CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 224Misinformation and Its ImpactsDeception detection and forensic psychologySocial and Intergroup Psychology

Psychological Inoculation against Misinformation: Current Evidence and Future Directions

Open access
Traberg, Cecilie S., Roozenbeek, Jon, van der Linden, Sander·2022·The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
DOI 10.1177/00027162221087936
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Much like a viral contagion, misinformation can spread rapidly from one individual to another. Inoculation theory offers a logical basis for developing a psychological “vaccine” against misinformation. We discuss the origins of inoculation theory, starting with its roots in the 1960s as a “vaccine for brainwash,” and detail the major theoretical and practical innovations that inoculation research has witnessed over the years. Specifically, we review a series of randomized lab and field studies that show that it is possible to preemptively “immunize” people against misinformation by preexposing them to severely weakened doses of the techniques that underlie its production along with ways on how to spot and refute them. We review evidence from interventions that we developed with governments and social media companies to help citizens around the world recognize and resist unwanted attempts to influence and mislead. We conclude with a discussion of important open questions about the effectiveness of inoculation interventions.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review argues that psychological inoculation—preemptively exposing people to weakened doses of misinformation techniques plus refutations—can build resistance to misinformation, including via scalable game-based interventions. It synthesizes lab and field evidence showing small-to-large protective effects, while highlighting open questions about social proof, source credibility, and durability.

Key findings

  • A cited meta-analysis of inoculation interventions across 40 studies with more than 10,000 participants found an average effect size of d = 0.43, interpreted as medium.
  • In a climate-change study (N = 2,167), misinformation significantly decreased judgments of the scientific consensus (d = 0.48), while brief inoculation (d = 0.33) and detailed inoculation (d = 0.75) protected and even boosted consensus beliefs.
  • A Bad News field study (N = 15,000) found a small-to-medium post-gameplay improvement in resisting misinformation across techniques (d = 0.34); a 2x2 lab study versus Tetris found d = 0.60.
  • Longitudinal work showed inoculation effects can remain stable for at least three months if participants receive regular “booster shots” through repeated testing, though significant decay occurred over two months without them.

Methods

  • Narrative review of inoculation theory and empirical lab and field studies, including randomized controlled trials, pre-post within-subject designs, 2x2 mixed designs, Solomon three-group designs, and longitudinal experiments.
  • Focuses on gamified interventions such as Bad News, Go Viral!, Harmony Square, and Cranky Uncle, plus studies on climate change, COVID-19, political disinformation, and source/social-proof moderators.
  • No new primary data are reported except unpublished pilot studies by the authors on social proof and source effects.

Limitations

  • Stated: open questions remain about social proof and source credibility; the authors’ unpublished social proof pilot had a potential confound because the no-social-information control group performed worse at pretest, possibly inflating its post-test performance.
  • Stated: within-subject designs cannot reliably attribute observed outcomes to the intervention; later studies addressed this with control conditions and Solomon designs.
  • Evident: as a narrative review, it does not report a systematic search or meta-analytic synthesis, and several cited findings are unpublished or under review.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/00027162221087936

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 55 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    The lowest reduction in reliability judgements of misinformation headlines was seen when social proof showed high approval of the headline (the high-consensus condition).

    “the lowest reduction was seen when social proof showed high approval of the headline (i.e., the high-consensus condition).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    On the pretest, participants in conditions where the source was politically congruent were significantly worse at identifying misinformation.

    “participants in conditions where the source was politically congruent were significantly worse at identifying misinformation”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In a recent unpublished study, the Bad News game successfully reduced reliability judgements of misinformation headlines regardless of whether these were administered alone or with social proof.

    “Although the game successfully reduced reliability judgements of misinformation headlines regardless of whether these were administered alone or with social proof”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Premisecitation

    Misinformation often continues to influence inferential reasoning even after it has been formally retracted or corrected, a phenomenon known as the continued influence effect.

