manipulative and neutral posts, source information (profile picture, name, username, etc.) was blacked out to avoid biasing participants’ responses.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > MATERIALS AND METHODS > Stimuli
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The pilot study (n = 194; see table S2 for the main results) was conducted with the emotional language video to validate our stimuli sets and outcome measures.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > MATERIALS AND METHODS
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 194Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As we were limited in the number of test questions that we could administer because of the cost of running the YouTube campaign (see table S56) and were primarily interested in participants’ ability to identify manipulation techniques, we only included test questions that contained a manipulation technique and no control/neutral items.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > MATERIALS AND METHODS > Outcome measures
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We provide evidence that these videos are effective not only in a laboratory setting but also “in the wild” on a video sharing platform and can therefore be easily implemented at scale to improve resilience against misinformation at a cost of about $0.05 per video view.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: YouTube users in the treatment and control groups are comparable except for exposure to the inoculation video.
- Rests on an assumption: The single-item test question embedded within YouTube is a valid measure of manipulation technique recognition.
- Rests on an assumption: The headlines used in study 7 contain a particular manipulation technique.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We ensured that there was no overlap between users for the different test questions.”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > MATERIALS AND METHODS > Sample and procedure
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 22,632Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“we also included the following measures as covariates, which research has shown are associated with susceptibility to misinformation:”
§ Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media > MATERIALS AND METHODS > Covariates
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [35] A. Akkerman, C. Mudde, A. Zaslove, How populist are the people? measuring populist attitudes in voters. Comp. Polit. Stud. 47, 1324– 1353 (2013). source
- Not checked yetcites [38] S. Frederick, Cognitive reflection and decision making. J. Econ. Perspect. 19, 25– 42 (2005). source
- Not checked yetcites [50] M. E. Toplak, R. F. West, K. E. Stanovich, The cognitive reflection test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Mem. Cogn. 39, 1275– 1289 (2011). 21541821 source
- Not checked yetcites [36] G. Pennycook, J. A. Cheyne, N. Barr, D. J. Koehler, J. A. Fugelsang, On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 10, 549– 563 (2015). source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Nonpolitical and fictitious humorous examples avoid any appearance of partisan bias and prevent triggering defensive motivated cognition.
“All examples are nonpolitical and fictitious, in addition to being humorous, to avoid any appearance of partisan bias and prevent triggering defensive motivated cognition.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The manipulative stimuli clearly make use of a specific manipulation technique, and the neutral counterparts do not.
“The manipulative stimuli were not always necessarily false in the sense that they made verifiably untrue claims; rather, they were designed to clearly make use of a specific manipulation technique.”
The paper relies on this without support.
YouTube users in the treatment and control groups are comparable except for exposure to the inoculation video.
“a control group (a group of YouTube users matched to the treatment group in terms of demographics, who were not shown an inoculation video but did answer one of the test questions)”
The paper relies on this without support.
The single-item test question embedded within YouTube is a valid measure of manipulation technique recognition.
“a random 30% of this group was shown one single-item test question embedded within the YouTube environment, which consisted of a headline containing a particular manipulation technique”
The paper relies on this without support.
The headlines used in study 7 contain a particular manipulation technique.
“which consisted of a headline containing a particular manipulation technique (the headlines were adapted from the stimuli used in studies 1 and 3)”
The paper relies on this without support.
The control video (a SciShow video about freezer burn) was of similar length and aesthetic to the inoculation videos and its content was unrelated to online misinformation.
“the control group watched a video of similar length and aesthetic, but with content unrelated to online misinformation (specifically: a SciShow video about freezer burn, found here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPEtOaGTZ0s&t=8s).”
The paper relies on this without support.
For studies 2 to 5 (incoherence, false dichotomies, scapegoating, and ad hominem), the manipulation techniques can be clearly defined and embedded in the stimuli.
“For studies 2 to 5 (incoherence, false dichotomies, scapegoating, and ad hominem), stimuli design was straightforward, as these techniques can be clearly defined and embedded in the stimuli.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The single test question embedded within YouTube in study 7 validly measures participants' ability to identify manipulation techniques.
“Participants were shown a single sentence containing a manipulation technique (either emotional language or a false dichotomy; the stimuli themselves were taken from studies 1 and 3, with minor adaptations due to length limitations; see the “Stimuli” section below) and were asked to indicate what technique is used (four response options: one correct and three incorrect).”
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
“These results support recent research showing that educational material on common misinformation techniques can improve people’s ability to discern trustworthiness from untrustworthy videos89.”
