A person or organization who is negatively affected by lies spread on the internet can do what?

Introduction

Misinformation — which we define as any information that turns out to be false — poses an inevitable challenge for human cognition and social interaction because it is a consequence of the fact that people frequently err and sometimes lie1. However, this fact is insufficient to explain the rise of misinformation, and its subsequent influence on memory and decision-making, as a major challenge in the twenty-first century2,3,4. Misinformation has been identified as a contributor to various contentious events, ranging from elections and referenda5 to political or religious persecution6 and to the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic7.

The psychology and history of misinformation cannot be fully grasped without taking into account contemporary technology. Misinformation helped bring Roman emperors to power8, who used messages on coins as a form of mass communication9, and Nazi propaganda heavily relied on the printed press, radio and cinema10. Today, misinformation campaigns can leverage digital infrastructure that is unparalleled in its reach. The internet reaches billions of individuals and enables senders to tailor persuasive messages to the specific psychological profiles of individual users11,12. Moreover, social media users’ exposure to information that challenges their worldviews can be limited when communication environments foster confirmation of previous beliefs — so-called echo chambers13,14. Although there is some controversy about echo chambers and their impact on people’s beliefs and behaviours12,15, the internet is an ideal medium for the fast spread of falsehoods at the expense of accurate information16. However, the prevalence of misinformation cannot be attributed only to technology: conventional efforts to combat misinformation have also not been as successful as hoped2 — these include educational efforts that focus on merely conveying factual knowledge and corrective efforts that merely retract misinformation.

For decades, science communication has relied on an information deficit model when responding to misinformation, focusing on people’s misunderstanding of, or lack of access to, facts17. Thus, a thorough and accessible explanation of facts should overcome the impact of misinformation. However, the information deficit model ignores the cognitive, social and affective drivers of attitude formation and truth judgements18,19,20. For example, some individuals deny the existence of climate change or reject vaccinations despite being aware of a scientific consensus to the contrary21,22. This rejection of science is not the result of mere ignorance but is driven by factors such as conspiratorial mentality, fears, identity expression and motivated reasoning — reasoning driven more by personal or moral values than objective evidence19,23,24,25,26. Thus, to understand the psychology of misinformation and how it might be countered, it is essential to consider the cognitive architecture and social context of individual decision makers.

In this Review, we describe the cognitive, social and affective processes that make misinformation stick and leave people vulnerable to the formation of false beliefs. We review the theoretical models that have been proposed to explain misinformation’s resistance to correction. We provide guidance on countering misinformation, including educational and pre-emptive interventions, refutations and psychologically informed technological solutions. Finally, we return to the broader societal trends that have contributed to the rise of misinformation and discuss its practical implications on journalism, education and policymaking.

Different types of misinformation exist — for example, misinformation that goes against scientific consensus or misinformation that contradicts simple, objectively true facts. Moreover, the term disinformation is often specifically used for the subset of misinformation that is spread intentionally27. More research is needed on the extent to which different types of misinformation might be associated with differential psychological impacts and barriers for revision, and to establish the extent to which people infer intentionality and how this might affect their processing of the false information. Thus, in this Review we do not draw a sharp distinction between misinformation and disinformation, or different types of misinformation. We use the term misinformation as an umbrella term referring to any information that turns out to be false and reserve the term disinformation for misinformation that is spread with intention to harm or deceive.

Drivers of false beliefs

The formation of false beliefs all but requires exposure to false information. However, lack of access to high-quality information is not necessarily the primary precursor to false-belief formation; a range of cognitive, social and affective factors influence the formation of false beliefs [Fig. 1]. False beliefs generally arise through the same mechanisms that establish accurate beliefs28,29. When deciding what is true, people are often biased to believe in the validity of information30, and ‘go with their gut’ and intuitions instead of deliberating31,32. For example, in March 2020, 31% of Americans agreed that COVID-19 was purposefully created and spread33, despite the absence of any credible evidence for its intentional development. People are likely to have encountered conspiracy theories about the source of the virus multiple times, which might have contributed to this widespread belief because simply repeating a claim makes it more believable than presenting it only once34,35. This illusory truth effect arises because people use peripheral cues such as familiarity [a signal that a message has been encountered before]36, processing fluency [a signal that a message is either encoded or retrieved effortlessly]37,38 and cohesion [a signal that the elements of a message have references in memory that are internally consistent]39 as signals for truth, and the strength of these cues increases with repetition. Thus, repetition increases belief in both misinformation and facts40,41,42,43. Illusory truth can persist months after first exposure44, regardless of cognitive ability45 and despite contradictory advice from an accurate source46 or accurate prior knowledge18,47.

Fig. 1: Drivers of false beliefs.

Some of the main cognitive [green] and socio-affective [orange] factors that can facilitate the formation of false beliefs when individuals are exposed to misinformation. Not all factors will always be relevant, but multiple factors often contribute to false beliefs.

Full size image

Another ‘shortcut’ for truth might involve defaulting to one’s own personal views. Overall belief in news headlines is higher when the news headlines complement the reader’s worldview48. Political partisanship can also contribute to false memories for made-up scandals49. However, difficulties discerning true from false news headlines can also arise from intuitive [or ‘lazy’] thinking rather than the impact of worldviews48. In one study, participants received questions [‘If you’re running a race and you pass the person in second place, what place are you in?’] with intuitive, but incorrect, answers [‘first place’]. Participants who answered these questions correctly were better able to discern fake from real headlines than participants who answered these questions incorrectly, independently of whether the headlines aligned with their political ideology50. A link has also been reported between intuitive thinking and greater belief in COVID-19 being a hoax, and reduced adherence to public health measures51.

Similarly, allowing people to deliberate can improve their judgements. If quick evaluation of a headline is followed by an opportunity to rethink, belief in fake news — but not factual news — is reduced52. Likewise, encouraging people to ‘think like fact checkers’ leads them to rely more on their own prior knowledge instead of heuristics. For example, prior exposure to statements such as ‘Deer meat is called veal’ makes these statements seem truer than similar statements encountered for the first time, even when people know the truth [in this case that the correct term is venison47]. However, asking people to judge whether the statement is true at initial exposure protects them from subsequently accepting contradictions of well-known facts53.

The information source also provides important social cues that influence belief formation. In general, messages are more persuasive and seem more true when they come from sources perceived to be credible rather than non-credible42. People trust human information sources more if they perceive the source as attractive, powerful and similar to themselves54. These source judgements are naturally imperfect — people believe in-group members more than out-group members55, tend to weigh opinions equally regardless of the competence of those expressing them56 and overestimate how much their beliefs overlap with other people’s, which can lead to the perception of a false consensus57. Experts and political elites are trusted by many and have the power to shape public perceptions58,59; therefore, it can be especially damaging when leaders make false claims. For example, false claims about public health threats such as COVID-19 made by political leaders can reduce the perceived threat of the virus as well as the perceived efficacy of countermeasures, decreasing adherence to public health measures60,61.

Moreover, people often overlook, ignore, forget or confuse cues about the source of information62. For example, for online news items, a logo banner specifying the publisher [for example, a reputable media outlet or a dubious web page] has been found not to decrease belief in fake news or increase belief in factual news63. In the aggregate, groups of laypeople perform as well as professional fact checkers at categorizing news outlets as trustworthy, hyper-partisan or fake64. However, when acting alone, individuals — unlike fact checkers — tend to disregard the quality of the news outlet and judge a headline’s accuracy based primarily on the plausibility of the content63. Similarly, although people are quick to distrust others who share fake news65, they frequently forget information sources66. This tendency is concerning: even though a small number of social media accounts spread an outsized amount of misleading content67,68,69, if consumers do not remember the dubious origin, they might not discount the content accordingly.

The emotional content of the information shared also affects false-belief formation. Misleading content that spreads quickly and widely [‘virally’] on the internet often contains appeals to emotion, which can increase persuasion. For example, messages that aim to generate fear of harm can successfully change attitudes, intentions and behaviours under certain conditions if recipients feel they can act effectively to avoid the harm70. Moreover, according to a preprint that has not been peer-reviewed, ‘happy thoughts’ are more believable than neutral ones71. People seem to understand the association between emotion and persuasion, and naturally shift towards more emotional language when attempting to convince others72. For example, anti-vaccination activists frequently use emotional language73. Emotion can be persuasive because it distracts readers from potentially more diagnostic cues, such as source credibility. In one study, participants read positive, neutral and negative headlines about the actions of specific people; social judgements about the people featured in the headlines were strongly determined by emotional valence of the headline but unaffected by trustworthiness of the news source74.

Inferences about information are also affected by one’s own emotional state. People tend to ask themselves ‘How do I feel about this claim?’, which can lead to influences of a person’s mood on claim evaluation75. Using feelings as information can leave people susceptible to deception76, and encouraging people to ‘rely on their emotions’ increases their vulnerability to misinformation77. Likewise, some specific emotional states such as a happy mood can make people more vulnerable to deception78 and illusory truth79. Thus, one functional feature of a sad mood might be that it reduces gullibility80. Anger has also been shown to promote belief in politically concordant misinformation81 as well as COVID-19 misinformation82. Finally, social exclusion, which is likely to induce a negative mood, can increase susceptibility to conspiratorial content83,84.

In sum, the drivers of false beliefs are multifold and largely overlooked by a simple information deficit model. The drivers include cognitive factors, such as use of intuitive thinking and memory failures; social factors, such as reliance on source cues to determine truth; and affective factors, such as the influence of mood on credulity. Although we have focused on false-belief formation here, the psychology behind sharing misinformation is a related area of active study [Box 1].

Barriers to belief revision

A tacit assumption of the information deficit model is that false beliefs can easily be corrected by providing relevant facts. However, misinformation can often continue to influence people’s thinking even after they receive a correction and accept it as true. This persistence is known as the continued influence effect [CIE]85,86,87,88.

In the typical CIE laboratory paradigm, participants are presented with a report of an event [for example, a fire] that contains a critical piece of information related to the event’s cause [‘the fire was probably caused by arson’]. That information might be subsequently challenged by a correction, which can take the form of a retraction [a simple negation, such as ‘it is not true that arson caused the fire’] or a refutation [a more detailed correction that explains why the misinformation was false]. When reasoning about the event later [for example, responding to questions such as ‘what should authorities do now?’], individuals often continue to rely on the critical information even after receiving — and being able to recall — a correction89. Variants of this paradigm have used false real-world claims or urban myths90,91,92. Corrected misinformation can also continue to influence the amount a person is willing to pay for a consumer product or their propensity to promote a social media post93,94,95. The CIE might be an influential factor in the persistence of beliefs that there is a link between vaccines and autism despite strong evidence discrediting this link96,97 or that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq in 2003 despite no supporting evidence98. The CIE has primarily been conceptualized as a cognitive effect, with social and affective underpinnings.

Cognitive factors

Theoretical accounts of the CIE draw heavily on models of memory in which information is organized in interconnected networks and the availability of information is determined by its level of activation99,100 [Fig. 2]. When information is encoded into memory and then new information that discredits it is learned, the original information is not simply erased or replaced101. Instead, misinformation and corrective information coexist and compete for activation. For example, misinformation that a vaccine has caused an unexpectedly large number of deaths might be incorporated with knowledge related to diseases, vaccinations and causes of death. A subsequent correction that the information about vaccine-caused deaths was inaccurate will also be added to memory and is likely to result in some knowledge revision. However, the misinformation will remain in memory and can potentially be reactivated and retrieved later on.

