Toolbox of individual-level interventions against online misinformation.

Journal

Nature human behaviour

ISSN: 2397-3374

Titre abrégé: Nat Hum Behav

Pays: England

ID NLM: 101697750

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
13 May 2024

Historique:

received: 01 02 2023

accepted: 05 04 2024

medline: 14 5 2024

pubmed: 14 5 2024

entrez: 13 5 2024

Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The spread of misinformation through media and social networks threatens many aspects of society, including public health and the state of democracies. One approach to mitigating the effect of misinformation focuses on individual-level interventions, equipping policymakers and the public with essential tools to curb the spread and influence of falsehoods. Here we introduce a toolbox of individual-level interventions for reducing harm from online misinformation. Comprising an up-to-date account of interventions featured in 81 scientific papers from across the globe, the toolbox provides both a conceptual overview of nine main types of interventions, including their target, scope and examples, and a summary of the empirical evidence supporting the interventions, including the methods and experimental paradigms used to test them. The nine types of interventions covered are accuracy prompts, debunking and rebuttals, friction, inoculation, lateral reading and verification strategies, media-literacy tips, social norms, source-credibility labels, and warning and fact-checking labels.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-01881-0 PMID: 38740990

pubmed: 38740990

doi: 10.1038/s41562-024-01881-0

pii: 10.1038/s41562-024-01881-0

doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

Informations de copyright

Références

Lazer, D. M. J. et al. The science of fake news. Science 359, 1094–1096 (2018).

pubmed: 29590025 doi: 10.1126/science.aao2998

Lewandowsky, S. et al. Technology and Democracy: Understanding the Influence of Online Technologies on Political Behaviour and Decision Making JRC Science for Policy Report (Publications Office of the European Union, 2020).

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and Amending Directive 2000/31/EC (COM/2020/825 Final), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2022-0269_EN.html#title2 (European Parliament, 2020).

Lorenz-Spreen, P., Oswald, L., Lewandowsky, S. & Hertwig, R. A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy. Nat. Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01460-1 (2022).

Kozyreva, A., Smillie, L. & Lewandowsky, S. Incorporating psychological science into policy making. Eur. Psychol. 28, 206–224 (2023).

doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000493

Lewandowsky, S. et al. Misinformation and the epistemic integrity of democracy. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 54, 101711 (2023).

pubmed: 37944324 pmcid: 7615327 doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101711

Rosen, G. Remove, Reduce, Inform: New Steps to Manage Problematic Content, https://about.fb.com/news/2019/04/remove-reduce-inform-new-steps (Meta, 2019).

Douek, E. Governing online speech: from ‘posts-as-trumps’ to proportionality and probability. Columbia Law Rev. 121, 759–834 (2021).

Kozyreva, A. et al. Resolving content moderation dilemmas between free speech and harmful misinformation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, 2210666120 (2023).

doi: 10.1073/pnas.2210666120

Lewandowsky, S. et al. The Debunking Handbook 2020. Databrary https://doi.org/10.17910/b7.1182 (2020).

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: 32571950 pmcid: 7355018 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1920498117

Basol, M., Roozenbeek, J. & Linden, S. Good news about bad news: gamified inoculation boosts confidence and cognitive immunity against fake news. J. Cogn. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.91 (2020).

Roozenbeek, J., Linden, S., Goldberg, B., Rathje, S. & Lewandowsky, S. Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media. Sci. Adv. 8, 6254 (2022).

doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abo6254

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. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-009 (2020).

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

pubmed: 33731933 doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03344-2

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. Polit. Behav. 42, 1073–1095 (2020).

doi: 10.1007/s11109-019-09533-0

Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. The psychology of fake news. Trends Cogn. Sci. 25, 388–402 (2021).

pubmed: 33736957 doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007

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: 28652356 pmcid: 5514704 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1618923114

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).

doi: 10.1111/sipr.12077

Wineburg, S., Breakstone, J., McGrew, S., Smith, M. D. & Ortega, T. Lateral reading on the open internet: a district-wide field study in high school government classes. J. Educ. Psychol. 114, 893–909 (2022).

doi: 10.1037/edu0000740

Osborne, J. et al. Science Education in an Age of Misinformation (Stanford Univ., 2022).