From Human detection of political speech deepfakes across transcripts, audio, and video (2024) · cites this paper as [89]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Similarly, in a field study on YouTube, videos containing micro-doses of common misinformation techniques increased discernment of online manipulation tactics (39).”
From The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making (2024) · cites this paper as [39]
Citations
Cites
A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/s0092-6566(03)00046-1 · Cited by 8,307
Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making
Frederick, S. (2005) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/089533005775196732 · Cited by 5,256
Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response
Bavel, J. J. V., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., Crockett, M. J., Crum, A. J., Douglas, K. M., Druckman, J. N., et al. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z · Cited by 4,964 · cited 2×
“…to the initial misinformation ( 10 ); getting people to believe fact-checks is challenging ( 11 ); effective interventions are hard to scale to a population level ( 12 ); and testing the effectiveness of interventions in the real world (as opposed to a laboratory setting) is complicated ( 6 ).”
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 · cited 1×
“De-bunking misinformation is also problematic because correcting mis-information does not always nullify its effects entirely, a phenomenon known as the “continued influence effect” ( 13 ).”
Self-citationPennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011 · Cited by 2,022
Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era.
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008 · Cited by 1,985
Self-citationMeasuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA
Loomba, S., de Figueiredo, A., Piatek, S. J., de Graaf, K., & Larson, H. J. (2021) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1 · Cited by 1,800
Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G. (2020) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797620939054 · Cited by 1,715
Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks
Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1618923114 · Cited by 1,580 · cited 2×
“These videos were designed to “inoculate” people against being misled by flawed argumentation used in common online misinformation, such as excessively emotional language with an aim to invoke anger or outrage ( 22 ).”
Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world
Roozenbeek, J., Schneider, C. R., Dryhurst, S., Kerr, J., Freeman, A. L. J., Recchia, G., van der Bles, A. M., & van der Linden, S. (2020) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.201199 · Cited by 1,447
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- M. Mosleh C. Martel D. Eckles D. G. Rand in CHI ‘21: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama Japan 8 to 13 May 2021) pp. 1–13.
- D. Walton Ad Hominem Arguments (The University of Alabama Press 1998).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making
Capraro, V., Lentsch, A., Acemoglu, D., Akgun, S., Akhmedova, A., Bilancini, E., Bonnefon, J.-F., Brañas-Garza, P., Butera, L., Douglas, K. M., et al. (2024) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae191 · Cited by 371
Sun, Y., Sheng, D., Zhou, Z., & Wu, Y. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-03811-x · Cited by 327
Toolbox of individual-level interventions against online misinformation
Kozyreva, A., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Herzog, S. M., Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Hertwig, R., Ali, A., Bak-Coleman, J. B., Barzilai, S., Basol, M., et al. (2024) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-024-01881-0 · Cited by 302
Self-citationSycophantic AI decreases prosocial intentions and promotes dependence
Cheng, M., Lee, C., Khadpe, P., Yu, S., Han, D., & Jurafsky, D. (2026) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aec8352 · Cited by 185
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
Roozenbeek, J., Culloty, E., & Suiter, J. (2023) · European Psychologist · doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000492 · Cited by 151
Self-citationAccuracy and social motivations shape judgements of (mis)information
Rathje, S., Roozenbeek, J., Bavel, J. J. V., & van der Linden, S. (2023) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01540-w · Cited by 150
Self-citationDemocracy by Design: Perspectives for Digitally Assisted, Participatory Upgrades of Society
Helbing, D., Mahajan, S., Hänggli, R., Musso, A., Hausladen, C. I., Carissimo, C., Carpentras, D., Stockinger, E., Sánchez–Vaquerizo, J. A., Yang, J. C., et al. (2023) · Journal of Computational Science · doi:10.1016/j.jocs.2023.102061 · Cited by 150
