Inducing Resistance to Conspiracy Theory Propaganda: Testing Inoculation and Metainoculation Strategies

Abstract

This investigation examined the boundaries of inoculation theory by examining how inoculation can be applied to conspiracy theory propaganda as well as inoculation itself (called metainoculation). A 3‐phase experiment with 312 participants compared 3 main groups: no‐treatment control, inoculation, and metainoculation. Research questions explored how inoculation and metainoculation effects differ based on the argument structure of inoculation messages (fact‐ vs. logic‐based). The attack message was a 40‐minute chapter from the 9/11 Truth conspiracy theory film, Loose Change: Final Cut. The results indicated that both the inoculation treatments induced more resistance than the control message, with the fact‐based treatment being the most effective. The results also revealed that metainoculation treatments reduced the efficacy of the inoculation treatments.

Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation

“…In fact, the initial inoculation metaphor was mostly applied to situations in which people had supportive preexisting beliefs and attitudes toward an issue. Only recently have researchers begun to extend inoculation theory to more controversial issues where people are likely to hold vastly different and often polarised belief structures, for example in the context of climate change (van der Linden et al, 2017b), biotechnology (Wood, 2007), and conspiracy theories (Banas and Miller, 2013;Jolley and Douglas, 2017).…”

Prevention is better than cure: Addressing anti‐vaccine conspiracy theories

“…Banas and Miller () directly tested this question, examining the effectiveness of two types of anti‐conspiracy arguments. They asked participants to watch a 40‐min chapter from the 9/11 Truth Movement conspiracy theory film, Loose Change: Final Cut .…”

Do I Think BLS Data are BS? The Consequences of Conspiracy Theories

“…Common sense and an ample literature suggest that greater exposure to conspiracy theories will increase belief in them Banas and Miller 2013;Berinsky 2013;Mulligan and Habel 2013). Indeed, it turns out to be remarkably easy to generate persistent conspiracy belief.…”

“…Survey research in general suggests that individuals who are prompted by questions to consider a particular topic in greater depth are more apt to offer responses that are complex, equivocal, and moderate (Zaller and Feldman 1992;Eagly and Chaiken 1993;Barker and Hansen 2005;Rahn 2000). More specific to conspiracy theories, Banas and Miller (2013) illustrate that inoculation treatments can induce resistance to conspiracy theories by spurring more nuanced, equivocal thinking. While asking a question about conspiracy beliefs in conjunction with a conspiracy exposure is a far weaker prompt than the inoculation treatments in Banas and Miller (2013), it may play a similar role.…”

“…More specific to conspiracy theories, Banas and Miller (2013) illustrate that inoculation treatments can induce resistance to conspiracy theories by spurring more nuanced, equivocal thinking. While asking a question about conspiracy beliefs in conjunction with a conspiracy exposure is a far weaker prompt than the inoculation treatments in Banas and Miller (2013), it may play a similar role. Indeed, psychological research on the processing of misinformation reveals that questions can instill doubt, spur greater scrutiny, and augment strategic memory (Lewandowsky et al 2012).…”