    “Indeed, misinformation often continues to influence inferential reasoning, even after it has been formally retracted or corrected, a phenomenon known as the continued influence effect (Lewandowsky et al. 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lewandowsky et al. 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    It is harder to eliminate the influence of misinformation after people have been exposed to it.

    “One particular problem with these post hoc measures is that it is harder to eliminate the influence of misinformation after people have been exposed to it.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 22
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 9
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A significant effect of inoculation occurred regardless of condition, such that participants lowered their reliability judgments of misinformation postintervention.

    “a significant effect of inoculation occurred regardless of condition, such that participants lowered their reliability judgments of misinformation postintervention.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationnone given

    Inoculation theory offers a logical basis for developing a psychological vaccine against misinformation.

    “Inoculation theory offers a logical basis for developing a psychological “vaccine” against misinformation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Inoculation requires much more than a simple warning.

    “Inoculation requires much more than a simple warning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Evidence on the effectiveness of post hoc corrections or fact-checking interventions is mixed, but they continue to be widely used.

    “Evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions is mixed, but they continue to be widely used (Walter and Murphy 2018;Nyhan et al. 2020).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Walter and Murphy 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Nyhan et al. 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Oregon Petition is a debunked petition claiming to have collected thirty-one thousand signatures from self-described scientists who do not believe humans are causing climate change, and it formed the basis of the most viral story about climate change on social media in 2016.

    “A prominent example of such a campaign is the debunked Oregon Petition, a petition that claims to have collected thirty-one thousand signatures from self-described “scientists” who do not believe that humans are causing climate change, which formed the basis of the most viral story about climate change on social media in 2016 (readfearn 2016).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites readfearn 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    False stories can spread faster, further, and deeper than true fact-checked content.

    “research has shown that false stories can spread faster, further, and deeper than true factchecked content (Vosoughi, roy, and Aral 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Vosoughi, roy, and Aral 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The mere presence of misinformation in people's news environment may undermine accurate information, as the persuasive impact of facts can be neutralized by misinformation.

    “In addition, the mere presence of misinformation in people's news environment may undermine accurate information, as the persuasive impact of facts can be neutralized by misinformation (Cook, Lewandowsky, and Ecker 2017;van der Linden et al. 2017);”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Cook, Lewandowsky, and Ecker 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites van der Linden et al. 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    An inoculation message consists of two components: threat and refutational preemption.

    “An inoculation message consists of two components: threat and refutational preemption.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pfau et al. 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Inoculation theory proposes that individuals can be psychologically vaccinated against persuasive attacks, much like people can become immunized against viral contagions.

    “Originally developed by Mcguire in the 1960s, inoculation theory is rooted in a biological metaphor, proposing that, much like how people can become immunized against viral contagions, individuals can be psychologically “vaccinated” against persuasive attacks (Mcguire 1964).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mcguire 1964

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Premisecitation

    In an initial field test, Roozenbeek and van der Linden (2019) found a significant post-gameplay improvement in people's ability to resist persuasion by misinformation across different misinformation techniques, with a small to medium average effect size of d = 0.34.

    “The results showed a significant postgameplay improvement in people's ability to resist persuasion by misinformation across different misinformation techniques, with a small to medium average effect size of d = 0.34.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites roozenbeek and van der Linden 2019

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Roozenbeek et al. (2021) found that although some item effects did occur, the inoculation intervention still conferred resistance against previously unseen misinformation.

    “The results showed that although some item effects did occur, the inoculation intervention still conferred resistance against previously unseen misinformation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites roozenbeek et al. 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The results of van der Linden et al. (2017) were replicated in several independent studies, including a scenario where the attack was delayed by one week, so that the inoculation remained significant even when participants were shown the misinformation a week later.

    “These results were replicated in several independent studies (see Cook, Lewandowsky, and Ecker 2017;Williams and bond 2020), including a scenario where the attack was delayed by one week, so that the inoculation remained significant even when participants were shown the misinformation a week later (Maertens, Anseel, and van der Linden 2020).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cook, Lewandowsky, and Ecker 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Williams and bond 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Maertens, Anseel, and van der Linden 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Basol, Roozenbeek, and van der Linden (2020) replicated the findings of the original paper, showing that compared to the control condition, participants found misinformation significantly less reliable in the inoculation (Bad News) condition (d = 0.60).