Huang, G., Jia, W., & Yu, W. (2024) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/00936502241288103 · Cited by 126
Social media behavior is associated with vaccine hesitancy
Rathje, S., He, J. K., Roozenbeek, J., Van Bavel, J. J., & van der Linden, S. (2022) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac207 · Cited by 100
Self-citationLu, C. F., Hu, B., Li, Q., Bi, C., & Ju, X. (2023) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/49255 · Cited by 112
Misinformation and the epistemic integrity of democracy
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Cook, J., van der Linden, S., Roozenbeek, J., & Орескес, Н. (2023) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101711 · Cited by 123
Self-citationMisinformation poses a bigger threat to democracy than you might think
Ecker, U. K. H., Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S., Tay, L.-Q., Cook, J., Oreskes, N., & Lewandowsky, S. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-024-01587-3 · Cited by 97
Self-citationRoozenbeek, J., Maertens, R., Herzog, S. M., Geers, M., Kurvers, R. H. J. M., Sultan, M., & van der Linden, S. (2022) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500003570 · Cited by 106
Self-citationPsychological inoculation protects against the social media infodemic
McPhedran, R., Ratajczak, M., Mawby, M., King, E., Yang, Y., & Gold, N. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-32962-1 · Cited by 104
Human detection of political speech deepfakes across transcripts, audio, and video
Groh, M., Sankaranarayanan, A., Singh, N., Kim, D. Y., Lippman, A., & Picard, R. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-51998-z · Cited by 89
Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries
Spampatti, T., Hahnel, U. J. J., Trutnevyte, E., & Brosch, T. (2023) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01736-0 · Cited by 104
Ishizumi, A., Kolis, J., Abad, N., Prybylski, D., Brookmeyer, K. A., Voegeli, C., Wardle, C., & Chiou, H. (2024) · The Lancet Public Health · doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(24)00031-8 · Cited by 79
Perceptions of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Cross-Sectional Survey Study
Gaysynsky, A., Senft, N., Heley, K. M., & Chou, W. S. (2024) · JMIR Infodemiology · doi:10.2196/51127 · Cited by 77
High level of correspondence across different news domain quality rating sets
Lin, H., Lasser, J., Lewandowsky, S., Cole, R., Gully, A., Rand, D. G., & Pennycook, G. (2023) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad286 · Cited by 94
Self-citationAridor, G., Jiménez-Durán, R., Levy, R., & Song, L. (2024) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.20241743 · Cited by 85
Boosting: Empowering Citizens with Behavioral Science
Herzog, S. M., & Hertwig, R. (2024) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-020924-124753 · Cited by 73
Social media for public health: Reaping the benefits, mitigating the harms
Jafar, Z., Quick, J. D., Larson, H. J., Venegas-Vera, A. V., Napoli, P. M., Musuka, G., Dzinamarira, T., Meena, K. S. M., Kanmani, T. R., & Rimányi, E. (2023) · Health Promotion Perspectives · doi:10.34172/hpp.2023.13 · Cited by 61
Psychological booster shots targeting memory increase long-term resistance against misinformation
Maertens, R., Roozenbeek, J., Simons, J. S., Lewandowsky, S., Maturo, V., Goldberg, B., Xu, R., & van der Linden, S. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-57205-x · Cited by 38
Self-citationHuman-algorithm interactions help explain the spread of misinformation
McLoughlin, K. L., & Brady, W. J. (2023) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101770 · Cited by 67
Orosz, G., Faragó, L., Paskuj, B., & Krekó, P. (2024) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2024.108338 · Cited by 62
Countering misinformation through psychological inoculation
van der Linden, S. (2023) · Advances in experimental social psychology · doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2023.11.001 · Cited by 51
Managing Infodemics in the 21st Century
Purnat, T. D., Nguyen, T., & Briand, S. C. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-27789-4 · Cited by 54
Psychological interventions countering misinformation in social media: A scoping review
Gwiaździński, P., Gundersen, A. B., Piksa, M., Krysińska, I., Kunst, J. R., Noworyta, K., Olejniuk, A., Morzy, M., Ryguła, R., Wójtowicz, T., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.974782 · Cited by 47
Strategies for Effective Public Health Communication in a Complex Information Environment