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: 32541771 doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0889-7

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: 33325331 pmcid: 7745618 doi: 10.1177/1529100620946707

Ecker, U. K. H. et al. The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 1, 13–29 (2022).

doi: 10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y

Roozenbeek, J., Culloty, E. & Suiter, J. Countering misinformation: evidence, knowledge gaps, and implications of current interventions. Eur. Psychol. 28, 189–205 (2023).

doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000492

Pennycook, G., Binnendyk, J., Newton, C. & Rand, D. G. A practical guide to doing behavioural research on fake news and misinformation. Collabra Psychol. 7, 25293 (2020).

doi: 10.1525/collabra.25293

Wright, C. et al. Effects of brief exposure to misinformation about e-cigarette harms on Twitter: a randomised controlled experiment. BMJ Open 11, 045445 (2021).

doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045445

Badrinathan, S. Educative interventions to combat misinformation: evidence from a field experiment in India. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 115, 1325–1341 (2021).

doi: 10.1017/S0003055421000459

Ziemer, C.-T. & Rothmund, T. Psychological underpinnings of misinformation countermeasures. J. Media Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000407 (2024).

Geers, M. et al. The online misinformation engagement framework. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 55, 101739 (2023).

pubmed: 38091666 doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101739

Hornsey, M. J. & Lewandowsky, S. A toolkit for understanding and addressing climate scepticism. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 1454–1464 (2022).

pubmed: 36385174 pmcid: 7615336 doi: 10.1038/s41562-022-01463-y

Fasce, A. et al. A taxonomy of anti-vaccination arguments from a systematic literature review and text modelling. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7, 1462–1480 (2023).

pubmed: 37460761 doi: 10.1038/s41562-023-01644-3

Blair, R. A. et al. Interventions to counter misinformation: lessons from the Global North and applications to the Global South. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 55, 101732 (2024).

pubmed: 38070207 doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101732

IJzerman, H. et al. Use caution when applying behavioural science to policy. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 1092–1094 (2020).

pubmed: 33037396 doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-00990-w

Twitter Comms. More reading—people open articles 40% more often after seeing the prompt. X, https://web.archive.org/web/20220804154748/ ; https://twitter.com/twittercomms/status/1309178716988354561 (2020).

About Community Notes on X, https://help.twitter.com/en/using-x/community-notes (accessed 16 February 2024).

Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Yale Univ. Press, 2008).

Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. Nudge: The Final Edition (Yale Univ. Press, 2021).

Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation. Nat. Commun. 13, 2333 (2022).

pubmed: 35484277 pmcid: 9051116 doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-30073-5

X Support. Sharing an article can spark conversation, so you may want to read it before you Tweet it. X, https://twitter.com/twittersupport/status/1270783537667551233 (2020).

Andı, S. & Akesson, J. Nudging away false news: evidence from a social norms experiment. Digit. J. 9, 106–125 (2020).

Hertwig, R. & Grüne-Yanoff, T. Nudging and boosting: steering or empowering good decisions. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12, 973–986 (2017).

pubmed: 28792862 doi: 10.1177/1745691617702496

Brodsky, J. E. et al. Improving college students’ fact-checking strategies through lateral reading instruction in a general education civics course. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 6, 23 (2021).

pubmed: 33788064 pmcid: 8012470 doi: 10.1186/s41235-021-00291-4

Panizza, F. et al. Lateral reading and monetary incentives to spot disinformation about science. Sci. Rep. 12, 5678 (2022).

pubmed: 35383208 pmcid: 8981191 doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-09168-y

