
doi: 10.1111/pops.70015
Abstract Meta‐analyses have demonstrated how inoculation interventions increase the detection of misinformation, but their scalability has remained elusive. To address this, Study 1 (pre‐registered; N = 1,583) tested the efficacy of three short inoculation videos (prebunks) against three common manipulation tactics used in misinformation: (1) polarization, (2) conspiracy theories, and (3) fake experts. Results indicated that all three inoculation videos (vs. control) increased the detection of relevant manipulative content without altering perceptions of non‐manipulative content, but only the polarization inoculation video increased manipulation discernment (i.e., increased ability to distinguish between manipulative and non‐manipulative content). In Study 2 (pre‐registered; N = 1,603), we tested the efficacy of three more inoculation videos containing logic‐based prebunks against logical fallacies commonly used in misinformation: (1) whataboutism, (2) the moving the goalposts fallacy, and (3) the strawman fallacy. Detection of the relevant fallacious content was higher in all conditions (vs. control), but only the strawman fallacy inoculation video increased fallacy discernment. The moving the goalposts fallacy inoculation video appeared to increase overall distrust of relevant content, whereas the other two videos did not alter perceptions of relevant non‐fallacious content. We discuss the implications and limitations of these findings.
52 Psychology, 5204 Cognitive and Computational Psychology, 4408 Political Science, 44 Human Society
52 Psychology, 5204 Cognitive and Computational Psychology, 4408 Political Science, 44 Human Society
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 5 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