    “basol, roozenbeek, and van der Linden replicated the findings of the original paper, showing that compared to the control condition, participants found misinformation significantly less reliable in the inoculation (Bad News) condition (d = 0.60).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites basol, roozenbeek, and van der Linden 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Less than a percentage of the Oregon Petition signatories had any expertise in climate science, and the petition had bogus signatories such as Charles Darwin.

    “With less than a percentage of the signatories having any expertise in climate science, and with bogus signatories such as Charles Darwin, it is warranted that fact-checking sites have rated this petition as “pants-on-fire-false” (greenberg 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites greenberg 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In van der Linden et al. (2017), both brief (d = 0.33) and detailed inoculation interventions (d = 0.75) showed medium to large effects in protecting and even boosting participants' beliefs about the scientific consensus, regardless of prior attitudes toward climate change.

    “both the brief (d = 0.33) and detailed inoculation interventions (d = 0.75) showed medium to large effects in terms of protecting and even boosting participants' beliefs about the scientific consensus, regardless of their prior attitudes toward climate change.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites van der Linden et al. 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Basol, Roozenbeek, and van der Linden (2020) found that the inoculation intervention significantly improved participants' confidence in their own ability to assess the reliability of misinformation, but only for those who correctly lowered their reliability judgments.

    “basol, roozenbeek, and van der Linden also found that the inoculation intervention significantly improved participants' confidence in their own ability to assess the reliability of misinformation (importantly, only for those who correctly lowered their reliability judgments).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites basol, roozenbeek, and van der Linden 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premiseown data

    In the initial field test, although there was some small variation in treatment effect across age and ideology, with conservatives and older individuals more susceptible to misinformation prior to gameplay, all subgroups showed significantly lower susceptibility to misinformation after playing.

    “Although the study found some small variation in the treatment effect across age and ideology (conservatives and older individuals were more susceptible to misinformation prior to gameplay, a finding consistent with current literature; see guess, Nagler, and Tucker 2019; van der Linden et al. 2020), all subgroups showed significantly lower susceptibility to misinformation after playing.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites guess, Nagler, and Tucker 2019

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites van der Linden et al. 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Social networking sites represent new ecosystems of social information, allowing users to indicate agreement with or support for content through likes, comments, or sharing information with other users.

    “information, allowing users to indicate agreement with or support for content through”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites hilverda, kuttschreuter, and giebels 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Roozenbeek, van der Linden, and Nygren (2020) found that although some cultural heterogeneity was observed, the main inoculation effects of the game replicated cross-culturally.

    “replicating the results of previous studies using the intervention, roozenbeek, van der Linden, and Nygren (2020) found that although some cultural heterogeneity was observed, the main inoculation effects of the game replicated cross-culturally.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites roozenbeek, van der Linden, and Nygren 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Persuasive messages are often received in the context of other people.

    “Persuasive messages are often received in the context of other people (Tormala et al. 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tormala et al. 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Previous research has shown that the immune-boosting effects of traditional inoculation treatments typically decay over a few weeks, with some studies suggesting that these effects might last up to six weeks.

    “Previous research has shown that the “immune-boosting” effects of traditional inoculation treatments typically decay over a few weeks (zerback, Töpfl, and knöpfle 2021; banas and rains 2010), with some studies suggesting that these effects might last up to six weeks (Pfau et al. 2006).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites zerback, Töpfl, and knöpfle 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites banas and rains 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Pfau et al. 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Longitudinal work showed that although a significant decay effect occurred over a two-month period, the inoculation effect can remain stable for at least three months if participants receive regular booster shots in the form of repeated testing.