Niederdeppe, J., Boyd, A. D., King, A. J., & Rimal, R. N. (2024) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-071723-120721 · Cited by 43
Science and Ethics of “Curing” Misinformation
Freiling, I., Krause, N. M., & Scheufele, D. A. (2023) · The AMA Journal of Ethic · doi:10.1001/amajethics.2023.228 · Cited by 39
Aljalabneh, A. A. (2024) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2024.1490798 · Cited by 38
Hwang, Y., & Jeong, S. (2025) · Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking · doi:10.1089/cyber.2024.0407 · Cited by 40
Fazio, L. K., Rand, D. G., Lewandowsky, S., Susmann, M. W., Berinsky, A. J., Guess, A. M., Kendeou, P., Lyons, B. A., Miller, J. M., Newman, E. J., et al. (2024) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/uyjha · Cited by 38
Self-citationPlatforms, Politics, and the Crisis of Democracy: Connective Action and the Rise of Illiberalism
Bennett, W. L., & Livingston, S. G. (2025) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592724002123 · Cited by 43
The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy makingPreprint
Capraro, V., Lentsch, A., Acemoğlu, D., Akgün, S., Akhmedova, A., Bilancini, E., Bonnefon, J., Brañas‐Garza, P., Butera, L., Douglas, K. M., et al. (2023) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/6fd2y · Cited by 46
How spammers and scammers leverage AI-generated images on Facebook for audience growth
DiResta, R., & Goldstein, J. A. (2024) · Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review · doi:10.37016/mr-2020-151 · Cited by 35
Fighting misinformation among the most vulnerable users
Brashier, N. M. (2024) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101813 · Cited by 37
Axelsson, A., Nygren, T., Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2024) · Journal of Research on Technology in Education · doi:10.1080/15391523.2024.2338451 · Cited by 34
Self-citationBruns, H., Dessart, F. J., Krawczyk, M. W., Lewandowsky, S., Pantazi, M., Pennycook, G., Schmid, P., & Smillie, L. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-71599-6 · Cited by 34
Self-citationPsychological profiles of anti-vaccination argument endorsement
Holford, D. L., Fasce, A., Costello, T. H., & Lewandowsky, S. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-30883-7 · Cited by 34
Self-citationNeylan, J., Biddlestone, M., Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-43885-2 · Cited by 33
Self-citationLiars know they are lying: differentiating disinformation from disagreement
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Cook, J., van der Linden, S., Roozenbeek, J., Орескес, Н., & McIntyre, L. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-03503-6 · Cited by 38
Self-citationBerger, L., Kerkhof, A., Mindl, F., & Münster, J. (2025) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2025.105345 · Cited by 38
Biddlestone, M., Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2022) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.4025 · Cited by 32
Self-citationFighting Infodemics: Labels as Antidotes to Mis- and Disinformation?!
Mende, M., Ubal, V. O., Cozac, M., Vallen, B., & Berry, C. (2023) · Journal of Public Policy & Marketing · doi:10.1177/07439156231184816 · Cited by 34
Inoculation and accuracy prompting increase accuracy discernment in combination but not alone
Pennycook, G., Berinsky, A. J., Bhargava, P., Lin, H., Cole, R., Goldberg, B., Lewandowsky, S., & Rand, D. G. (2024) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-024-02023-2 · Cited by 32
Self-citationThe Online Misinformation Engagement Framework
Geers, M., Swire‐Thompson, B., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Herzog, S. M., Kozyreva, A., & Hertwig, R. (2023) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101739 · Cited by 36
Processing of misinformation as motivational and cognitive biases
Zhou, Y., & Shen, L. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1430953 · Cited by 30
Considerations for mRNA Product Development, Regulation and Deployment Across the Lifecycle
Skerritt, J. H. (2025) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines13050473 · Cited by 31
A prosocial fake news intervention with durable effects
Orosz, G., Paskuj, B., Faragó, L., & Krekó, P. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-30867-7 · Cited by 24
Spitale, G., Germani, F., & Biller‐Andorno, N. (2023) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265161.2023.2201191 · Cited by 29
The Costs of Polarizing a Pandemic: Antecedents, Consequences, and Lessons
Van Bavel, J. J., Pretus, C., Rathje, S., Pärnamets, P., Vlasceanu, M., & Knowles, E. D. (2024) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916231190395 · Cited by 29
Self-citationButler, L. H., Prike, T., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-62286-7 · Cited by 28
