Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40470142›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2025

Limited effectiveness of psychological inoculation against misinformation in a social media feed.

Sze Yuh Nina Wang, Samantha C Phillips, Kathleen M Carley, Hause Lin, Gordon Pennycook

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PNAS nexus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Psychological inoculation against climate doom.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sze Yuh Nina WangDepartment of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1988-0023
Samantha C PhillipsSoftware and Societal Systems, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15289, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2612-4485
Kathleen M CarleySoftware and Societal Systems, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15289, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6356-0238
Hause LinSloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4590-7039
Gordon PennycookDepartment of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1344-6143

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Psychological inoculation is a promising and potentially scalable approach to counter misinformation. The goal of inoculation is to teach people to recognize manipulation techniques, such as emotional language, commonly found in misinformation online. While there is substantial evidence that inoculation increases technique recognition when directly assessed, it is not clear if this effect transfers to spontaneous detection of techniques and disengagement with the associated content in real-life contexts. In particular, emotional appeals are abundant on social media and known drivers of attention and engagement. Therefore, we examined the effects of emotional language and emotional manipulation inoculation on attention and engagement in a simulated social media feed environment. Through five preregistered studies, we found that inoculation only decreased engagement with emotionally presented content when we solely presented synthetic content relevant to the task of identifying emotional manipulation. Any addition of real tweets or even synthetic tweets containing other manipulation techniques (e.g. ad hominem attacks) into the feed appeared to nullify the effect. Our results highlight the importance of assessing misinformation interventions in ecologically valid contexts to estimate real-world effects.

Indexed as

emotionmisinformationpsychological inoculationpsychologysocial media

Identifiers

PMID40470142
PMCPMC12134459

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.