Towards psychological herd immunity: Cross-cultural evidence for two prebunking interventions against COVID-19 misinformation
Open accessAbstract
Misinformation about the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) is a pressing societal challenge. Across two studies, one preregistered ( n 1 = 1771 and n 2 = 1777), we assess the efficacy of two ‘prebunking’ interventions aimed at improving people’s ability to spot manipulation techniques commonly used in COVID-19 misinformation across three different languages (English, French and German). We find that Go Viral!, a novel five-minute browser game, (a) increases the perceived manipulativeness of misinformation about COVID-19, (b) improves people’s attitudinal certainty (confidence) in their ability to spot misinformation and (c) reduces self-reported willingness to share misinformation with others. The first two effects remain significant for at least one week after gameplay. We also find that reading real-world infographics from UNESCO improves people’s ability and confidence in spotting COVID-19 misinformation (albeit with descriptively smaller effect sizes than the game). Limitations and implications for fake news interventions are discussed.
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 study was unable to study how long the inoculation effect remains significant.
“we were unable to study how long the inoculation effect remains significant (46, 47).”
From Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media (2022) · cites this paper as [47]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 55 · Cited by 271
- Authors
- Basol, M., Roozenbeek, J., Berriche, M., Uenal, F., McClanahan, W. P., & Linden, S. V. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Learning Planet Institute (FR)
- Department of Psychology, School of the Biological Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Corresponding author
- Linden, Sander van der
- ORCID
- Venue
- Big Data & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2021-01
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2053-9517 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3162190283
- Semantic Scholar
- f210ef06ceef5da66b20ade05dd7b286731ba0ef
- Cited by
- 271
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 62 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 13
- FWCI
- 62.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Big Data & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Apollo
- Funders
- Cabinet Office, Government of the United Kingdom
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- COVID-19 misinformation, prebunking, misinformation detection, manipulation techniques, browser-based games, infographics, cross-cultural comparison
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