ArticleNature human behaviour2024
Inoculation and accuracy prompting increase accuracy discernment in combination but not alone.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a tool for detecting misinformation risk in diet, nutrition, and health content (Diet-MisRAT).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Conditioning Public Opinion Perceptions by "Survey Methods 101": Informing, Engaging, and Motivating Individuals for Critical Processing of Public Opinion Polls.Public opinion quarterly · 2026Article
- Misinformation interventions and online sharing behaviour: lessons learned from two pre-registered field studies.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Prebunking and credible source corrections increase election credibility: Evidence from the US and Brazil.Science advances · 2025Article
- Limited effectiveness of psychological inoculation against misinformation in a social media feed.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Countering AI-generated misinformation with pre-emptive source discreditation and debunking.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Inoculation reduces social media engagement with affectively polarized content in the UK and US.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- Critical thinking and misinformation vulnerability: experimental evidence from Colombia.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Misinformation is a major focus of intervention efforts. Psychological inoculation-an intervention intended to help people identify manipulation techniques-is being adopted at scale around the globe. Yet the efficacy of this approach for increasing belief accuracy remains unclear, as prior work uses synthetic materials that do not contain claims of truth. To address this issue, we conducted five studies with 7,286 online participants using a set of news headlines based on real-world true/false content in which we systematically varied the presence or absence of emotional manipulation. Although an emotional manipulation inoculation did help participants identify emotional manipulation, there was no improvement in participants' ability to tell truth from falsehood. However, when the inoculation was paired with an intervention that draws people's attention to accuracy, the combined intervention did successfully improve truth discernment (by increasing belief in true content). These results provide evidence for synergy between popular misinformation interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39496772What 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.