Tune in to the prebunking network! Development and validation of six inoculation videos that prebunk manipulation tactics and logical fallacies in misinformation.
Saved in:
| Title: | Tune in to the prebunking network! Development and validation of six inoculation videos that prebunk manipulation tactics and logical fallacies in misinformation. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Biddlestone, Mikey (AUTHOR), Roozenbeek, Jon (AUTHOR), Suiter, Jane (AUTHOR), Culloty, Eileen (AUTHOR), van der Linden, Sander (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Political Psychology. Dec2025, Vol. 46 Issue 6, p1858-1886. 29p. |
| Subjects: | Misinformation, Logical fallacies, Conspiracy theories, Cognitive bias, Predicate (Logic), Polarization (Social sciences) |
| Abstract: | Meta‐analyses have demonstrated how inoculation interventions increase the detection of misinformation, but their scalability has remained elusive. To address this, Study 1 (pre‐registered; N = 1,583) tested the efficacy of three short inoculation videos (prebunks) against three common manipulation tactics used in misinformation: (1) polarization, (2) conspiracy theories, and (3) fake experts. Results indicated that all three inoculation videos (vs. control) increased the detection of relevant manipulative content without altering perceptions of non‐manipulative content, but only the polarization inoculation video increased manipulation discernment (i.e., increased ability to distinguish between manipulative and non‐manipulative content). In Study 2 (pre‐registered; N = 1,603), we tested the efficacy of three more inoculation videos containing logic‐based prebunks against logical fallacies commonly used in misinformation: (1) whataboutism, (2) the moving the goalposts fallacy, and (3) the strawman fallacy. Detection of the relevant fallacious content was higher in all conditions (vs. control), but only the strawman fallacy inoculation video increased fallacy discernment. The moving the goalposts fallacy inoculation video appeared to increase overall distrust of relevant content, whereas the other two videos did not alter perceptions of relevant non‐fallacious content. We discuss the implications and limitations of these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Political Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Meta‐analyses have demonstrated how inoculation interventions increase the detection of misinformation, but their scalability has remained elusive. To address this, Study 1 (pre‐registered; N = 1,583) tested the efficacy of three short inoculation videos (prebunks) against three common manipulation tactics used in misinformation: (1) polarization, (2) conspiracy theories, and (3) fake experts. Results indicated that all three inoculation videos (vs. control) increased the detection of relevant manipulative content without altering perceptions of non‐manipulative content, but only the polarization inoculation video increased manipulation discernment (i.e., increased ability to distinguish between manipulative and non‐manipulative content). In Study 2 (pre‐registered; N = 1,603), we tested the efficacy of three more inoculation videos containing logic‐based prebunks against logical fallacies commonly used in misinformation: (1) whataboutism, (2) the moving the goalposts fallacy, and (3) the strawman fallacy. Detection of the relevant fallacious content was higher in all conditions (vs. control), but only the strawman fallacy inoculation video increased fallacy discernment. The moving the goalposts fallacy inoculation video appeared to increase overall distrust of relevant content, whereas the other two videos did not alter perceptions of relevant non‐fallacious content. We discuss the implications and limitations of these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0162895X |
| DOI: | 10.1111/pops.70015 |
