Good News about Bad News: Gamified Inoculation Boosts Confidence and Cognitive Immunity Against Fake News
References
- Arun, C. (2019). On WhatsApp, Rumours, and Lynchings. Economic & Political Review Weekly, 6, 30–35.
- Banas, J. A., & Rains, S. A. (2010). A Meta-Analysis of Research on Inoculation Theory. Communication Monographs, 77(3), 281–311. DOI: 10.1080/03637751003758193
- Bonetto, E., Troïan, J., Varet, F., Monaco, G. L., & Girandola, F. (2018). Priming Resistance to Persuasion decreases adherence to Conspiracy Theories. Social Influence, 13(3), 125–136. DOI: 10.1080/15534510.2018.1471415
- Chan, M., Pui, S., Jones, C. R., Hall Jamieson, K., & Albarracín, D. (2017). Debunking: A Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Efficacy of Messages Countering Misinformation. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1531–1546. DOI: 10.1177/0956797617714579
- Compton, J. (2013). Inoculation theory. In J. P. Dillard, & L. Shen (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Persuasion: Developments in Theory and Practice (pp. 220–237). DOI: 10.4135/9781452218410.n14
- Compton, J. (2019). Prophylactic versus therapeutic inoculation treatments for resistance to influence. Communication Theory, qtz004. DOI: 10.1093/ct/qtz004
- Compton, J. A., & Pfau, M. (2005). Inoculation theory of resistance to influence at maturity: Recent progress in theory development and application and suggestions for future research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 29(1), 97–146. DOI: 10.1080/23808985.2005.11679045
- Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S., & Ecker, U. K. (2017). Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PloS one, 12(5),
e0175799 . DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175799 - DROG. (2018). A good way to fight bad news. www.aboutbadnews.com. Retrieved from
www.aboutbadnews.com - Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating Effect Size in Psychological Research: Sense and Nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168. DOI: 10.1177/2515245919847202
- Kucharski, A. (2016). Post-truth: Study epidemiology of fake news. Nature, 540(7634), 525. DOI: 10.1038/540525a
- Lazer, D. M., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., & Schudson, M. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096. DOI: 10.1126/science.aao2998
- Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the “Post-Truth” Era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353–369. DOI: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008
- Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131. DOI: 10.1177/1529100612451018
- McGuire, W. J. (1964). Inducing resistance against persuasion: Some contemporary approaches. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 191–229. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60052-0
- McGuire, W. J., & Papageorgis, D. (1961). Resistance to persuasion conferred by active and passive prior refutation of the same and alternative counterarguments. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 326–332. DOI: 10.1037/h0048344
- Nyhan, B., Porter, E., Reifler, J., & Wood, T. J. (2019). Taking fact-checks literally but not seriously? The effects of journalistic fact-checking on factual beliefs and candidate favorability. Political Behavior (pp. 1–22). DOI: 10.1007/s11109-019-09528-x
- Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153–163. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006
- Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(12), 1865–1880. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000465
- Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011
- Pfau, M., Ivanov, B., Houston, B., Haigh, M., Sims, J., Gilchrist, E., & Richert, N. (2005). Inoculation and mental processing: The instrumental role of associative networks in the process of resistance to counterattitudinal influence. Communication Monographs, 72(4), 414–441. DOI: 10.1080/03637750500322578
- Pryor, B., & Steinfatt, T. M. (1978). The effects of initial belief level on inoculation theory and its proposed mechanisms. Human Communication Research, 4(3), 217–230. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00611.x
- Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2018). The fake news game: actively inoculating against the risk of misinformation. Journal of Risk Research, 22(5), 570–580. DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2018.1443491
- Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2019). Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Nature Palgrave Communications, 5(65). DOI: 10.1057/s41599-019-0279-9
- Schmid, P., & Betsch, C. (2019). Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions. Nature Human Behaviour. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-019-0632-4
- Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2004). Source Credibility and Attitude Certainty: A Metacognitive Analysis of Resistance to Persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 427–442. DOI: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_11
- van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S., & Maibach, E. (2017). Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change. Global Challenges, 1(2),
1600008 . DOI: 10.1002/gch2.201600008 - van der Linden, S., Maibach, E., Cook, J., Leiserowitz, A., & Lewandowsky, S. (2017). Inoculating against misinformation. Science, 358(6367), 1141–1142. DOI: 10.1126/science.aar4533
- Walter, N., & Murphy, S. T. (2018). How to unring the bell: A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation. Communication Monographs, 85(3), 423–441. DOI: 10.1080/03637751.2018.1467564
- Wood, M. L. (2007). Rethinking the inoculation analogy: Effects on subjects with differing preexisting attitudes. Human Communication Research, 33(3), 357–378. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00303.x
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.91 | Journal eISSN: 2514-4820
Language: English
Submitted on: Aug 5, 2019
Accepted on: Dec 2, 2019
Published on: Jan 10, 2020
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
© 2020 Melisa Basol, Jon Roozenbeek, Sander van der Linden, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.