Psychological Inoculation against Misinformation: Current Evidence and Future Directions

• Author: Sander van der Linden,Jon Roozenbeek,Cecilie S. Traberg
• DOI: 10.1177/00027162221087936
• Date: 01 March 2022
• Published date: 01 March 2022
• Subject Matter: Misinformation

136 ANNALS, AAPSS, 700, March 2022

DOI: 10.1177/00027162221087936

Psychological

Inoculation

against

Misinformation:

Current

Evidence and

Future

Directions

By

CECILIE S. TRABERG,

JON ROOZENBEEK,

and

SANDER   LINDEN

1087936ANN The Annals of the American AcademyPsychological Inoculation Against Misinformation

research-article2022

Much like a viral contagion, misinformation can spread

rapidly from one individual to another. Inoculation

theory offers a logical basis for developing a psycho-

logical “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 inocu-

lation 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 “immu-

nize” 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 interven-

tions 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 impor-

tant open questions about the effectiveness of inocula-

tion interventions.

Keywords: inoculation theory; misinformation;

prebunking; persuasion; fake news

In 2018, the World Economic Forum (WEF)

Global Risks Report named online misinfor-

mation as one of the top global risks to the

Cecilie S. Traberg is a PhD candidate in psychology at the

University of Cambridge, where she conducts research on

social influence and misinformation susceptibility.

Jon Roozenbeek is a British Academy Postdoctoral

Fellow in the Department of Psychology at the University

of Cambridge. His research focuses broadly on misinfor-

mation, vaccine hesitancy, and extremism. He has a

particular interest in inoculation theory and the devel-

opment and testing of antimisinformation interventions.

Sander van der Linden is a professor of social psychology in

society and director of the Cambridge Social Decision-

Making Lab in the Department of Psychology at the

University of Cambridge. He has published over 100 papers

in the areas of judgment, persuasion, and decision-making,

especially in relation to (countering) misinformation.

Correspondence: sander.vanderlinden@psychol.cam

.ac.uk

PSYCHOLOGICAL INOCULATION AGAINST MISINFORMATION 137

environmental, economic, technological, and institutional systems on which our

future depends (WEF 2018). The spread of misinformation poses a serious threat

to the public’s understanding of science (Lewandowsky, Ecker, and Cook 2017;

Lewandowsky and van der Linden 2021), including climate science (Lewandowsky,

Oberauer, and Gignac 2013) and the safety of vaccines (Kata 2010). Research has

shown that false stories can spread faster, further, and deeper than true fact-

checked content (Vosoughi, Roy, and Aral 2018).1 The COVID-19 pandemic has

exacerbated the prevalence of online falsehoods, with widespread inaccurate and

misleading information about COVID-19 circulating online. This information

includes dangerous health advice suggesting that the ingestion of bleach can

“cure” COVID-19 and conspiracy theories that portray Bill Gates as a politically

motivated mastermind behind the pandemic. In fact, the proliferation of false-

hoods about the virus led the director general of the World Health Organization

(WHO) to announce, “We are not just fighting an epidemic, we’re fighting an

infodemic” (WHO 2020). Critically, belief in misinformation can have down-

stream effects on attitudes and behavior, such as undermining climate change

mitigation (Cook, Lewandowsky, and Ecker 2017; van der Linden 2015), instigat-

ing violence (Jolley and Paterson 2020), and lowering vaccination intentions and

compliance with public health guidelines (Loomba etal. 2021; Roozenbeek etal.

2020; van der Linden 2022). Accordingly, tackling critical societal issues such as

climate change and COVID-19 will require a better understanding of how to

effectively counter the spread of misinformation.

Why Fact Checking and Debunking Misinformation

Are Not Enough

Across various fields, researchers and policy-makers have sought to find ways to

reduce the spread and influence of misinformation, from legal and policy inter-

ventions to post hoc corrections such as debunking and fact checking. Policy

interventions may include public authorities directly intervening through regulat-

ing the media environment or making social media companies liable for

third-party content (Alemanno 2018). Alternatively, post hoc corrections or fact

checking interventions involve exposing news consumers to factual information

or, in some cases, a more detailed “debunking” message that puts forth strong

arguments for why previously seen information is false (Chan et al. 2017).

Evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions is mixed, but they continue

to be widely used (Walter and Murphy 2018; Nyhan etal. 2020).

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.

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). In addition, the mere pres-

ence of misinformation in people’s news environment may undermine accurate

information, as the persuasive impact of facts can be neutralized by misinformation