Misinformation interventions decay rapidly without an immediate posttest
Capewell, G., Maertens, R., Remshard, M., van der Linden, S., Compton, J., Lewandowsky, S., & Roozenbeek, J. (2024) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/jasp.13049 · Cited by 31
Self-citationvan der Linden, S., Albarracín, D., Fazio, L. K., Freelon, D., Roozenbeek, J., Swire‐Thompson, B., & Bavel, J. J. V. (2023) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e506432023-001 · Cited by 34
Self-citationA broader view of misinformation reveals potential for intervention
van der Linden, S., & Kyrychenko, Y. (2024) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adp9117 · Cited by 28
Gong, Y., Shang, L., & Wang, D. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems · doi:10.1109/tcss.2024.3404236 · Cited by 30
Fonseca, C., Pettitt, J., Woollard, A. C. S., Rutherford, A. D., Bickmore, W. A., Ferguson‐Smith, A. C., & Hurst, L. D. (2023) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001915 · Cited by 26
Refuting misinformation: Examining theoretical underpinnings of refutational interventions
Amazeen, M. A., & Krishna, A. (2023) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101774 · Cited by 25
Reducing misinformation sharing at scale using digital accuracy prompt adsPreprint
Lin, H., Garro, H., Wernerfelt, N., Shore, J. C., Hughes, A., Deisenroth, D., Barr, N., Berinsky, A. J., Eckles, D., Pennycook, G., et al. (2024) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/u8anb · Cited by 25
Media literacy against disinformation: the vision of South American fact-checkers
Abuín-Penas, J., Medina, F. J. F., & Valencia, J. M. C. (2024) · Observatorio (OBS*) · doi:10.15847/obsobs18520242436 · Cited by 24
Exploring a Behavioral Model of “Positive Friction” in Human-AI Interaction
Chen, Z., & Schmidt, R. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-61353-1_1 · Cited by 24
Public policy and conspiracies: The case of mandates
Lewandowsky, S., Holford, D. L., & Schmid, P. (2022) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101427 · Cited by 24
Self-citationJohansson, P., Enoch, F., Hale, S. A., Vidgen, B., Bereskin, C., Margetts, H. Z., & Bright, J. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4648332 · Cited by 30
Łabuz, M., & Nehring, C. (2024) · Politics & Policy · doi:10.1111/polp.12617 · Cited by 28
Rosenbaum, S., Moberg, J., Chesire, F., Mugisha, M., Ssenyonga, R., Ochieng, M., Simbi, C. M. C., Nakyejwe, E., Ngatia, B., Gabriel Rada, G., et al. (2023) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.132580.1 · Cited by 22
Mean rating difference scores are poor measures of discernment: The role of response criteria
Higham, P. A., Modirrousta-Galian, A., & Seabrooke, T. (2023) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101785 · Cited by 22
Kuru, O. (2024) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1093/joc/jqae032 · Cited by 23
Mapping the terrain of social media misinformation: A scientometric exploration of global research
Wang, J., Zhai, Y., & Shahzad, F. (2025) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104691 · Cited by 21
The Double-Edged Sword of Anthropomorphism in LLMs
Reinecke, M. G., Ting, F., Savulescu, J., & Singh, I. (2025) · Proceedings · doi:10.3390/proceedings2025114004 · Cited by 27
A signal detection theory meta-analysis of psychological inoculation against misinformation
Simchon, A., Zipori, T., Teitelbaum, L., Lewandowsky, S., & van der Linden, S. (2025) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102194 · Cited by 24
Self-citationCombatting Climate Disinformation: Comparing the Effectiveness of Correction Placement and Type
Christner, C., Merz, P., Barkela, B., Jungkunst, H. F., & von Sikorski, C. (2024) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2024.2316757 · Cited by 19
Lahiri, S., Bingenheimer, J. B., Evans, W. D., Wang, Y., Cislaghi, B., Dubey, P., & Snowden, B. (2024) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.16685 · Cited by 19
Rathje, S., & Bavel, J. J. V. (2025) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2025.06.014 · Cited by 23
Self-citationAddressing misperceptions takes more than combating fake news
Allen, J. N. L., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2025) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2025.07.002 · Cited by 24
Fan, C., Wang, X., & Yu, G. (2023) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-07-2022-0497 · Cited by 18
Prebunking Against Misinformation in the Modern Digital Age
Traberg, C. S., Harjani, T., Basol, M., Biddlestone, M., Maertens, R., Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-27789-4_8 · Cited by 20
Self-citationWho knowingly shares false political information online?