    “Promisingly, longitudinal work showed that although a significant decay effect occurred over a two-month period, the inoculation effect can remain stable for at least three months if participants receive regular “booster shots” in the form of repeated testing (Maertens et al. 2020).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Maertens et al. 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A large field study and randomized controlled trial showed that the Go Viral! game's five-minute gameplay is enough to increase the perceived manipulativeness of COVID-19 misinformation, improve people's confidence in their correct misinformation judgements, and reduce intent to share misinformation on social media, in the English, German, and French versions of the game.

    “A large field study and randomized controlled trial (rCT) into its efficacy showed that the Go Viral! game's five-minute gameplay is enough to increase the perceived manipulativeness of COVID-19 misinformation, improve people's confidence in their (correct) misinformation judgements, and reduce intent to share misinformation on social media, in the English, german, and French versions of the game”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites basol et al. 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Cranky Uncle was designed to inoculate people against eleven techniques of science denial in the context of climate change.

    “Cranky Uncle (Cook 2020) 4 was designed to inoculate people against eleven techniques of science denial in the context of climate change.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cook 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    These findings point to the need for further research on how social cues may moderate the efficacy of inoculation interventions.

    “As such, these findings point to the need for further research on how social cues may moderate the efficacy of inoculation interventions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Recent evidence suggests that individuals may be susceptible to even nonpolitical misinformation when the associated source is politically congruent, an effect mediated by perceived credibility of the news source.

    “recent evidence suggests that individuals may be susceptible to even nonpolitical misinformation when the associated source is politically congruent, an effect mediated by perceived credibility of the news source (Traberg and van der Linden 2022).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Traberg and van der Linden 2022

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Governments and social media companies like Twitter have started to implement prebunking in practice.

    “As governments and social media companies like Twitter have started to implement prebunking in practice (Ingram 2020)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ingram 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Inoculation theory is a promising framework for countering misinformation and holds the potential for large-scale implementation and long-term immunization.

    “Our review of extant and ongoing research shows that inoculation theory is a promising framework for countering misinformation and holds the potential for large-scale implementation and long-term immunization.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Decades of research have pointed to the important role of source credibility in persuasion.

    “decades of research have pointed to the important role of source credibility in persuasion (Pornpitakpan 2004)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pornpitakpan 2004

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Psychological game-based inoculation training represents a scalable and durable response to the post-truth era.

    “this method represents a scalable and durable response to the post-truth era.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
30 of 30

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    97 percent of climate scientists agree about anthropogenic climate change.

    “Despite 97 percent of climate scientists being in agreement about anthropogenic climate change”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The six misinformation strategies used in Bad News (impersonation, polarization, emotions such as moral outrage, conspiracy theories, trolling, and discrediting) are commonly used in misinformation.

    “players are exposed and asked to use weakened doses of six commonly used misinformation strategies (i.e., weak attempts at persuasion): impersonation, polarization, the use of emotions such as moral outrage, conspiracy theories, trolling, and discrediting.”
2 of 2

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Lewandowsky Stephan Cook John Ecker Ullrich K. H. Albarracín Dolores Amazeen Michelle A. Kendeou Panayiota Lombardi Doug Newman Eryn J. Pennycook Gordon Porter Ethan et al 2020. The debunking handbook 2020. Available from https://doi.org/10.17910/b7.1182. · DOI
  2. Roozenbeek Jon van der Linden Sander Goldberg Beth Lewandowsky Stephan. Under review. Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media.
  3. World Health Organization. 2020. Munich Security Conference speech. Available from www.who.int.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Traberg, C. S., Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
ORCID
Venue
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2022-03
Volume
700
Issue
1
Pages
136-151
ISSN
  • 0002-7162 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3349
DOI
10.1177/00027162221087936
OpenAlex
W4229075526
Semantic Scholar
04d25b96d46ccae21cf2edf2818cbdf15f3dc505
Cited by
224
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 74 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 1
FWCI
65.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
inoculation theory, misinformation, misinformation resistance, social media misinformation, political influence

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

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