Fig. 2: Integration and retrieval accounts of continued influence.

a | Integration account of continued influence. The correction had the representational strength to compete with or even dominate the misinformation [‘myth’] but was not integrated into the relevant mental model. Depending on the available retrieval cues, this lack of integration can lead to unchecked misinformation retrieval and reliance. b | Retrieval account of continued influence. Integration has taken place but the myth is represented in memory more strongly, and thus dominates the corrective information in the competition for activation and retrieval. Note that the two situations are not mutually exclusive: avoiding continued influence might require both successful integration and retrieval of the corrective information.

Full size image

One school of thought — the integration account — suggests that the CIE arises when a correction is not sufficiently encoded and integrated with the misinformation in the memory network [Fig. 2a]. There is robust evidence that integration of the correction and misinformation is a necessary, albeit not sufficient, condition for memory updating and knowledge revision100. This view implies that a successful revision requires detecting a conflict between the misinformation and the correction, the co-activation of both representations in memory, and their subsequent integration102. Evidence for this account comes from the success of interventions that bolster conflict detection, co-activation, and integration of misinformation and correction103,104. Assuming that information integration relies on processing in working memory [the short-term store used to briefly hold and manipulate information in the service of thinking and reasoning], the finding that lower working memory capacity predicts greater susceptibility to the CIE is also in line with this account105 [although it has not been replicated106]. This theory further assumes that as the amount of integrated correct information increases, memory for the correction becomes stronger, at the expense of memory for the misinformation102. Thus, both the interconnectedness and the amount of correct information can influence the success of memory revision.

An alternative account is based on the premise that the CIE arises from selective retrieval of the misinformation even when corrective information is present in memory [Fig. 2b]. For example, it has been proposed that a retraction causes the misinformation representation to be tagged as false107. The misinformation can be retrieved without the false tag, but the false tag cannot be retrieved without concurrent retrieval of the misinformation. One instantiation of this selective-retrieval view appeals to a dual-process mechanism, which assumes that retrieval can occur based on an automatic, effortless process signalling information familiarity [‘I think I have heard this before’] or a more strategic, effortful process of recollection that includes contextual detail [‘I read about this in yesterday’s newspaper’]108. According to this account of continued influence, the CIE can arise if there is automatic, familiarity-driven retrieval of the misinformation [for example, in response to a cue], without explicit recollection of the corrective information and associated post-retrieval suppression of the misinformation107,109.

Evidence for this account comes from studies demonstrating that the CIE increases as a function of factors associated with increased familiarity [such as repetition]107 and reduced recollection [such as advanced participant age and longer study-test delays]92. Neuroimaging studies have suggested that activity during retrieval, when participants answer inference questions about an encoded event — but not when the correction is encoded — is associated with continued reliance on corrected misinformation110,111. This preliminary neuroimaging evidence generally supports the selective-retrieval account of the CIE, although it suggests that the CIE is driven by misinformation recollection rather than misinformation familiarity, which is at odds with the dual-process interpretation.

Both of these complementary theoretical accounts of the CIE can explain the superiority of detailed refutations over retractions92,112,113. Provision of additional corrective information can strengthen the activation of correct information in memory or provide more detail to support recollection of the correction89,103, which makes a factual correction more enduring than the misinformation90. Because a simple retraction will create a gap in a person’s mental model, especially in situations that require a causal explanation [for example, a fire must be caused by something], a refutation that can fill in details of a causal, plausible, simple and memorable alternative explanation will reduce subsequent recall of the retracted misinformation.

Social and affective factors

These cognitive accounts do not explicitly consider the influence of social and affective mechanisms on the CIE. One socio-affective factor is source credibility, the perceived trustworthiness and expertise of the sources providing the misinformation and correction. Although source credibility has been to found to exert little influence on acceptance of misinformation if the source is a media outlet63,114, there is generally strong evidence that credibility has significant impact on acceptance of misinformation from non-media sources42,88,115.

The credibility of a correction source also matters for [post-correction] misinformation reliance116, although perhaps less than the credibility of the misinformation source88. The effectiveness of factual corrections might depend on perceived trustworthiness rather than perceived expertise of the correction source117,118, although perceived expertise might matter more in science-related contexts, such as health misinformation119,120. It can also be quite rational to discount a correction if the correction source is low in credibility121,122. Further complicating matters, the perceived credibility of a source varies across recipients. In extreme cases, people with strong conspiratorial ideation tendencies might mistrust any official source [for example, health authorities]19,26. More commonly, people tend to trust sources that are perceived to share their values and worldviews54,55.

A second key socio-affective factor is worldview — a person’s values and belief system that grounds their personal and sociocultural identity. Corrections attacking a person’s worldview can be ineffective123 or backfire25,124. Such corrections can be experienced as attacking one’s identity, resulting in a chain reaction of appraisals and emotional responses that hinder information revision19,125. For example, if a message is appraised as an identity threat [for example, a correction that the risks of a vaccine do not outweigh the risks of a disease might be perceived as an identity threat by a person identifying as an anti-vaxxer], this can lead to intense negative emotions that motivate strategies such as discrediting the source of the correction, ignoring the worldview-inconsistent evidence or selectively focusing on worldview-bolstering evidence24,126. However, how a person’s worldview influences misinformation corrections is still hotly debated [Box 2], and there is a developing consensus that even worldview-inconsistent corrections typically have some beneficial impact91,127,128,129,130,131.

The third socio-affective factor that influences the CIE is emotion. One study found that corrections can produce psychological discomfort that motivates a person to disregard the correction to reduce the feeling of discomfort132. Misinformation conveying negative emotions such as fear or anger might be particularly likely to evoke a CIE133,134. This influence might be due to a general negativity bias11,135 or more specific emotional influences. For example, misinformation damaging the reputation of a political candidate might spark outrage or contempt, which might promote continued influence of this misinformation [in particular among non-supporters]134. However, there seems to be little continued influence of negative misinformation on impression formation when the person subjected to the false allegation is not a disliked politician, perhaps because reliance on corrected misinformation might be seen as biased or judgemental [that is, it might be frowned upon to judge another person even though allegations have been proven false]136.

Other studies have compared emotive and non-emotive events — for example, a plane crash falsely assumed to have been caused by a terror attack, resulting in many fatalities, versus a technical fault, resulting in zero fatalities — and found no impact of misinformation emotiveness on the magnitude of the CIE137. Moreover, just as a sad mood can protect against initial misinformation belief80, it also seems to facilitate knowledge revision when a correction is encountered138. People who exhibit both subclinical depression and rumination tendencies have even been shown to exhibit particularly efficient correction of negative misinformation relative to control individuals, presumably because the salience of negative misinformation to this group facilitates revision139.

Finally, there is evidence that corrections can also benefit from emotional recalibration. For example, when misinformation downplays a risk or threat [for example, misinformation that a serious disease is relatively harmless], corrections that provide a more accurate risk evaluation operate partly through their impact on emotions such as hope, anger and fear. This emotional mechanism might help correction recipients realign their understanding of the situation with reality [for example, to realize they have underestimated the real threat]113,140. Likewise, countering disinformation that seeks to fuel fear or anger can benefit from a downward adjustment of emotional arousal; for example, refutations of vaccine misinformation can reduce anti-vaccination attitudes by mitigating misinformation-induced anger141.

Interventions to combat misinformation

As discussed in the preceding section, interventions to combat misinformation must overcome various cognitive, social and affective barriers. The most common type of correction is a fact-based correction that directly addresses inaccuracies in the misinformation and provides accurate information90,102,112,142 [Fig. 3]. A second approach is to address the logical fallacies common in some types of disinformation — for example, corrections that highlight inherently contradictory claims such as ‘global temperature cannot be measured accurately’ and ‘temperature records show it has been cooling’ [Fig. 4]. Such logic-based corrections might offer broader protection against different types of misinformation that use the same fallacies and misleading tactics21,143. A third approach is to undermine the plausibility of the misinformation or the credibility of its source144. Multiple approaches can be combined into a single correction — for example, highlighting both the factual and logical inaccuracies in the misinformation or undermining source credibility and underscoring factual errors94,95,145. However, most research to date has considered each approach separately and more research is required to test synergies between these strategies.

Fig. 3: Barriers to belief updating and strategies to overcome them [part 1].

How various barriers to belief updating can be overcome by specific communication strategies applied during correction, using event and health misinformation as examples. Colour shading is used to show how specific strategies are applied in the example corrections.

Full size image

Fig. 4: Barriers to belief updating and strategies to overcome them [part 2].

How various barriers to belief updating can be overcome by specific communication strategies applied during correction, using climate change misinformation as an example. Colour shading is used to show how specific strategies are applied in the example corrections.

Full size image

More generally, two strategies that can be distinguished are pre-emptive intervention [prebunking] and reactive intervention [debunking]. Prebunking seeks to help people recognize and resist subsequently encountered misinformation, even if it is novel. Debunking emphasizes responding to specific misinformation after exposure to demonstrate why it is false. The effectiveness of these corrections is influenced by a range of factors, and there are mixed results regarding their relative efficacy. For example, in the case of anti-vaccination conspiracy theories, prebunking has been found to be more effective than debunking146. However, other studies have found debunking to outperform prebunking87,95,142. Reconciling these findings might require considering both the specific type of correction and its placement in time. For example, when refuting climate misinformation, one study found that fact-based debunking outperformed fact-based prebunking, whereas logic-based prebunking and debunking were equally effective147.

Some interventions, particularly those in online contexts, are hybrid or borderline cases. For example, if a misleading social media post is tagged with ‘false’148 and appears alongside a comment with a corrective explanation, this might count as both prebunking [owing to the tag, which is likely to have been processed before the post] and debunking [owing to the comment, which is likely to have been processed after the post].

Prebunking interventions

The simplest prebunking interventions involve presenting factually correct information149,150, a pre-emptive correction142,151 or a generic misinformation warning99,148,152,153 before the misinformation. More sophisticated interventions draw on inoculation theory, a framework for pre-emptive interventions154,155,156. This theory applies the principle of vaccination to knowledge, positing that ‘inoculating’ people with a weakened form of persuasion can build immunity against subsequent persuasive arguments by engaging people’s critical-thinking skills [Fig. 5].

Fig. 5: Inoculation theory applied to misinformation.

‘Inoculation’ treatment can help people prepare for subsequent misinformation exposure. Treatment typically highlights the risks of being misled, alongside a pre-emptive refutation. The refutation can be fact-based, logic-based or source-based. Inoculation has been shown to increase misinformation detection and facilitate counterarguing and dismissal of false claims, effectively neutralizing misinformation. Additionally, inoculation can build immunity across topics and increase the likelihood of people talking about the issue targeted by the refutation [post-inoculation talk].

Full size image

An inoculation intervention combines two elements. The first element is warning recipients of the threat of misleading persuasion. For example, a person could be warned that many claims about climate change are false and intentionally misleading. The second element is identifying the techniques used to mislead or the fallacies that underlie the false arguments to refute forthcoming misinformation157,158. For example, a person might be taught that techniques used to mislead include selective use [‘cherry-picking’] of data [for example, only showing temperatures from outlier years to create the illusion that global temperatures have dropped] or the use of fake experts [for example, scientists with no expertise in climate science]. Understanding how those misleading persuasive techniques are applied equips a person with the cognitive tools to ward off analogous persuasion attempts in the future.

