How to Combat Health Misinformation: A Psychological Approach
Abstract
in the 1970s on discriminatory intergroup behavior. In the study, a group of teenage boys who knew each other were randomly separated into arbitrary groups and then fed false information about the differences between them and the boys in the other group. Rather than trying to maximize their own group’s gains, the boys in the dominant group were willing to take actions not in their best interest if it caused even greater harm to the other groups. “Far from their behavior showing a pure desire to maximize their group’s gains, they often gave their group less to increase the difference between them and the out-group,” Tajfel discovered.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 scalability of inoculation theory has been elusive at both a theoretical and a practical level.
“its scalability has been elusive both at a theoretical level and a practical level.”
From Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media (2022) · cites this paper as [8]
There is a shortage of studies that test anti-misinformation interventions in an ecologically valid manner.
“There is a shortage of studies that test anti-misinformation interventions in an ecologically valid manner, i.e., testing an intervention as consumers would interact with it in online environments (8, 12).”
From Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media (2022) · cites this paper as [8]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 60 · Cited by 60
- Authors
- Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Department of Psychology, School of the Biological Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Corresponding author
- Roozenbeek, Jon
- ORCID
- Roozenbeek, Jon
- Venue
- American Journal of Health Promotion
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2022-02-14
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 569-575
- ISSN
- 0890-1171 (ISSN-L)
- 2168-6602
- OpenAlex
- W4213137562
- Semantic Scholar
- 3cf96bf0d4017c85c7ee5449b49b3f9d3ca3400f
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11
- FWCI
- 18.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Health Promotion (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/V011960/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
- Keywords
- health misinformation, misinformation countermeasures, psychological intervention, health communication, vaccine hesitancy
- MeSH terms
- Communication, Humans, Social Media
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