Barzilai, S. et al. Misinformation is contagious: middle school students learn how to evaluate and share information responsibly through a digital game. Comput. Educ. 202, 104832 (2023).

doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104832

Tay, L. Q., Hurlstone, M. J., Kurz, T. & Ecker, U. K. H. A comparison of prebunking and debunking interventions for implied versus explicit misinformation. Br. J. Psychol. 113, 591–607 (2022).

pubmed: 34967004 doi: 10.1111/bjop.12551

Lewandowsky, S. & Linden, S. Countering misinformation and fake news through inoculation and prebunking. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 32, 348–384 (2021).

doi: 10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983

Gottfried, J. A., Hardy, B. W., Winneg, K. M. & Jamieson, K. H. Did fact checking matter in the 2012 presidential campaign? Am. Behav. Sci. 57, 1558–1567 (2013).

doi: 10.1177/0002764213489012

Huang, H. A war of (mis)information: the political effects of rumors and rumor rebuttals in an authoritarian country. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 47, 283–311 (2017).

doi: 10.1017/S0007123415000253

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, 2104235118 (2021).

doi: 10.1073/pnas.2104235118

Porter, E., Velez, Y. & Wood, T. J. Correcting COVID-19 vaccine misinformation in 10 countries. R. Soc. Open Sci. 10, 221097 (2023).

pubmed: 36938534 pmcid: 10014243 doi: 10.1098/rsos.221097

Badrinathan, S. & Chauchard, S. ‘I don’t think that’s true, bro!’ Social corrections of misinformation in India. Int. J. Press Polit. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612231158770 (2023).

Arechar, A. A. et al. Understanding and combatting misinformation across 16 countries on six continents. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7, 1502–1513 (2023).

pubmed: 37386111 doi: 10.1038/s41562-023-01641-6

Offer-Westort, M., Rosenzweig, L. R. & Athey, S. Battling the coronavirus 'infodemic' among social media users in Kenya and Nigeria. Nat. Hum. Behav., https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01810-7 (2024).

Ali, A. & Qazi, I. A. Countering misinformation on social media through educational interventions: evidence from a randomized experiment in Pakistan. J. Dev. Econ. 163, 103108 (2023).

doi: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2023.103108

Maertens, R., Roozenbeek, J., Basol, M. & Linden, S. Long-term effectiveness of inoculation against misinformation: three longitudinal experiments. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 27, 1–16 (2021).

pubmed: 33017160 doi: 10.1037/xap0000315

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: 34297248 pmcid: 8299168 doi: 10.1186/s41235-021-00315-z

Paynter, J. et al. Evaluation of a template for countering misinformation—real-world autism treatment myth debunking. PLoS ONE 14, 0210746 (2019).

doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210746

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. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 5, 64 (2020).

pubmed: 33300094 pmcid: 7725032 doi: 10.1186/s41235-020-00266-x

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

pubmed: 31235861 doi: 10.1038/s41562-019-0632-4

Johnson, H. M. & Seifert, C. M. Sources of the continued influence effect: when misinformation in memory affects later inferences. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 20, 1420–1436 (1994).

doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1420

Lewandowsky, S., Stritzke, W. G. K., Oberauer, K. & Morales, M. Memory for fact, fiction, and misinformation: the Iraq War 2003. Psychol. Sci. 16, 190–195 (2005).

pubmed: 15733198 doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00802.x

Guay, B., Berinsky, A. J., Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. How to think about whether misinformation interventions work. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7, 1231–1233 (2023).

pubmed: 37563304 doi: 10.1038/s41562-023-01667-w

Mosleh, M., Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Field experiments on social media. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 31, 69–75 (2021).

doi: 10.1177/09637214211054761

Aslett, K., Guess, A. M., Bonneau, R., Nagler, J. & Tucker, J. A. News credibility labels have limited average effects on news diet quality and fail to reduce misperceptions. Sci. Adv. 8, eabl3844 (2022).

pubmed: 35522751 pmcid: 9075792 doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abl3844

Carleton Athey, S., Cersosimo, M., Koutout, K. & Li, Z. Emotion- versus Reasoning-Based Drivers of Misinformation Sharing: A Field Experiment Using Text Message Courses in Kenya Stanford University Graduate School of Business Research Paper No. 4489759 (SSRN, 2023).

