Psychological Inoculation for Credibility Assessment, Sharing Intention, and Discernment of Misinformation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background The prevalence of misinformation poses a substantial threat to individuals’ daily lives, necessitating the deployment of effective remedial approaches. One promising strategy is psychological inoculation, which pre-emptively immunizes individuals against misinformation attacks. However, uncertainties remain regarding the extent to which psychological inoculation effectively enhances the capacity to differentiate between misinformation and real information. Objective To reduce the potential risk of misinformation about digital health, this study aims to examine the effectiveness of psychological inoculation in countering misinformation with a focus on several factors, including misinformation credibility assessment, real information credibility assessment, credibility discernment, misinformation sharing intention, real information sharing intention, and sharing discernment. Methods Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a meta-analysis by searching 4 databases (Web of Science, APA PsycINFO, Proquest, and PubMed) for empirical studies based on inoculation theory and outcome measure–related misinformation published in the English language. Moderator analyses were used to examine the differences in intervention strategy, intervention type, theme, measurement time, team, and intervention design. Results Based on 42 independent studies with 42,530 subjects, we found that psychological inoculation effectively reduces misinformation credibility assessment (d=–0.36, 95% CI –0.50 to –0.23; P<.001) and improves real information credibility assessment (d=0.20, 95% CI 0.06-0.33; P=.005) and real information sharing intention (d=0.09, 95% CI 0.03-0.16; P=.003). However, psychological inoculation does not significantly influence misinformation sharing intention (d=–0.35, 95% CI –0.79 to 0.09; P=.12). Additionally, we find that psychological inoculation effectively enhances credibility discernment (d=0.20, 95% CI 0.13-0.28; P<.001) and sharing discernment (d=0.18, 95% CI 0.12-0.24; P<.001). Regarding health misinformation, psychological inoculation effectively decreases misinformation credibility assessment and misinformation sharing intention. The results of the moderator analyses showed that content-based, passive inoculation was more effective in increasing credibility and sharing intention. The theme of climate change demonstrates a stronger effect on real information credibility. Comparing intervention types showed that pre-post interventions are more effective for misinformation credibility assessment, while post-only interventions are better for credibility discernment. Conclusions This study indicated that psychological inoculation enhanced individuals’ ability to discern real information from misinformation and share real information. Incorporating psychological inoculation to cultivate an informed public is crucial for societal resilience against misinformation threats in an age of information proliferation. As a scalable and cost-effective intervention strategy, institutions can apply psychological inoculation to mitigate potential misinformation crises.

Quantifying the impact of misinformation and vaccine-skeptical content on Facebook

“…Accordingly, researchers and technology companies should move beyond a narrow focus on veracity and devote more attention to understanding, tracking, and potentially intervening on harmful content that is misleading without being literally false. For example, psychological inoculation is one potential approach that has been shown to help social media users identify “manipulative techniques” that extend beyond outright lying ( 78 – 80 ). Of equal importance is that mainstream media outlets with widespread reach consider how readers might respond to their reporting in ways that cause real-world harm, despite the caveats and acknowledgment of uncertainty included in their coverage.…”

Mis- and disinformation in social media: mitigating risks in digital health communication

“…Sind die angesprochenen Themen und genutzten Argumentationsstränge der Falschinformationen bereits bekannt, können eher inhaltlich orientierte Interventionen stärkere Effekte vorweisen. Zwar haben Metaanalysen [ 45 ] zuletzt positive Effekte von Immunisierungsinterventionen bestätigt, allerdings bleibt bisher unklar, ob diese Effekte aus einer grundlegend skeptischen Haltung gegenüber allen Informationen entstehen oder spezifisch für irreführende Inhalte zu interpretieren sind.…”

“Inoculation” to Resist Misinformation

“…That is, people benefit from exposure to microdoses of information designed to mislead along with practical tips on how to spot it in order to develop cognitive resistance against misinformation. Reviews and meta-analyses of the literature have generally affirmed the efficacy of psychological inoculation in helping people generate resistance to misinformation …”