Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40568555›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2025

Countering AI-generated misinformation with pre-emptive source discreditation and debunking.

Emily R Spearing, Constantina I Gile, Amy L Fogwill, Toby Prike, Briony Swire-Thompson, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ullrich K H Ecker

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Communication andJournal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2025
    Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Emily R SpearingSchool of Psychological Science, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7304-8828
Constantina I GileSchool of Psychological Science, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Amy L FogwillSchool of Psychological Science, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Toby PrikeSchool of Psychological Science, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7602-4947
Briony Swire-ThompsonCollege of Social Sciences and Humanities, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.
Stephan LewandowskySchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Ullrich K H EckerSchool of Psychological Science, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4743-313X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite widespread concerns over AI-generated misinformation, its impact on people's reasoning and the effectiveness of countermeasures remain unclear. This study examined whether a pre-emptive, source-focused inoculation-designed to lower trust in AI-generated information-could reduce its influence on reasoning. This approach was compared with a retroactive, content-focused debunking, as well as a simple disclaimer that AI-generated information may be misleading, as often seen on real-world platforms. Additionally, the extent to which trust in AI-generated information is malleable was also tested with an intervention designed to boost trust. Across two experiments (total

Indexed as

continued influence effectgenerative artificial intelligencemisinformationsource credibility

Identifiers

PMID40568555
PMCPMC12187399

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.