Almaatouq, A. et al. Beyond playing 20 questions with nature: integrative experiment design in the social and behavioral sciences. Behav. Brain Sci. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22002874 (2022).

Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V. & Valentine, J. C. (eds) The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis (Russell Sage Foundation, 2019).

Lakens, D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front. Psychol. 4, 62627 (2013).

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863

Pek, J. & Flora, D. B. Reporting effect sizes in original psychological research: a discussion and tutorial. Psychol. Methods 23, 208–225 (2018).

pubmed: 28277690 doi: 10.1037/met0000126

Sharp, C., Kaplan, R. M. & Strauman, T. J. The use of ontologies to accelerate the behavioral sciences: promises and challenges. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 32, 418–426 (2023).

doi: 10.1177/09637214231183917

Spadaro, G. et al. The Cooperation Databank: machine-readable science accelerates research synthesis. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17, 1472–1489 (2022).

pubmed: 35580271 pmcid: 9442633 doi: 10.1177/17456916211053319

Cooper, H. & Patall, E. A. The relative benefits of meta-analysis conducted with individual participant data versus aggregated data. Psychol. Methods 14, 165–176 (2009).

pubmed: 19485627 doi: 10.1037/a0015565

Forscher, P. S. et al. The benefits, barriers, and risks of big-team science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 18, 607–623 (2022).

pubmed: 36190899 doi: 10.1177/17456916221082970

Duckworth, A. L. & Milkman, K. L. A guide to megastudies. PNAS Nexus 5, pgac214 (2022).

doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac214

Hameiri, B. & Moore-Berg, S. L. Intervention tournaments: an overview of concept, design, and implementation. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17, 1525–1540 (2022).

pubmed: 35580273 pmcid: 9634285 doi: 10.1177/17456916211058090

Susmann, M., Fazio, L., Rand, D. G. & Lewandowsky, S. Mercury Project Misinformation Intervention Comparison Study. OSF https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FE8C4 (2023).

Roozenbeek, J. et al. Susceptibility to misinformation is consistent across question framings and response modes and better explained by myside bias and partisanship than analytical thinking. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 17, 547–573 (2022).

doi: 10.1017/S1930297500003570

Reijula, S. & Hertwig, R. Self-nudging and the citizen choice architect. Behav. Public Policy 6, 119–149 (2022).

doi: 10.1017/bpp.2020.5

Bak-Coleman, J. B. et al. Combining interventions to reduce the spread of viral misinformation. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 1372–1380 (2022).

pubmed: 35739250 pmcid: 9584817 doi: 10.1038/s41562-022-01388-6

Bode, L. & Vraga, E. The Swiss cheese model for mitigating online misinformation. Bull. At. Sci. 77, 129–133 (2021).

doi: 10.1080/00963402.2021.1912170

Milli, S., Carroll, M., Wang, Y., Pandey, S., Zhao, S. & Dragan, A. Engagement, user satisfaction, and the amplification of divisive content on social media. Knight First Amend. Inst. https://perma.cc/YUB7-4HMY (2024).

Willaert, T. A computational analysis of Telegram’s narrative affordances. PLoS ONE 18, e0293508 (2023).

pubmed: 37963150 pmcid: 10645302 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293508

Pasquetto, I. V. et al. Tackling misinformation: what researchers could do with social media data. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-49 (2020).

Guess, A. M. et al. How do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign? Science 381, 398–404 (2023).

pubmed: 37498999 doi: 10.1126/science.abp9364