Psychological inoculation protects against the social media infodemic

A primer on open-source, experimental social media simulation software: Opportunities for misinformation research and beyond

Social media simulation software (SMSS) allows researchers to collect behavioural data on how participants to engage with researcher-specified social media content using natural, interactive social media user interfaces. A notable subset of SMSS allow for experimental observation of how people engage with different types of content or user interfaces. Providing an avenue for collecting causal evidence on how algorithmic recommendation systems and design affordances of social media platforms impact behaviour; particularly online harms like misinformation. This article reviews key similarities and differences between three notable SMSS (The (Mis)information Game, the Mock Social Media Website Tool, and the Truman Platform), provides recommendations for use, and perspectives on the future of SMSS.

Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries

Decades after the scientific debate about the anthropogenic causes of climate change was settled, climate disinformation still challenges the scientific evidence in public discourse. Here we present a comprehensive theoretical framework of (anti)science belief formation and updating to account for the psychological factors that influence the acceptance or rejection of scientific messages. We experimentally investigated, across 12 countries (N = 6,816), the effectiveness of six inoculation strategies targeting these factors-scientific consensus, trust in scientists, transparent communication, moralization of climate action, accuracy and positive emotions-to fight real-world disinformation about climate science and mitigation actions. While exposure to disinformation had strong detrimental effects on participants' climate change beliefs (δ = -0.16), affect towards climate mitigation action (δ = -0.33), ability to detect disinformation (δ = -0.14) and pro-environmental behaviour (δ = -0.24), we found almost no evidence for protective effects of the inoculations (all δ < 0.20). We discuss the implications of these findings and propose ways forward to fight climate disinformation.

Interventions to counter misinformation: Lessons from the Global North and applications to the Global South

We synthesize evidence from 176 experimental estimates of 11 interventions intended to combat misinformation in the Global North and Global South, which we classify as informational, educational, sociopsychological, or institutional. Among these, we find the most consistent positive evidence for two informational interventions in both Global North and Global South contexts: inoculation/prebunking and debunking. In a complementary survey of 138 misinformation scholars and practitioners, we find that experts tend to be most optimistic about interventions that have been least widely studied or that have been shown to be mostly ineffective. We provide a searchable database of misinformation randomized controlled trials and suggest avenues for future research to close the gap between expert opinion and academic research.

Misinformation warning labels are widely effective: A review of warning effects and their moderating features

There is growing concern over the spread of misinformation online. One widely adopted intervention by platforms for addressing falsehoods is applying "warning labels" to posts deemed inaccurate by fact-checkers. Despite a rich literature on correcting misinformation after exposure, much less work has examined the effectiveness of warning labels presented concurrent with exposure. Promisingly, existing research suggests that warning labels effectively reduce belief and spread of misinformation. The size of these beneficial effects depends on how the labels are implemented and the characteristics of the content being labeled. Despite some individual differences, recent evidence indicates that warning labels are generally effective across party lines and other demographic characteristics. We discuss potential implications and limitations of labeling policies for addressing online misinformation.