ArticleRoyal Society open science2022
Technique-based inoculation against real-world misinformation.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Testing the impact of fallacies and contrarian claims in climate change misinformation.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Article
- Biased AI writing assistants shift users' attitudes on societal issues.Science advances · 2026Article
- Factors associated with risk perception among school and nursery school teachers concerning potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Changing beliefs or changing behavior? Understanding the belief-to-behavior process and intervening to curb the impact of misinformation.Journal of consumer psychology : the official journal of the Society for Consumer Psychology · 2026Article
- Re-examining the bad news game: No evidence of improved discrimination of Indian true and fake news headlines.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Prebunking and credible source corrections increase election credibility: Evidence from the US and Brazil.Science advances · 2025Article
- Countering AI-generated misinformation with pre-emptive source discreditation and debunking.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Expressions of uncertainty in online science communication hinder information diffusion.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- The persuasive effects of social cues and source effects on misinformation susceptibility.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Recent trends in vaccine coverage and confidence: A cause for concern.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Article
- Psychological inoculation protects against the social media infodemic.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Social media for public health: Reaping the benefits, mitigating the harms.Health promotion perspectives · 2023Article
- Technique-based inoculation against real-world misinformation.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Psychological interventions countering misinformation in social media: A scoping review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Using psychological science to understand and fight health misinformation: An APA consensus statement.The American psychologistReview
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, numerous psychological interventions have been developed to reduce susceptibility to misinformation. Inoculation theory has become an increasingly common framework for reducing susceptibility to both individual examples of misinformation (issue-based inoculation) and to the techniques and strategies that are commonly used to mislead or misinform people (technique-based inoculation). In this study, we address two open questions related to technique-based inoculation in two separate experiments (total
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.