Littrell, S., Klofstad, C., Diekman, A. B., Funchion, J., Murthi, M. N., Premaratne, K., Seelig, M. I., Verdear, D., Wuchty, S., & Uscinski, J. E. (2023) · Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review · doi:10.37016/mr-2020-121 · Cited by 18
Fighting fake news on social media: a comparative evaluation of digital literacy interventions
Alon, A. T., Rahimi, I. D., & Tahar, H. (2024) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-024-05668-4 · Cited by 22
Metacognition biases information seeking in assessing ambiguous news
Guigon, V., Villeval, M. C., & Dreher, J. (2024) · Communications Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44271-024-00170-w · Cited by 18
Holford, D. L., Fasce, A., Tapper, K., Demko, M., Lewandowsky, S., Hahn, U., Abels, C. M., Al‐Rawi, A., Alladin, S. N. B., Boender, T. S., et al. (2023) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/10755470231162634 · Cited by 18
Self-citationThe psychology of science rejection
Rutjens, B. T., & Hornsey, M. J. (2024) · Advances in experimental social psychology · doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2024.10.002 · Cited by 18
Appel, R. E., Roozenbeek, J., Rayburn-Reeves, R. M., Basol, M., Corbin, J. C., Compton, J., & van der Linden, S. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-09462-5 · Cited by 17
Self-citationA Unified Framework for Understanding and Intervening on False News SharingPreprint
Gollwitzer, A., Tump, A. N., Martel, C., Deffner, D., Sultan, M., Kurvers, R. H. J. M., & Hertwig, R. (2024) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/pxn29 · Cited by 19
Learning about informal fallacies and the detection of fake news: An experimental intervention
Hruschka, T. M. J., & Appel, M. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0283238 · Cited by 16
Ng, Q. X., Lee, D. Y. X., Ng, C. X., Yau, C. E., Lim, Y. L., & Liew, T. M. (2023) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines11061018 · Cited by 16
Lu, J., & Xiao, Y. (2023) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2023.2288373 · Cited by 19
Controlling bad-actor-artificial intelligence activity at scale across online battlefields
Johnson, N. F., Sear, R. F., & Illari, L. (2023) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae004 · Cited by 17
Gamified inoculation reduces susceptibility to misinformation from political ingroups
Traberg, C. S., Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2024) · Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review · doi:10.37016/mr-2020-141 · Cited by 16
Self-citationMitsutake, S., Oka, K., Okan, O., Dadaczynski, K., Ishizaki, T., Nakayama, T., & Takahashi, Y. (2024) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/57842 · Cited by 16
Dodging the autocratic bullet: enlisting behavioural science to arrest democratic backsliding
Abels, C. M., Huttunen, K. J. A., Hertwig, R., & Lewandowsky, S. (2024) · Behavioural Public Policy · doi:10.1017/bpp.2024.43 · Cited by 18
Self-citationCurtailing False News, Amplifying Truth
Guriev, S. M., Henry, E., Marquis, T., & Zhuravskaya, E. V. (2026) · Econometrica · doi:10.3982/ecta22524 · Cited by 18
A Rumor Dissemination Control Model Based on Evolutionary Game and Multiple User States
Li, Q., Jiang, F., Sun, H., Wang, R., Jia, C., Li, T., & Xiao, Y. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering · doi:10.1109/tnse.2025.3563360 · Cited by 15
Incorporating Psychological Science Into Policy Making
Kozyreva, A., Smillie, L., & Lewandowsky, S. (2023) · European Psychologist · doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000493 · Cited by 18
Self-citationMatanji, F., Tully, M., Mudavadi, K. C., Diop, L., & Madrid-Morales, D. (2024) · African Journalism Studies · doi:10.1080/23743670.2024.2401782 · Cited by 10
Reinero, D. A., Harris, E., Rathje, S., Duke, A., & Bavel, J. J. V. (2023) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/z4df3 · Cited by 14
Self-citationKont, J., Elving, W. J. L., Broersma, M., & Bozdağ, Ç. (2024) · Communications · doi:10.1515/commun-2023-0078 · Cited by 17
Taxonomy of digital curation activities that promote critical thinking
Gadot, R., & Tsybulsky, D. (2025) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-025-00365-6 · Cited by 13
Aguiar, T. R., Lopes, D., & Brooks, T. R. (2025) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1155/hbe2/8479135 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S., Goldberg, B., Rathje, S., & Lewandowsky, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
- Google (United States) (US)
- The University of Western Australia (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Roozenbeek, Jon
- Venue
- Science Advances
- Published
- 2022-08-26
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 34
- Pages
- eabo6254-eabo6254
- ISSN
- 2375-2548 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9401631
- OpenAlex
- W4293105742
- Semantic Scholar
- 67dc78b1f3cf4311fc30c31e5ee63ae3ba7c2379
- Cited by
- 472
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 125 · 2025: 127 · 2024: 135 · 2023: 71 · 2022: 13
- FWCI
- 124.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Science Advances (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Apollo (cc-by)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/V011960/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Islamic Finance and Communication
- Keywords
- psychological inoculation, misinformation, social media, manipulation techniques, emotional manipulation, false dichotomy, scapegoating, ad hominem, incoherence, manipulation detection, trustworthiness judgments, YouTube, political polarization, misinformation resilience
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
