ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025
Re-examining the bad news game: No evidence of improved discrimination of Indian true and fake news headlines.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gamified inoculation interventions such as the Bad News game are a widely adopted approach to mitigating the influence of misinformation. While Bad News has been predominately studied with participants from Western, Educated, Industrialized, and Rich Democracies (WEIRD), one recent study (Iyengar et al., Applied Cognitive Psychology, 37:290-303, 2023) assessed its efficacy in an Indian sample. In that study, participants rated the reliability of a series of Indian news headlines in a pre-test, played Bad News, and completed a post-test with a different set of headlines. Participants showed better discrimination of true and fake headlines in the post-test than the pre-test. This finding contrasts with a meta-analysis showing that Bad News primarily produces a conservative response bias rather than improving discrimination (Modirrousta-Galian and Higham, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152:2411-2437, 2023). The current preregistered study used the same design as Iyengar et al., although participants of Indian nationality (N = 150) were recruited via Prolific and the allocation of news headlines to the pre-test and post-test was counterbalanced. When both counterbalancing conditions were included, no significant differences in discrimination or response bias appeared between the pre-test and post-test. When only the counterbalancing condition matching Iyengar et al.'s experiment was examined, no significant effect on discrimination was observed, but a conservative response bias shift was seen in the post-test. This finding suggests that the Bad News game may be less effective for improving discrimination than previously thought - an important consideration given its popularity as an intervention to combat misinformation.
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.