Because one element of inoculation is highlighting misleading argumentation techniques, its effects can generalize across topics, providing an ‘umbrella’ of protection159,160. For example, an inoculation against a misleading persuasive technique used to cast doubt on science demonstrating harm from tobacco was found to convey resistance against the same technique when used to cast doubt on climate science143. Moreover, inoculated people are more likely to talk about the target issue than non-inoculated people, an outcome referred to as post-inoculation talk161. Post-inoculation talk is more likely to be negative than talk among non-inoculated people, which promotes misinformation resistance both within and between individuals because people’s evaluations tend to weight negative information more strongly than positive information162.

Inoculation theory has also been used to explain how strategies designed to increase information literacy and media literacy could reduce the effects of misinformation. Information literacy — the ability to effectively find, understand, evaluate and use information — has been linked to the ability to detect misleading news163 and reduced sharing of misinformation164. Generally, information literacy and media literacy [which focuses on knowledge and skills for the reception and dissemination of information through the media] interventions are designed to improve critical thinking165 and the application of such interventions to spaces containing many different types of information might help people identify misinformation166.

One successful intervention focused on lateral reading — consulting external sources to examine the origins and plausibility of a piece of information, or the credibility of an information source115,167,168. A separate non-peer-reviewed preprint suggests that focusing on telltale signs of online misinformation [including lexical cues, message simplicity and blatant use of emotion] can help people identify fake news169. However, research to date suggests that literacy interventions do not always mitigate the effects of misinformation170,171,172,173. Whereas most work has used relatively passive inoculation and literacy interventions, applications that engage people more actively have shown promise — specifically, app-based or web-based games174,175,176,177. More work is needed to consider what types of literacy interventions are most effective for conferring resistance to different types of misinformation in the contemporary media and information landscape178.

In sum, the prebunking approach provides a great tool to act pre-emptively and help people build resistance to misinformation in a relatively general manner. However, the advantage of generalizability can also be a weakness, because it is often specific pieces of misinformation that cause concern, which call for more specific responses.

Debunking interventions

Whereas pre-emptive interventions can equip people to recognize and resist misinformation, reactive interventions retrospectively target concrete instances of misinformation. For example, if a novel falsehood that a vaccine can lead to life-threatening side effects in pregnant women begins to spread, then this misinformation must be addressed using specific counter-evidence. Research broadly finds that direct corrections are effective in reducing — although frequently not eliminating — reliance on the misinformation in a person’s reasoning86,87. The beneficial effects of debunking can last several weeks92,100,179, although the effects can wear off quicker145. There is also evidence that corrections that reduce misinformation belief can have downstream effects on behaviours or intentions94,95,180,181 — such as a person’s inclination to share a social media post or their voting intentions — but not always91,96,182.

Numerous best practices for debunking have emerged90,145,183. First, the most important element of a debunking correction is to provide a factual account that ideally includes an alternative explanation for why something happened85,86,99,102,184. For example, if a fire was thought to have been caused by negligence, then providing a causal alternative [‘there is evidence for arson’] is more effective than a retraction [‘there was no negligence’]. In general, more detailed refutations work better than plain retractions that do not provide any detail on why the misinformation is incorrect92,100,112,113. It can be beneficial to lead with the correction rather than repeat the misinformation to prioritize the correct information and set a factual frame for the issue. However, a preprint that has not been peer-reviewed suggests that leading with the misinformation can be just as, or even more, effective if no pithy fact is available150.

Second, the misinformation should be repeated to demonstrate how it is incorrect and to make the correction salient. However, the misinformation should be prefaced with a warning99,148 and repeated only once in order not to boost its familiarity unnecessarily104. It is also good to conclude by repeating and emphasizing the accurate information to reinforce the correction185.

Third, even though credibility matters less for correction sources compared with misinformation sources88, corrections are ideally delivered by or associated with high-credibility sources116,117,118,119,120,186. There is also emerging evidence that corrections are more impactful when they come from a socially connected source [for example, a connection on social media] rather than a stranger187.

Fourth, corrections should be paired with relevant social norms, including injunctive norms [‘protecting the vulnerable by getting vaccinated is the right thing to do’] and descriptive norms [‘over 90% of parents are vaccinating their children’]188, as well as expert consensus [‘doctors and medical societies around the world agree that vaccinations are important and safe’]189,190,191,192. One study found a benefit to knowledge revision if corrective evidence was endorsed by many others on social media, thus giving the impression of normative backing193.

Fifth, the language used in a correction is important. Simple language and informative graphics can facilitate knowledge revision, especially if fact comprehension might be otherwise difficult or if the person receiving the correction has a strong tendency to counterargue194,195,196,197. When speaking directly to misinformed individuals, empathic communication should be used rather than wielding expertise to argue directives198,199.

Finally, it has been suggested that worldview-threatening corrections can be made more palatable by concurrently providing an identity affirmation145,200,201. Identity affirmations involve a message or task [for example, writing a brief essay about one’s strengths and values] that highlights important sources of self-worth. These exercises are assumed to protect and strengthen the correction recipient’s self-esteem and the value of their identity, thereby reducing the threat associated with the correction and associated processing biases. However, evidence for the utility of identity affirmations in the context of misinformation corrections is mixed194, so firm recommendations cannot yet be made.

In sum, debunking is a valuable tool to address specific pieces of misinformation and largely reduces misinformation belief. However, debunking will not eliminate the influence of misinformation on people’s reasoning at a group level. Furthermore, even well-designed debunking interventions might not have long-lasting effects, thus requiring repeated intervention.

Corrections on social media

Misinformation corrections might be especially important in social media contexts because they can reduce false beliefs not just in the target of the correction but among everyone that sees the correction — a process termed observational correction119. Best practices for corrections on social media echo many best practices offline112, but also include linking to expert sources and correcting quickly and early202. There is emerging evidence that online corrections can work both pre-emptively and reactively, although this might depend on the type of correction147.

Notably, social media corrections are more effective when they are specific to an individual piece of content rather than a generalized warning148. Social media corrections are effective when they come from algorithmic sources203, from expert organizations such as a government health agency119,204,205 or from multiple other users on social media206. However, particular care must be taken to avoid ostracizing people when correcting them online. To prevent potential adverse effects on people’s online behaviour, such as sharing of misleading content, gentle accuracy nudges that prompt people to consider the accuracy of the information they encounter or highlight the importance of sharing only true information might be preferable to public corrections that might be experienced as embarrassing or confrontational181,207.

In sum, social media users should be aware that corrections can be effective in this arena and have the potential to reduce false beliefs in people they are connected with as well as bystanders. By contrast, confronting strangers is less likely to be effective. Given the effectiveness of algorithmic corrections, social media companies and regulators should promote implementation and evaluation of technical solutions to misinformation on social media.

Practical implications

Even if optimal prebunking or debunking interventions are deployed, no intervention can be fully effective or reach everyone with the false belief. The contemporary information landscape brings particular challenges: the internet and social media have enabled an exponential increase in misinformation spread and targeting to precise audiences14,16,208,209. Against this backdrop, the psychological factors discussed in this Review have implications for practitioners in various fields — journalists, legislators, public health officials and healthcare workers — as well as information consumers.

Implications for practitioners

Combatting misinformation involves a range of decisions regarding the optimal approach [Fig. 6]. When preparing to counter misinformation, it is important to identify likely sources. Although social media is an important misinformation vector210, traditional news organizations can promote misinformation via opinion pieces211, sponsored content212 or uncritical repetition of politician statements213. Practitioners must anticipate the misinformation themes and ensure suitable fact-based alternative accounts are available for either prebunking or a quick debunking response. Organizations such as the International Fact-Checking Network or the World Health Organization often form coalitions in the pursuit of this endeavour214.

Fig. 6: Strategies to counter misinformation.

Different strategies for countering misinformation are available to practitioners at different time points. If no misinformation is circulating but there is potential for it to emerge in the future, practitioners can consider possible misinformation sources and anticipate misinformation themes. Based on this assessment, practitioners can prepare fact-based alternative accounts, and either continue monitoring the situation while preparing for a quick response, or deploy pre-emptive [prebunking] or reactive [debunking] interventions, depending on the traction of the misinformation. Prebunking can take various forms, from simple warnings to more involved literacy interventions. Debunking can start either with a pithy counterfact that recipients ought to remember or with dismissal of the core ‘myth’. Debunking should provide a plausible alternative cause for an event or factual details, preface the misinformation with a warning and explain any logical fallacies or persuasive techniques used to promote the misinformation. Debunking should end with a factual statement.

Full size image

Practitioners must be aware that simple retractions will be insufficient to mitigate the impact of misinformation, and that the effects of interventions tend to wear off over time92,145,152. If possible, practitioners must therefore be prepared to act repeatedly179. Creating engaging, fact-based narratives can provide a foundation for effective correction215,216. However, a narrative format is not a necessary ingredient140,217, and anecdotes and stories can also be misleading218.

Practitioners can also help audiences discriminate between facts and opinion, which is a teachable skill170,219. Whereas most news consumers do not notice or understand content labels forewarning that an article is news, opinion or advertising220,221, more prominent labelling can nudge readers to adjust their comprehension and interpretation accordingly. For example, labelling can lead readers to be more sceptical of promoted content220. However, even when forewarnings are understood, they do not reliably eliminate the content’s influence99,153.

If pre-emptive correction is not possible or ineffective, practitioners should take a reactive approach. However, not every piece of misinformation needs to be a target for correction. Due to resource limitations and opportunity costs, corrections should focus on misinformation that circulates among a substantive portion of the population and carries potential for harm183. Corrections do not generally increase false beliefs among individuals who were previously unfamiliar with the misinformation222. However, if the risk of harm is minimal, there is no need to debunk misinformation that few people are aware of, which could potentially raise the profile of its source.

Implications for information consumers

Information consumers also have a role to play in combatting misinformation by avoiding contributing to its spread. For instance, people must be aware that they might encounter not only relatively harmless misinformation, such as reporting errors, outdated information and satire, but also disinformation campaigns designed to instil fear or doubt, discredit individuals, and sow division2,26,223,224. People must also recognize that disinformation can be psychologically targeted through profit-driven exploitation of personal data and social media algorithms12. Thoughtless sharing can amplify misinformation that might confuse and deceive others. Sharing misinformation can also contribute to the financial rewards sought by misinformation producers, and deepen ideological divides that disenfranchise voters, encourage violence and, ultimately, harm democratic processes2,170,223,225,226.

Thus, while engaged with content, individuals should slow down, think about why they are engaging and interrogate their visceral response. People who thoughtfully seek accurate information are more likely to successfully avoid misinformation compared with people who are motivated to find evidence to confirm their pre-existing beliefs50,227,228. Attending to the source and considering its credibility and motivation, along with lateral reading strategies, also increase the likelihood of identifying misinformation115,167,171. Given the benefits of persuading onlookers through observational correction, everyone should be encouraged to civilly, carefully and thoughtfully correct online misinformation where they encounter it [unless they deem it a harmless fringe view]119,206. All of these recommendations are also fundamental principles of media literacy166. Indeed, a theoretical underpinning of media literacy is that understanding the aims of media protects individuals from some adverse effects of being exposed to information through the media, including the pressure to adopt particular beliefs or behaviours170.

Implications for policymakers

Ultimately, even if practitioners and information consumers apply all of these strategies to reduce the impact of misinformation, their efforts will be stymied if media platforms continue to amplify misinformation14,16,208,209,210,211,212,213. These platforms include social media platforms such as YouTube, which are geared towards maximizing engagement even if this means promoting misinformation229, and traditional media outlets such as television news channels, where misinformation can negatively impact audiences. For example, two non-peer-reviewed preprints have found that COVID-19 misinformation on Fox News was causally associated with reduced adherence to public health measures and a larger number of COVID-19 cases and deaths230,231. It is, therefore, important to scrutinize whether the practices and algorithms of media platforms are optimized to promote misinformation or truth.

