Cited by 62Misinformation and Its ImpactsTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceIslamic Finance and Communication

Inoculating against the spread of Islamophobic and radical-Islamist disinformation

Open access
Lewandowsky, Stephan, Yesilada, Muhsin·2021·Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications

Abstract

We report the results of a preregistered study that tested the effectiveness of inoculating participants against Islamophobic and radical-Islamist disinformation. Participants in the experimental (inoculation) condition watched a video that explained common rhetorical markers of radical-Islamist and Islamophobic disinformation that had been identified in an analysis of YouTube content. The information was presented in a neutral context not involving Islam and focused on analysis of the misleading argumentation. The control group watched a video about an unrelated topic. Participants were then exposed to target videos with “gateway” content that constituted an entry point to potential Islamist or Islamophobic radicalization. Both videos contained numerous items of disinformation. Participants then answered a variety of questions such as how likely they were to share the video, their level of agreement, and their perceived accuracy of the video. Participants who had received the inoculation displayed less agreement with the video content, perceived the video as less reliable, and were less likely to share it in comparison with participants in the control group. The study provides support for the use of argument-based inoculation in combatting extremist messages.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s41235-021-00323-z

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lewandowsky, S., & Yesilada, M.
Affiliations
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
Lewandowsky, Stephan
Venue
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
Published
2021-08-19
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
57-57
ISSN
2365-7464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3193577832
Cited by
62
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 4
FWCI
15.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Research Principles and Implications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Economic and Social Research Council (via CREST at University of Lancaster)
  • alexander von humboldt-stiftung (Research Award)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Islamic Finance and Communication
Keywords
inoculation, disinformation, Islamophobia, Islamic fundamentalism, extremist content, misinformation sharing, perceived accuracy, YouTube, countering violent extremism
MeSH terms
Humans, Islam, Vaccination, 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