In this space, policymakers should consider enhanced regulation. These regulations might include penalties for creating and disseminating disinformation where intentionality and harm can be established, and mandating platforms to be more proactive, transparent and effective in their dealings with misinformation. With regards to social media specifically, companies should be encouraged to ban repeat offenders from their platforms, and to generally make engagement with and sharing of low-quality content more difficult12,232,233,234,235. Regulation must not result in censorship, and proponents of freedom of speech might disagree with attempts to regulate content. However, freedom of speech does not include the right to amplification of that speech. Furthermore, being unknowingly subjected to disinformation can be seen as a manipulative attack on freedom of choice and the right to be well informed236. These concerns must be balanced. A detailed summary of potential regulatory interventions can be found elsewhere237,238.

Other strategies have the potential to reduce the impact of misinformation without regulation of media content. Undue concentration of ownership and control of both social and traditional media facilitate the dissemination of misinformation239. Thus, policymakers are advised to support a diverse media landscape and adequately fund independent public broadcasters. Perhaps the most important approach to slowing the spread of misinformation is substantial investment in education, particularly to build information literacy skills in schools and beyond240,241,242,243. Another tool in the policymaker’s arsenal is interventions targeted more directly at behaviour, such as nudging policies and public pledges to honour the truth [also known as self-nudging] for policymakers and consumers alike12,244,245.

Overall, solutions to misinformation spread must be multipronged and target both the supply [for example, more efficient fact-checking and changes to platform algorithms and policies] and the consumption [for example, accuracy nudges and enhanced media literacy] of misinformation. Individually, each intervention might only incrementally reduce the spread of misinformation, but one preprint that has not been peer-reviewed suggests that combinations of interventions can have a substantial impact246.

More broadly speaking, any intervention to strengthen public trust in science, journalism, and democratic institutions is an intervention against the impacts of misinformation247,248. Such interventions might include enhancing transparency in science249,250 and journalism251, more rigorous fact-checking of political advertisements252, and reducing the social inequality that breeds distrust in experts and contributes to vulnerability to misinformation253,254.

Summary and future directions

Psychological research has built solid foundational knowledge of how people decide what is true and false, form beliefs, process corrections, and might continue to be influenced by misinformation even after it has been corrected. However, much work remains to fully understand the psychology of misinformation.

First, in line with general trends in psychology and elsewhere, research methods in the field of misinformation should be improved. Researchers should rely less on small-scale studies conducted in the laboratory or a small number of online platforms, often on non-representative [and primarily US-based] participants255. Researchers should also avoid relying on one-item questions with relatively low reliability256. Given the well-known attitude–behaviour gap — that attitude change does not readily translate into behavioural effects — researchers should also attempt to use more behavioural measures, such as information-sharing measures, rather than relying exclusively on self-report questionnaires93,94,95. Although existing research has yielded valuable insights into how people generally process misinformation [many of which will translate across different contexts and cultures], an increased focus on diversification of samples and more robust methods is likely to provide a better appreciation of important contextual factors and nuanced cultural differences7,82,205,257,258,259,260,261,262,263.

Second, most existing work has focused on explicit misinformation and text-based materials. Thus, the cognitive impacts of other types of misinformation, including subtler types of misdirection such as paltering [misleading while technically saying the truth]95,264,265,266, doctored images267, deepfake videos268 and extreme patterns of misinformation bombardment223, are currently not well understood. Non-text-based corrections, such as videos or cartoons, also deserve more exploration269,270.

Third, additional translational research is needed to explore questions about causality, including the causal impacts of misinformation and corrections on beliefs and behaviours. This research should also employ non-experimental methods230,231,271, such as observational causal inference [research aiming to establish causality in observed real-world data]272, and test the impact of interventions in the real world145,174,181,207. These studies are especially needed over the long term — weeks to months, or even years — and should test a range of outcome measures, for example those that relate to health and political behaviours, in a range of contexts. Ultimately, the success of psychological research into misinformation should be linked not only to theoretical progress but also to societal impact273.

Finally, even though the field has a reasonable understanding of the cognitive mechanisms and social determinants of misinformation processing, knowledge of the complex interplay between cognitive and social dynamics is still limited, as is insight into the role of emotion. Future empirical and theoretical work would benefit from development of an overarching theoretical model that aims to integrate cognitive, social and affective factors, for example by utilizing agent-based modelling approaches. This approach might also offer opportunities for more interdisciplinary work257 at the intersection of psychology, political science274 and social network analysis275, and the development of a more sophisticated psychology of misinformation.

References

1. DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M. & Epstein, J. A. Lying in everyday life. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 70, 979–995 [1996].

   Google Scholar 

2. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H. & Cook, J. Beyond misinformation: understanding and coping with the post-truth era. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6, 353–369 [2017].

   Google Scholar 

3. Zarocostas, J. How to fight an infodemic. Lancet 395, 676 [2020].

   PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

4. Lazer, D. M. J. et al. The science of fake news. Science 359, 1094–1096 [2018].

   PubMed  Google Scholar 

5. Bennett, W. L. & Livingston, S. The disinformation order: disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. Eur. J. Commun. 33, 122–139 [2018].

   Google Scholar 

6. Whitten-Woodring, J., Kleinberg, M. S., Thawnghmung, A. & Thitsar, M. T. Poison if you don’t know how to use it: Facebook, democracy, and human rights in Myanmar. Int. J. Press Politics 25, 407–425 [2020].

   Google Scholar 

7. Roozenbeek, J. et al. Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7, 201199 [2020].

   PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

8. Rich, J. in Private and Public Lies. The Discourse of Despotism and Deceit in the Graeco-Roman World [Impact of Empire 11] [eds Turner, A. J., Kim On Chong-Cossard, J. H. & Vervaet, F. J.] Vol. 11 167–191 [Brill Academic, 2010].

9. Hekster, O. in The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power [eds. de Blois, L., Erdkamp, P., Hekster, O., de Kleijn, G. & Mols, S.] 20–35 [J. C. Gieben, 2013].

10. Herf, J. The Jewish War: Goebbels and the antisemitic campaigns of the Nazi propaganda ministry. Holocaust Genocide Stud. 19, 51–80 [2005].

    Google Scholar 

11. Acerbi, A. Cognitive attraction and online misinformation. Palgrave Commun. 5, 15 [2019].

    Google Scholar 

12. Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S. & Hertwig, R. Citizens versus the internet: confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest. 21, 103–156 [2020].

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

13. Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A. & Bonneau, R. Tweeting from left to right: is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychol. Sci. 26, 1531–1542 [2015].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

14. Del Vicario, M. et al. The spreading of misinformation online. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 554–559 [2016].

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

15. Garrett, R. K. The echo chamber distraction: disinformation campaigns are the problem not audience fragmentation. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6, 370–376 [2017].

    Google Scholar 

16. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D. & Aral, S. The spread of true and false news online. Science 359, 1146–1151 [2018].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

17. Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A. & Yeo, S. K. The lure of rationality: why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Underst. Sci. 25, 400–414 [2016].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

18. Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N. M., Payne, B. K. & Marsh, E. J. Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth. J. Exp. Psychol. 144, 993–1002 [2015].

    Google Scholar 

19. Hornsey, M. J. & Fielding, K. S. Attitude roots and jiu jitsu persuasion: understanding and overcoming the motivated rejection of science. Am. Psychol. 72, 459 [2017].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

20. Nisbet, E. C., Cooper, K. E. & Garrett, R. K. The partisan brain: how dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to [dis]trust science. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 658, 36–66 [2015].

    Google Scholar 

21. Schmid, P. & Betsch, C. Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3, 931–939 [2019].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

22. Hansson, S. O. Science denial as a form of pseudoscience. Stud. History Philos. Sci. A 63, 39–47 [2017].

    Google Scholar 

23. Amin, A. B. et al. Association of moral values with vaccine hesitancy. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 873–880 [2017].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

24. Lewandowsky, S. & Oberauer, K. Motivated rejection of science. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 25, 217–222 [2016].

    Google Scholar 

25. Trevors, G. & Duffy, M. C. Correcting COVID-19 misconceptions requires caution. Educ. Res. 49, 538–542 [2020].

    Google Scholar 

26. Lewandowsky, S. Conspiracist cognition: chaos convenience, and cause for concern. J. Cult. Res. 25, 12–35 [2021].

    Google Scholar 

27. Lewandowsky, S., Stritzke, W. G. K., Freund, A. M., Oberauer, K. & Krueger, J. I. Misinformation, disinformation, and violent conflict: from Iraq and the war on terror to future threats to peace. Am. Psychol. 68, 487–501 [2013].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

28. Marsh, E. J., Cantor, A. D. & Brashier, N. M. Believing that humans swallow spiders in their sleep. Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 64, 93–132 [2016].

    Google Scholar 

29. Rapp, D. N. The consequences of reading inaccurate information. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 25, 281–285 [2016].

    Google Scholar 

30. Pantazi, M., Kissine, M. & Klein, O. The power of the truth bias: false information affects memory and judgment even in the absence of distraction. Soc. Cogn. 36, 167–198 [2018].

    Google Scholar 

31. Brashier, N. M. & Marsh, E. J. Judging truth. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 71, 499–515 [2020].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

32. Prike, T., Arnold, M. M. & Williamson, P. The relationship between anomalistic belief misperception of chance and the base rate fallacy. Think. Reason. 26, 447–477 [2020].

    Google Scholar 

33. Uscinski, J. E. et al. Why do people believe COVID-19 conspiracy theories? Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. //doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-015 [2020].

    Article  Google Scholar 

34. Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J. & Wänke, M. The truth about the truth: a meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 14, 238–257 [2010].

    Google Scholar 

35. Unkelbach, C., Koch, A., Silva, R. R. & Garcia-Marques, T. Truth by repetition: explanations and implications. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 28, 247–253 [2019].

    Google Scholar 

36. Begg, I. M., Anas, A. & Farinacci, S. Dissociation of processes in belief: source recollection, statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 121, 446–458 [1992].

    Google Scholar 

37. Unkelbach, C. Reversing the truth effect: learning the interpretation of processing fluency in judgments of truth. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Memory Cogn. 33, 219–230 [2007].

    Google Scholar 

38. Wang, W. C., Brashier, N. M., Wing, E. A., Marsh, E. J. & Cabeza, R. On known unknowns: fluency and the neural mechanisms of illusory truth. J. Cognit. Neurosci. 28, 739–746 [2016].

    Google Scholar 

39. Unkelbach, C. & Rom, S. C. A referential theory of the repetition-induced truth effect. Cognition 160, 110–126 [2017].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

40. Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D. & Rand, D. G. Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 147, 1865–1880 [2018].

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

41. Unkelbach, C. & Speckmann, F. Mere repetition increases belief in factually true COVID-19-related information. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 10, 241–247 [2021].

    Google Scholar 

42. Nadarevic, L., Reber, R., Helmecke, A. J. & Köse, D. Perceived truth of statements and simulated social media postings: an experimental investigation of source credibility, repeated exposure, and presentation format. Cognit. Res. Princ. Implic. 5, 56 [2020].

    Google Scholar 

43. Fazio, L. K., Rand, D. G. & Pennycook, G. Repetition increases perceived truth equally for plausible and implausible statements. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 26, 1705–1710 [2019].

    Google Scholar 

44. Brown, A. S. & Nix, L. A. Turning lies into truths: referential validation of falsehoods. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Memory Cogn. 22, 1088–1100 [1996].

    Google Scholar 

45. De keersmaecker, J. et al. Investigating the robustness of the illusory truth effect across individual differences in cognitive ability, need for cognitive closure, and cognitive style. Pers Soc. Psychol. Bull. 46, 204–215 [2020].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

46. Unkelbach, C. & Greifeneder, R. Experiential fluency and declarative advice jointly inform judgments of truth. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 79, 78–86 [2018].

    Google Scholar 

47. Fazio, L. K. Repetition increases perceived truth even for known falsehoods. Collabra Psychol. 6, 38 [2020].

    Google Scholar 

48. Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. The psychology of fake news. Trends Cognit. Sci. 25, 388–402 [2021].

    Google Scholar 

49. Murphy, G., Loftus, E. F., Grady, R. H., Levine, L. J. & Greene, C. M. False memories for fake news during Ireland’s abortion referendum. Psychol. Sci. 30, 1449–1459 [2019].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

50. Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Lazy, not biased: susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition 188, 39–50 [2019].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

51. Stanley, M. L., Barr, N., Peters, K. & Seli, P. Analytic-thinking predicts hoax beliefs and helping behaviors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Think. Reas. 27, 464–477 [2020].

    Google Scholar 

52. Bago, B., Rand, D. G. & Pennycook, G. Fake news, fast and slow: deliberation reduces belief in false [but not true] news headlines. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149, 1608–1613 [2020].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

53. Brashier, N. M., Eliseev, E. D. & Marsh, E. J. An initial accuracy focus prevents illusory truth. Cognition 194, 104054 [2020].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

54. Briñol, P. & Petty, R. E. Source factors in persuasion: a self-validation approach. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 20, 49–96 [2009].

    Google Scholar 

55. Mackie, D. M., Worth, L. T. & Asuncion, A. G. Processing of persuasive in-group messages. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58, 812–822 [1990].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

56. Mahmoodi, A. et al. Equality bias impairs collective decision-making across cultures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 3835–3840 [2015].

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

57. Marks, G. & Miller, N. Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: an empirical and theoretical review. Psychol. Bull. 102, 72–90 [1987].

    Google Scholar 

58. Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J. & Jenkins, J. C. Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S. 2002–2010. Clim. Change 114, 169–188 [2012].

    Google Scholar 

59. Lachapelle, E., Montpetit, É. & Gauvin, J.-P. Public perceptions of expert credibility on policy issues: the role of expert framing and political worldviews. Policy Stud. J. 42, 674–697 [2014].

    Google Scholar 

60. Dada, S., Ashworth, H. C., Bewa, M. J. & Dhatt, R. Words matter: political and gender analysis of speeches made by heads of government during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Glob. Health 6, e003910 [2021].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

61. Chung, M. & Jones-Jang, S. M. Red media, blue media, Trump briefings, and COVID-19: examining how information sources predict risk preventive behaviors via threat and efficacy. Health Commun. //doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.1914386 [2021].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

62. Mitchell, K. J. & Johnson, M. K. Source monitoring 15 years later: what have we learned from fMRI about the neural mechanisms of source memory? Psychol. Bull. 135, 638–677 [2009].

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

63. Dias, N., Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Emphasizing publishers does not effectively reduce susceptibility to misinformation on social media. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. //doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-001 [2020].

    Article  Google Scholar 

64. Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 2521–2526 [2019].

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

65. Altay, S., Hacquin, A.-S. & Mercier, H. Why do so few people share fake news? It hurts their reputation. N. Media Soc. //doi.org/10.1177/1461444820969893 [2020].

    Article  Google Scholar 

66. Rahhal, T. A., May, C. P. & Hasher, L. Truth and character: sources that older adults can remember. Psychol. Sci. 13, 101–105 [2002].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

67. Grinberg, N., Joseph, K., Friedland, L., Swire-Thompson, B. & Lazer, D. Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Science 363, 374–378 [2019].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

68. Stanford University Center for an Informed Public, Digital Forensic Research Lab, Graphika, & Stanford Internet Observatory. The long fuse: misinformation and the 2020 election. Stanford Digital Repository //purl.stanford.edu/tr171zs0069 [2021].

69. Jones, M. O. Disinformation superspreaders: the weaponisation of COVID-19 fake news in the Persian Gulf and beyond. Glob. Discourse 10, 431–437 [2020].

    Google Scholar 

70. Tannenbaum, M. B. et al. Appealing to fear: a meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories. Psychol. Bull. 141, 1178–1204 [2015].

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

71. Altay, S. & Mercier, H. Happy thoughts: the role of communion in accepting and sharing epistemically suspect beliefs. psyarxiv //psyarxiv.com/3s4nr/ [2020].

72. Rocklage, M. D., Rucker, D. D. & Nordgren, L. F. Persuasion, emotion, and language: the intent to persuade transforms language via emotionality. Psychol. Sci. 29, 749–760 [2018].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

73. Chou, W.-Y. S. & Budenz, A. Considering emotion in COVID-19 vaccine communication: addressing vaccine hesitancy and fostering vaccine confidence. Health Commun. 35, 1718–1722 [2020].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

74. Baum, J. & Abdel, R. R. Emotional news affects social judgments independent of perceived media credibility. Soc. Cognit. Affect. Neurosci. 16, 280–291 [2021].

    Google Scholar 

75. Kim, H., Park, K. & Schwarz, N. Will this trip really be exciting? The role of incidental emotions in product evaluation. J. Consum. Res. 36, 983–991 [2010].

    Google Scholar 

76. Forgas, J. P. Happy believers and sad skeptics? Affective influences on gullibility. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 28, 306–313 [2019].

    Google Scholar 

77. Martel, C., Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Reliance on emotion promotes belief in fake news. Cognit. Res. Princ. Implic. 5, 47 [2020].

    Google Scholar 

78. Forgas, J. P. & East, R. On being happy and gullible: mood effects on skepticism and the detection of deception. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44, 1362–1367 [2008].

    Google Scholar 

79. Koch, A. S. & Forgas, J. P. Feeling good and feeling truth: the interactive effects of mood and processing fluency on truth judgments. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48, 481–485 [2012].

    Google Scholar 

80. Forgas, J. P. Don’t worry be sad! On the cognitive, motivational, and interpersonal benefits of negative mood. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 22, 225–232 [2013].

    Google Scholar 

81. Weeks, B. E. Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: how anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. J. Commun. 65, 699–719 [2015].

    Google Scholar 

82. Han, J., Cha, M. & Lee, W. Anger contributes to the spread of COVID-19 misinformation. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. //doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-39 [2020].

    Article  Google Scholar 

83. Graeupner, D. & Coman, A. The dark side of meaning-making: how social exclusion leads to superstitious thinking. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 69, 218–222 [2017].

    Google Scholar 

84. Poon, K.-T., Chen, Z. & Wong, W.-Y. Beliefs in conspiracy theories following ostracism. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 46, 1234–1246 [2020].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

85. Johnson, H. M. & Seifert, C. M. Sources of the continued influence effect: when misinformation in memory affects later inferences. J. Exp. Psychol. Lear. Memory Cogn. 20, 1420–1436 [1994].

    Google Scholar 

86. Chan, M.-P. S., Jones, C. R., Jamieson, K. H. & Albarracín, D. Debunking: a meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychol. Sci. 28, 1531–1546 [2017].

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

87. Walter, N. & Murphy, S. T. How to unring the bell: a meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation. Commun. Monogr. 85, 423–441 [2018].

    Google Scholar 

88. Walter, N. & Tukachinsky, R. A meta-analytic examination of the continued influence of misinformation in the face of correction: how powerful is it, why does it happen, and how to stop it? Commun. Res. 47, 155–177 [2020].

    Google Scholar 

89. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N. & Cook, J. Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychol.Sci. Public. Interest. 13, 106–131 [2012].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

90. Barrera, O., Guriev, S., Henry, E. & Zhuravskaya, E. Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics. J. Public. Econ. 182, 104123 [2020].

    Google Scholar 

91. Swire, B., Berinsky, A. J., Lewandowsky, S. & Ecker, U. K. H. Processing political misinformation: comprehending the Trump phenomenon. R. Soc. Open. Sci. 4, 160802 [2017].

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

92. Swire, B., Ecker, U. K. H. & Lewandowsky, S. The role of familiarity in correcting inaccurate information. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Memory Cogn. 43, 1948–1961 [2017].

    Google Scholar 

93. Hamby, A., Ecker, U. K. H. & Brinberg, D. How stories in memory perpetuate the continued influence of false information. J. Consum. Psychol. 30, 240–259 [2019].

    Google Scholar 

94. MacFarlane, D., Tay, L. Q., Hurlstone, M. J. & Ecker, U. K. H. Refuting spurious COVID-19 treatment claims reduces demand and misinformation sharing. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 10, 248–258 [2021].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

95. Tay, L. Q., Hurlstone, M. J., Kurz, T. & Ecker, U. K. H. A comparison of prebunking and debunking interventions for implied versus explicit misinformation. Brit. J. Psychol. [in the press].

96. Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S. & Freed, G. L. Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 133, e835–e842 [2014].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

97. Poland, G. A. & Spier, R. Fear misinformation, and innumerates: how the Wakefield paper, the press, and advocacy groups damaged the public health. Vaccine 28, 2361–2362 [2010].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

98. Lewandowsky, S., Stritzke, W. G. K., Oberauer, K. & Morales, M. Memory for fact, fiction, and misinformation. Psychol. Sci. 16, 190–195 [2005].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

99. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S. & Tang, D. T. W. Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation. Mem. Cogn. 38, 1087–1100 [2010].

    Google Scholar 

100. Kendeou, P., Walsh, E. K., Smith, E. R. & OBrien, E. J. Knowledge revision processes in refutation texts. Discourse Process. 51, 374–397 [2014].

     Google Scholar 

101. Shtulman, A. & Valcarcel, J. Scientific knowledge suppresses but does not supplant earlier intuitions. Cognition 124, 209–215 [2012].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

102. Kendeou, P., Butterfuss, R., Kim, J. & Boekel, M. V. Knowledge revision through the lenses of the three-pronged approach. Mem. Cogn. 47, 33–46 [2019].

     Google Scholar 

103. Ithisuphalap, J., Rich, P. R. & Zaragoza, M. S. Does evaluating belief prior to its retraction influence the efficacy of later corrections? Memory 28, 617–631 [2020].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

104. Ecker, U. K. H., Hogan, J. L. & Lewandowsky, S. Reminders and repetition of misinformation: helping or hindering its retraction? J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6, 185–192 [2017].

     Google Scholar 

105. Brydges, C. R., Gignac, G. E. & Ecker, U. K. H. Working memory capacity, short-term memory capacity, and the continued influence effect: a latent-variable analysis. Intelligence 69, 117–122 [2018].

     Google Scholar 

106. Sanderson, J. A., Gignac, G. E. & Ecker, U. K. H. Working memory capacity, removal efficiency and event specific memory as predictors of misinformation reliance. J. Cognit. Psychol. 33, 518–532 [2021].

     Google Scholar 

107. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Swire, B. & Chang, D. Correcting false information in memory: manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 18, 570–578 [2011].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

108. Yonelinas, A. P. The nature of recollection and familiarity: Aa review of 30 years of research. J. Mem. Lang. 46, 441–517 [2002].

     Google Scholar 

109. Butterfuss, R. & Kendeou, P. Reducing interference from misconceptions: the role of inhibition in knowledge revision. J. Educ. Psychol. 112, 782–794 [2020].

     Google Scholar 

110. Brydges, C. R., Gordon, A. & Ecker, U. K. H. Electrophysiological correlates of the continued influence effect of misinformation: an exploratory study. J. Cognit. Psychol. 32, 771–784 [2020].

     Google Scholar 

111. Gordon, A., Quadflieg, S., Brooks, J. C. W., Ecker, U. K. H. & Lewandowsky, S. Keeping track of ‘alternative facts’: the neural correlates of processing misinformation corrections. NeuroImage 193, 46–56 [2019].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

112. Ecker, U. K. H., O’Reilly, Z., Reid, J. S. & Chang, E. P. The effectiveness of short-format refutational fact-checks. Br. J. Psychol. 111, 36–54 [2020].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

113. van der Meer, T. G. L. A. & Jin, Y. Seeking formula for misinformation treatment in public health crises: the effects of corrective information type and source. Health Commun. 35, 560–575 [2020].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

114. Wintersieck, A., Fridkin, K. & Kenney, P. The message matters: the influence of fact-checking on evaluations of political messages. J. Political Mark. 20, 93–120 [2021].

     Google Scholar 

115. Amazeen, M. & Krishna, A. Correcting vaccine misinformation: recognition and effects of source type on misinformation via perceived motivations and credibility. SSRN //doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3698102 [2020].

     Article  Google Scholar 

116. Vraga, E. K. & Bode, L. I do not believe you: how providing a source corrects health misperceptions across social media platforms. Inf. Commun. Soc. 21, 1337–1353 [2018].

     Google Scholar 

117. Ecker, U. K. H. & Antonio, L. M. Can you believe it? An investigation into the impact of retraction source credibility on the continued influence effect. Mem. Cogn. 49, 631–644 [2021].

     Google Scholar 

118. Guillory, J. J. & Geraci, L. Correcting erroneous inferences in memory: the role of source credibility. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2, 201–209 [2013].

     Google Scholar 

119. Vraga, E. K. & Bode, L. Using expert sources to correct health misinformation in social media. Sci. Commun. 39, 621–645 [2017].

     Google Scholar 

120. Zhang, J., Featherstone, J. D., Calabrese, C. & Wojcieszak, M. Effects of fact-checking social media vaccine misinformation on attitudes toward vaccines. Prev. Med. 145, 106408 [2021].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

121. Connor Desai, S. A., Pilditch, T. D. & Madsen, J. K. The rational continued influence of misinformation. Cognition 205, 104453 [2020].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

122. O’Rear, A. E. & Radvansky, G. A. Failure to accept retractions: a contribution to the continued influence effect. Mem. Cogn. 48, 127–144 [2020].

     Google Scholar 

123. Ecker, U. K. H. & Ang, L. C. Political attitudes and the processing of misinformation corrections. Political Psychol. 40, 241–260 [2019].

     Google Scholar 

124. Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behav. 32, 303–330 [2010].

     Google Scholar 

125. Trevors, G. The roles of identity conflict, emotion, and threat in learning from refutation texts on vaccination and immigration. Discourse Process. //doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2021.1917950 [2021].

     Article  Google Scholar 

126. Prasad, M. et al. There must be a reason: Osama, Saddam, and inferred justification. Sociol. Inq. 79, 142–162 [2009].

     Google Scholar 

127. Amazeen, M. A., Thorson, E., Muddiman, A. & Graves, L. Correcting political and consumer misperceptions: the effectiveness and effects of rating scale versus contextual correction formats. J. Mass. Commun. Q. 95, 28–48 [2016].

     Google Scholar 

128. Ecker, U. K. H., Sze, B. K. N. & Andreotta, M. Corrections of political misinformation: no evidence for an effect of partisan worldview in a US convenience sample. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 376, 20200145 [2021].

     Google Scholar 

129. Nyhan, B., Porter, E., Reifler, J. & Wood, T. J. Taking fact-checks literally but not seriously? The effects of journalistic fact-checking on factual beliefs and candidate favorability. Political Behav. 42, 939–960 [2019].

     Google Scholar 

130. Wood, T. & Porter, E. The elusive backfire effect: mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behav. 41, 135–163 [2018].

     Google Scholar 

131. Yang, Q., Qureshi, K. & Zaman, T. Mitigating the backfire effect using pacing and leading. arxiv //arxiv.org/abs/2008.00049 [2020].

132. Susmann, M. W. & Wegener, D. T. The role of discomfort in the continued influence effect of misinformation. Memory Cogn. //doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01232-8 [2021].

     Article  Google Scholar 

133. Cobb, M. D., Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. Beliefs don’t always persevere: how political figures are punished when positive information about them is discredited. Political Psychol. 34, 307–326 [2013].

     Google Scholar 

134. Thorson, E. Belief echoes: the persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Commun. 33, 460–480 [2016].

     Google Scholar 

135. Jaffé, M. E. & Greifeneder, R. Negative is true here and now but not so much there and then. Exp. Psychol. 67, 314–326 [2020].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

136. Ecker, U. K. H. & Rodricks, A. E. Do false allegations persist? Retracted misinformation does not continue to influence explicit person impressions. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 9, 587–601 [2020].

     Google Scholar 

137. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S. & Apai, J. Terrorists brought down the plane! No actually it was a technical fault: processing corrections of emotive information. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 64, 283–310 [2011].

     Google Scholar 

138. Trevors, G., Bohn-Gettler, C. & Kendeou, P. The effects of experimentally induced emotions on revising common vaccine misconceptions. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. //doi.org/10.1177/17470218211017840 [2021].

     Article  Google Scholar 

139. Chang, E. P., Ecker, U. K. H. & Page, A. C. Not wallowing in misery — retractions of negative misinformation are effective in depressive rumination. Cogn. Emot. 33, 991–1005 [2019].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

140. Sangalang, A., Ophir, Y. & Cappella, J. N. The potential for narrative correctives to combat misinformation. J. Commun. 69, 298–319 [2019].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

141. Featherstone, J. D. & Zhang, J. Feeling angry: the effects of vaccine misinformation and refutational messages on negative emotions and vaccination attitude. J. Health Commun. 25, 692–702 [2020].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

142. Brashier, N. M., Pennycook, G., Berinsky, A. J. & Rand, D. G. Timing matters when correcting fake news. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2020043118 [2021].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

143. Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. & Ecker, U. K. H. Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLoS ONE 12, e0175799 [2017].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

144. Hughes, M. G. et al. Discrediting in a message board forum: the effects of social support and attacks on expertise and trustworthiness. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 19, 325–341 [2014].

     Google Scholar 

145. Paynter, J. et al. Evaluation of a template for countering misinformation — real-world autism treatment myth debunking. PLoS ONE 14, e0210746 [2019].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

146. Jolley, D. & Douglas, K. M. Prevention is better than cure: addressing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 47, 459–469 [2017].

     Google Scholar 

147. Vraga, E. K., Kim, S. C., Cook, J. & Bode, L. Testing the effectiveness of correction placement and type on Instagram. Int. J. Press Politics 25, 632–652 [2020].

     Google Scholar 

148. Clayton, K. et al. Real solutions for fake news? Measuring the effectiveness of general warnings and fact-check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social media. Political Behav. 42, 1073–1095 [2019].

     Google Scholar 

149. Dai, Y., Yu, W. & Shen, F. The effects of message order and debiasing information in misinformation correction. Int. J. Commun. 15, 21 [2021].

     Google Scholar 

150. Swire-Thompson, B. et al. Evidence for a limited role of correction format when debunking misinformation. OSF //osf.io/udny9/ [2021].

151. Gordon, A., Ecker, U. K. H. & Lewandowsky, S. Polarity and attitude effects in the continued-influence paradigm. J. Mem. Lang. 108, 104028 [2019].

     Google Scholar 

152. Grady, R. H., Ditto, P. H. & Loftus, E. F. Nevertheless partisanship persisted: fake news warnings help briefly, but bias returns with time. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 6, 52 [2021].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

153. Schmid, P., Schwarzer, M. & Betsch, C. Weight-of-evidence strategies to mitigate the influence of messages of science denialism in public discussions. J. Cogn. 3, 36 [2020].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

154. Compton, J., van der Linden, S., Cook, J. & Basol, M. Inoculation theory in the post-truth era: extant findings and new frontiers for contested science misinformation, and conspiracy theories. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 15, e12602 [2021].

     Google Scholar 

155. Lewandowsky, S. & van der Linden, S. Countering misinformation and fake news through inoculation and prebunking. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. //doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983 [2021].

     Article  Google Scholar 

156. Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S. & Nygren, T. Prebunking interventions based on the psychological theory of inoculation can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. //doi.org/10.37016//mr-2020-008 [2020].

     Article  Google Scholar 

157. Maertens, R., Roozenbeek, J., Basol, M. & van der Linden, S. Long-term effectiveness of inoculation against misinformation: three longitudinal experiments. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 27, 1–16 [2020].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

158. van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S. & Maibach, E. Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Glob. Chall. 1, 1600008 [2017].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

159. Parker, K. A., Ivanov, B. & Compton, J. Inoculation’s efficacy with young adults’ risky behaviors: can inoculation confer cross-protection over related but untreated issues? Health Commun. 27, 223–233 [2012].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

160. Lewandowsky, S. & Yesilada, M. Inoculating against the spread of Islamophobic and radical-Islamist disinformation. Cognit. Res. Princ. Implic. 6, 57 [2021].

     Google Scholar 

161. Ivanov, B. et al. The general content of postinoculation talk: recalled issue-specific conversations following inoculation treatments. West. J. Commun. 79, 218–238 [2015].

     Google Scholar 

162. Amazeen, M. A. & Vargo, C. J. Sharing native advertising on Twitter: content analyses examining disclosure practices and their inoculating influence. Journal. Stud. 22, 916–933 [2021].

     Google Scholar 

163. Jones-Jang, S. M., Mortensen, T. & Liu, J. Does media literacy help identification of fake news? Information literacy helps but other literacies don’t. Am. Behav. Sci. 65, 371–388 [2019].

     Google Scholar 

164. Khan, M. L. & Idris, I. K. Recognise misinformation and verify before sharing: a reasoned action and information literacy perspective. Behav. Inf. Technol. 38, 1194–1212 [2019].

     Google Scholar 

165. Machete, P. & Turpin, M. The use of critical thinking to identify fake news: a systematic literature review. Lecture Notes Comput. Sci. 12067, 235–246 [2020].

     Google Scholar 

166. Vraga, E. K., Tully, M., Maksl, A., Craft, S. & Ashley, S. Theorizing news literacy behaviors. Commun. Theory 31, 1–21 [2020].

     Google Scholar 

167. Wineburg, S., McGrew, S., Breakstone, J. & Ortega, T. Evaluating information: the cornerstone of civic online reasoning. SDR //purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934 [2016].

168. Breakstone, J. et al. Lateral reading: college students learn to critically evaluate internet sources in an online course. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. //doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-56 [2021].

     Article  Google Scholar 

169. Choy, M. & Chong, M. Seeing through misinformation: a framework for identifying fake online news. arxiv //arxiv.org/abs/1804.03508 [2018].

170. Amazeen, M. A. & Bucy, E. P. Conferring resistance to digital disinformation: the inoculating influence of procedural news knowledge. J. Broadcasting Electron. Media 63, 415–432 [2019].

     Google Scholar 

171. Guess, A. M. et al. A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 15536–15545 [2020].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

172. Hameleers, M. Separating truth from lies: comparing the effects of news media literacy interventions and fact-checkers in response to political misinformation in the US and Netherlands. Inf. Commun. Soc. //doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2020.1764603 [2020].

     Article  Google Scholar 

173. Tully, M., Vraga, E. K. & Bode, L. Designing and testing news literacy messages for social media. Mass. Commun. Soc. 23, 22–46 [2019].

     Google Scholar 

174. Roozenbeek, J. & van der Linden, S. Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Palgrave Commun. 5, 65 [2019].

     Google Scholar 

175. Roozenbeek, J. & van der Linden, S. Breaking Harmony Square: a game that inoculates against political misinformation. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. //doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-47 [2020].

     Article  Google Scholar 

176. Micallef, N., Avram, M., Menczer, F. & Patil, S. Fakey. Proc. ACM Human Comput. Interact. 5, 1–27 [2021].

     Google Scholar 

177. Katsaounidou, A., Vrysis, L., Kotsakis, R., Dimoulas, C. & Veglis, A. MAthE the game: a serious game for education and training in news verification. Educ. Sci. 9, 155 [2019].

     Google Scholar 

178. Mihailidis, P. & Viotty, S. Spreadable spectacle in digital culture: civic expression, fake news, and the role of media literacies in post-fact society. Am. Behav. Sci. 61, 441–454 [2017].

     Google Scholar 

179. Carnahan, D., Bergan, D. E. & Lee, S. Do corrective effects last? Results from a longitudinal experiment on beliefs toward immigration in the U.S. Political Behav. 43, 1227–1246 [2021].

     Google Scholar 

180. Wintersieck, A. L. Debating the truth. Am. Politics Res. 45, 304–331 [2017].

     Google Scholar 

181. Mosleh, M., Martel, C., Eckles, D. & Rand, D. in Proc. 2021 CHI Conf. Human Factors Computing Systems 2688–2700 [ACM, 2021].

182. Swire-Thompson, B., Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S. & Berinsky, A. J. They might be a liar but they’re my liar: source evaluation and the prevalence of misinformation. Political Psychol. 41, 21–34 [2019].

     Google Scholar 

183. Lewandowsky, S. et al. The Debunking Handbook 2020 [George Mason Univ., 2020]

184. Kendeou, P., Smith, E. R. & O’Brien, E. J. Updating during reading comprehension: why causality matters. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Memory Cogn. 39, 854–865 [2013].

     Google Scholar 

185. Schwarz, N., Newman, E. & Leach, W. Making the truth stick & the myths fade: lessons from cognitive psychology. Behav. Sci. Policy 2, 85–95 [2016].

     Google Scholar 

186. Van Boekel, M., Lassonde, K. A., O’Brien, E. J. & Kendeou, P. Source credibility and the processing of refutation texts. Mem. Cogn. 45, 168–181 [2017].

     Google Scholar 

187. Margolin, D. B., Hannak, A. & Weber, I. Political fact-checking on Twitter: when do corrections have an effect? Political Commun. 35, 196–219 [2017].

     Google Scholar 

188. Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J. & Griskevicius, V. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol. Sci. 18, 429–434 [2007].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

189. Chinn, S., Lane, D. S. & Hart, P. S. In consensus we trust? Persuasive effects of scientific consensus communication. Public Underst. Sci. 27, 807–823 [2018].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

190. Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E. & Vaughan, S. The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 399–404 [2013].

     Google Scholar 

191. van der Linden, S. L., Clarke, C. E. & Maibach, E. W. Highlighting consensus among medical scientists increases public support for vaccines: evidence from a randomized experiment. BMC Public Health 15, 1207 [2015].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

192. van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A. & Maibach, E. Scientific agreement can neutralize politicization of facts. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 2–3 [2017].

     Google Scholar 

193. Vlasceanu, M. & Coman, A. The impact of social norms on health-related belief update. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being //doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12313 [2021].

194. Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. The roles of information deficits and identity threat in the prevalence of misperceptions. J. Elect. Public Opin. Parties 29, 222–244 [2018].

     Google Scholar 

195. Danielson, R. W., Sinatra, G. M. & Kendeou, P. Augmenting the refutation text effect with analogies and graphics. Discourse Process. 53, 392–414 [2016].

     Google Scholar 

196. Dixon, G. N., McKeever, B. W., Holton, A. E., Clarke, C. & Eosco, G. The power of a picture: overcoming scientific misinformation by communicating weight-of-evidence information with visual exemplars. J. Commun. 65, 639–659 [2015].

     Google Scholar 

197. van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D. & Maibach, E. W. How to communicate the scientific consensus on climate change: plain facts, pie charts or metaphors? Clim. Change 126, 255–262 [2014].

     Google Scholar 

198. Steffens, M. S., Dunn, A. G., Wiley, K. E. & Leask, J. How organisations promoting vaccination respond to misinformation on social media: a qualitative investigation. BMC Public Health 19, 1348 [2019].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

199. Hyland-Wood, B., Gardner, J., Leask, J. & Ecker, U. K. H. Toward effective government communication strategies in the era of COVID-19. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 8, 30 [2021].

     Google Scholar 

200. Sherman, D. K. & Cohen, G. L. Accepting threatening information: self-affirmation and the reduction of defensive biases. Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci. 11, 119–123 [2002].

     Google Scholar 

201. Carnahan, D., Hao, Q., Jiang, X. & Lee, H. Feeling fine about being wrong: the influence of self-affirmation on the effectiveness of corrective information. Hum. Commun. Res. 44, 274–298 [2018].

     Google Scholar 

202. Vraga, E. K. & Bode, L. Correction as a solution for health misinformation on social media. Am. J. Public Health 110, S278–S280 [2020].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

203. Bode, L. & Vraga, E. K. In related news, that was wrong: the correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media. J. Commun. 65, 619–638 [2015].

     Google Scholar 

204. Vraga, E. K. & Bode, L. Addressing COVID-19 misinformation on social media preemptively and responsively. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 27, 396–403 [2021].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

205. Vijaykumar, S. et al. How shades of truth and age affect responses to COVID-19 [mis]information: randomized survey experiment among WhatsApp users in UK and Brazil. Humanit. Soc. Sci.Commun. 8, 88 [2021].

     Google Scholar 

206. Bode, L. & Vraga, E. K. See something say something: correction of global health misinformation on social media. Health Commun. 33, 1131–1140 [2017].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

207. Pennycook, G. et al. Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature 592, 590–595 [2021].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

208. Matz, S. C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G. & Stillwell, D. J. Psychological targeting as an effective approach to digital mass persuasion. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 12714–12719 [2017].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

209. Vargo, C. J., Guo, L. & Amazeen, M. A. The agenda-setting power of fake news: a big data analysis of the online media landscape from 2014 to 2016. N. Media Soc. 20, 2028–2049 [2018].

     Google Scholar 

210. Allington, D., Duffy, B., Wessely, S., Dhavan, N. & Rubin, J. Health-protective behavior, social media usage and conspiracy belief during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Psychol. Med. 51, 1763–1769 [2020].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

211. Cook, J., Bedford, D. & Mandia, S. Raising climate literacy through addressing misinformation: case studies in agnotology-based learning. J. Geosci. Educ. 62, 296–306 [2014].

     Google Scholar 

212. Amazeen, M. A. News in an era of content confusion: effects of news use motivations and context on native advertising and digital news perceptions. Journal. Mass. Commun. Q. 97, 161–187 [2020].

     Google Scholar 

213. Lawrence, R. G. & Boydstun, A. E. What we should really be asking about media attention to Trump. Political Commun. 34, 150–153 [2016].

     Google Scholar 

214. Schmid, P., MacDonald, N. E., Habersaat, K. & Butler, R. Commentary to: How to respond to vocal vaccine deniers in public. Vaccine 36, 196–198 [2018].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

215. Shelby, A. & Ernst, K. Story and science. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 9, 1795–1801 [2013].

     Google Scholar 

216. Lazić, A. & Žeželj, I. A systematic review of narrative interventions: lessons for countering anti-vaccination conspiracy theories and misinformation. Public Underst. Sci. 30, 644–670 [2021].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

217. Ecker, U. K. H., Butler, L. H. & Hamby, A. You don’t have to tell a story! A registered report testing the effectiveness of narrative versus non-narrative misinformation corrections. Cognit. Res. Princ. Implic. 5, 64 [2020].

     Google Scholar 

218. Van Bavel, J. J., Reinero, D. A., Spring, V., Harris, E. A. & Duke, A. Speaking my truth: why personal experiences can bridge divides but mislead. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2100280118 [2021].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

219. Merpert, A., Furman, M., Anauati, M. V., Zommer, L. & Taylor, I. Is that even checkable? An experimental study in identifying checkable statements in political discourse. Commun. Res. Rep. 35, 48–57 [2017].

     Google Scholar 

220. Amazeen, M. A. & Wojdynski, B. W. Reducing native advertising deception: revisiting the antecedents and consequences of persuasion knowledge in digital news contexts. Mass. Commun. Soc. 22, 222–247 [2019].

     Google Scholar 

221. Peacock, C., Masullo, G. M. & Stroud, N. J. What’s in a label? The effect of news labels on perceived credibility. Journalism //doi.org/10.1177/1464884920971522 [2020].

     Article  Google Scholar 

222. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S. & Chadwick, M. Can corrections spread misinformation to new audiences? Testing for the elusive familiarity backfire effect. Cognit. Res. Princ. Implic. 5, 41 [2020].

     Google Scholar 

223. McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. Combatting misinformation requires recognizing its types and the factors that facilitate its spread and resonance. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6, 389–396 [2017].

     Google Scholar 

224. Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. Defeating the merchants of doubt. Nature 465, 686–687 [2010].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

225. Golovchenko, Y., Hartmann, M. & Adler-Nissen, R. State media and civil society in the information warfare over Ukraine: citizen curators of digital disinformation. Int. Aff. 94, 975–994 [2018].

     Google Scholar 

226. Tandoc, E. C., Lim, Z. W. & Ling, R. Defining fake news. Digit. Journal. 6, 137–153 [2017].

     Google Scholar 

227. Mosleh, M., Pennycook, G., Arechar, A. A. & Rand, D. G. Cognitive reflection correlates with behavior on Twitter. Nat. Commun. 12, 921 [2021].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

228. Scheufele, D. A. & Krause, N. M. Science audiences misinformation, and fake news. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 7662–7669 [2019].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

229. Yesilada, M. & Lewandowsky, S. A systematic review: the YouTube recommender system and pathways to problematic content. psyarxiv //psyarxiv.com/6pv5c/ [2021].

230. Bursztyn, L., Rao, A., Roth, C. & Yanagizawa-Drott, D. Misinformation during a pandemic. NBER //www.nber.org/papers/w27417 [2020].

231. Simonov, A., Sacher, S., Dubé, J.-P. & Biswas, S. The persuasive effect of Fox News: non-compliance with social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. NBER //www.nber.org/papers/w27237 [2020].

232. Bechmann, A. Tackling disinformation and infodemics demands media policy changes. Digit. Journal. 8, 855–863 [2020].

     Google Scholar 

233. Marsden, C., Meyer, T. & Brown, I. Platform values and democratic elections: how can the law regulate digital disinformation? Comput. Law Security Rev. 36, 105373 [2020].

     Google Scholar 

234. Saurwein, F. & Spencer-Smith, C. Combating disinformation on social media: multilevel governance and distributed accountability in Europe. Digit. Journal. 8, 820–841 [2020].

     Google Scholar 

235. Tenove, C. Protecting democracy from disinformation: normative threats and policy responses. Int. J. Press Politics 25, 517–537 [2020].

     Google Scholar 

236. Reisach, U. The responsibility of social media in times of societal and political manipulation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 291, 906–917 [2021].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

237. Lewandowsky, S. et al. Technology and democracy: understanding the influence of online technologies on political behaviour and decision-making. Publ. Office Eur. Union //doi.org/10.2760/593478 [2020].

     Article  Google Scholar 

238. Blasio, E. D. & Selva, D. Who is responsible for disinformation? European approaches to social platforms’ accountability in the post-truth era. Am. Behav. Scientist 65, 825–846 [2021].

     Google Scholar 

239. Pickard, V. Restructuring democratic infrastructures: a policy approach to the journalism crisis. Digit. J. 8, 704–719 [2020].

     Google Scholar 

240. Barzilai, S. & Chinn, C. A. A review of educational responses to the post-truth condition: four lenses on post-truth problems. Educ. Psychol. 55, 107–119 [2020].

     Google Scholar 

241. Lee, N. M. Fake news, phishing, and fraud: a call for research on digital media literacy education beyond the classroom. Commun. Educ. 67, 460–466 [2018].

     Google Scholar 

242. Sinatra, G. M. & Lombardi, D. Evaluating sources of scientific evidence and claims in the post-truth era may require reappraising plausibility judgments. Educ. Psychol. 55, 120–131 [2020].

     Google Scholar 

243. Vraga, E. K. & Bode, L. Leveraging institutions, educators, and networks to correct misinformation: a commentary on Lewandowsky, Ecker, and Cook. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6, 382–388 [2017].

     Google Scholar 

244. Lorenz-Spreen, P., Lewandowsky, S., Sunstein, C. R. & Hertwig, R. How behavioural sciences can promote truth, autonomy and democratic discourse online. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 1102–1109 [2020].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

245. Tsipursky, G., Votta, F. & Mulick, J. A. A psychological approach to promoting truth in politics: the pro-truth pledge. J. Soc. Political Psychol. 6, 271–290 [2018].

     Google Scholar 

246. Bak-Coleman, J. B. et al. Combining interventions to reduce the spread of viral misinformation. OSF //osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/4jtvm/ [2021].

247. Ognyanova, K., Lazer, D., Robertson, R. E. & Wilson, C. Misinformation in action: fake news exposure is linked to lower trust in media, higher trust in government when your side is in power. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. //doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-024 [2020].

     Article  Google Scholar 

248. Swire-Thompson, B. & Lazer, D. Public health and online misinformation: challenges and recommendations. Annu. Rev. Public Health 41, 433–451 [2020].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

249. Boele-Woelki, K., Francisco, J. S., Hahn, U. & Herz, J. How we can rebuild trust in science and why we must. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 57, 13696–13697 [2018].

     Google Scholar 

250. Klein, O. et al. A practical guide for transparency in psychological science. Collabra Psychol. 4, 20 [2018].

     Google Scholar 

251. Masullo, G. M., Curry, A. L., Whipple, K. N. & Murray, C. The story behind the story: examining transparency about the journalistic process and news outlet credibility. Journal. Pract. //doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2020.1870529 [2021].

     Article  Google Scholar 

252. Amazeen, M. A. Checking the fact-checkers in 2008: predicting political ad scrutiny and assessing consistency. J. Political Mark. 15, 433–464 [2014].

     Google Scholar 

253. Hahl, O., Kim, M. & Sivan, E. W. Z. The authentic appeal of the lying demagogue: proclaiming the deeper truth about political illegitimacy. Am. Sociol. Rev. 83, 1–33 [2018].

     Google Scholar 

254. Jaiswal, J., LoSchiavo, C. & Perlman, D. C. Disinformation, misinformation and inequality-driven mistrust in the time of COVID-19: lessons unlearned from AIDS denialism. AIDS Behav. 24, 2776–2780 [2020].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

255. Cheon, B. K., Melani, I. & Hong, Y. How USA-centric is psychology? An archival study of implicit assumptions of generalizability of findings to human nature based on origins of study samples. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 11, 928–937 [2020].

     Google Scholar 

256. Swire-Thompson, B., DeGutis, J. & Lazer, D. Searching for the backfire effect: measurement and design considerations. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 9, 286–299 [2020].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

257. Wang, Y., McKee, M., Torbica, A. & Stuckler, D. Systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media. Soc. Sci. Med. 240, 112552 [2019].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

258. Bastani, P. & Bahrami, M. A. COVID-19 related misinformation on social media: a qualitative study from Iran. J. Med. Internet Res. //doi.org/10.2196/18932 [2020].

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

259. Arata, N. B., Torneo, A. R. & Contreras, A. P. Partisanship, political support, and information processing among President Rodrigo Duterte’s supporters and non-supporters. Philippine Political Sci. J. 41, 73–105 [2020].

     Google Scholar 

260. Islam, A. K. M. N., Laato, S., Talukder, S. & Sutinen, E. Misinformation sharing and social media fatigue during COVID-19: an affordance and cognitive load perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 159, 120201 [2020].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

261. Xu, Y., Wong, R., He, S., Veldre, A. & Andrews, S. Is it smart to read on your phone? The impact of reading format and culture on the continued influence of misinformation. Mem. Cogn. 48, 1112–1127 [2020].

     Google Scholar 

262. Lyons, B., Mérola, V., Reifler, J. & Stoeckel, F. How politics shape views toward fact-checking: evidence from six European countries. Int. J. Press Politics 25, 469–492 [2020].

     Google Scholar 

263. Porter, E. & Wood, T. J. The global effectiveness of fact-checking: evidence from simultaneous experiments in Argentina, Nigeria, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2104235118 [2021].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

264. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Chang, E. P. & Pillai, R. The effects of subtle misinformation in news headlines. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 20, 323–335 [2014].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

265. Powell, D., Bian, L. & Markman, E. M. When intents to educate can misinform: inadvertent paltering through violations of communicative norms. PLoS ONE 15, e0230360 [2020].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

266. Rich, P. R. & Zaragoza, M. S. The continued influence of implied and explicitly stated misinformation in news reports. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Memory Cogn. 42, 62–74 [2016].

     Google Scholar 

267. Shen, C. et al. Fake images: the effects of source intermediary and digital media literacy on contextual assessment of image credibility online. N. Media Soc. 21, 438–463 [2018].

     Google Scholar 

268. Barari, S., Lucas, C. & Munger, K. Political deepfakes are as credible as other fake media and [sometimes] real media. OSF //osf.io/cdfh3/ [2021].

269. Young, D. G., Jamieson, K. H., Poulsen, S. & Goldring, A. Fact-checking effectiveness as a function of format and tone: evaluating FactCheck.org and FlackCheck.org. Journal. Mass. Commun. Q. 95, 49–75 [2017].

     Google Scholar 

270. Vraga, E. K., Kim, S. C. & Cook, J. Testing logic-based and humor-based corrections for science health, and political misinformation on social media. J. Broadcasting Electron. Media 63, 393–414 [2019].

     Google Scholar 

271. Dunn, A. G. et al. Mapping information exposure on social media to explain differences in HPV vaccine coverage in the United States. Vaccine 35, 3033–3040 [2017].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

272. Marinescu, I. E., Lawlor, P. N. & Kording, K. P. Quasi-experimental causality in neuroscience and behavioural research. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 891–898 [2018].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

273. Van Bavel, J. J. et al. Political psychology in the digital [mis]information age: a model of news belief and sharing. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 15, 84–113 [2021].

     Google Scholar 

274. Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D. & Rich, R. F. Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. J. Politics 62, 790–816 [2000].

     Google Scholar 

275. Shelke, S. & Attar, V. Source detection of rumor in social network: a review. Online Soc. Netw. Media 9, 30–42 [2019].

     Google Scholar 

276. Brady, W. J., Gantman, A. P. & Van Bavel, J. J. Attentional capture helps explain why moral and emotional content go viral. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149, 746–756 [2020].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

277. Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A. & Van Bavel, J. J. Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7313–7318 [2017].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

278. Fazio, L. Pausing to consider why a headline is true or false can help reduce the sharing of false news. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. //doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-009 [2020].

     Article  Google Scholar 

279. Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G. & Rand, D. G. Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychol. Sci. 31, 770–780 [2020].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

280. Pew Research Center. Many Americans Say Made-up News is a Critical Problem That Needs to be Fixed //www.journalism.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2019/06/PJ_2019.06.05_Misinformation_FINAL-1.pdf [2019].

281. Pew Research Center. Many Americans Believe Fake News is Sowing Confusion //www.journalism.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2016/12/PJ_2016.12.15_fake-news_FINAL.pdf [2016].

282. Altay, S., Araujo, Ede & Mercier, H. If this account is true, it is most enormously wonderful: interestingness-if-true and the sharing of true and false news. Digital Journal. //doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1941163 [2021].

     Article  Google Scholar 

283. Brady, W. J., Crockett, M. J. & Van Bavel, J. J. The MAD model of moral contagion: The role of motivation, attention, and design in the spread of moralized content online. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15, 978–1010 [2020].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

284. Crockett, M. J. Moral outrage in the digital age. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 769–771 [2017].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

285. Petersen, M. B., Osmundsen, M. & Arceneaux, K. The “need for chaos” and motivations to share hostile political rumors. psyarxiv //psyarxiv.com/6m4ts/ [2020].

286. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Jayawardana, K. & Mladenovic, A. Refutations of equivocal claims: no evidence for an ironic effect of counterargument number. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 8, 98–107 [2019].

     Google Scholar 

287. Skurnik, I., Yoon, C., Park, D. C. & Schwarz, N. How warnings about false claims become recommendations. J. Consum. Res. 31, 713–724 [2005].

     Google Scholar 

288. Schwarz, N., Sanna, L. J., Skurnik, I. & Yoon, C. Metacognitive experiences and the intricacies of setting people straight: implications for debiasing and public information campaigns. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 39, 127–161 [2007].

     Google Scholar 

289. Cameron, K. A. et al. Patient knowledge and recall of health information following exposure to facts and myths message format variations. Patient Educ. Counsel. 92, 381–387 [2013].

     Google Scholar 

290. Wahlheim, C. N., Alexander, T. R. & Peske, C. D. Reminders of everyday misinformation statements can enhance memory for and belief in corrections of those statements in the short term. Psychol. Sci. 31, 1325–1339 [2020].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

291. Autry, K. S. & Duarte, S. E. Correcting the unknown: negated corrections may increase belief in misinformation. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 35, 960–975 [2021].

     Google Scholar 

292. Pluviano, S., Watt, C. & Della Sala, S. Misinformation lingers in memory: failure of three pro-vaccination strategies. PLoS ONE 12, e0181640 [2017].

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

293. Taber, C. S. & Lodge, M. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Am. J. Political. Sci. 50, 755–769 [2006].

     Google Scholar 

294. Nyhan, B., Reifler, J. & Ubel, P. A. The hazards of correcting myths about health care reform. Med. Care 51, 127–132 [2013].

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

295. Hart, P. S. & Nisbet, E. C. Boomerang effects in science communication. Commun. Res. 39, 701–723 [2011].

     Google Scholar 

296. Swire-Thompson, B., Miklaucic, N., Wihbey, J., Lazer, D. & DeGutis, J. Backfire effects after correcting misinformation are strongly associated with reliability. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. [in the press].

297. Zhou, J. Boomerangs versus javelins: how polarization constrains communication on climate change. Environ. Politics 25, 788–811 [2016].

     Google Scholar 

Download references

Which are ways that individual Internet users can limit the spread of false information on the Internet quizlet?

How does the Internet affect your life?

What is the definition of Dataveillance quizlet?

Which are the basic social needs that users seek to fulfill according to the dual factor model of social media use?