Close Menu
  • Home
  • Alternative News
    • Politics & Policy
    • Independent Journalism
    • Geopolitics & War
    • Economy & Power
    • Investigative Reports
  • Double Speak
    • Media Bias
    • Fact Check & Misinformation
    • Political Spin
    • Propaganda & Narrative
  • Truth or Scare
    • UFO & Extraterrestrial
    • Myth Busting & Debunking
    • Paranormal & Mysteries
    • Conspiracy Theories
  • Contact Us
  • About Us

Subscribe to Updates

Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.

What's Hot

The Iran War Has Been A Catastrophe For The US — But Israel Wants More

April 19, 2026

Woodrow Wilson’s war at home

April 19, 2026

US Mining Plan Will Sacrifice Mexico’s Environment for Weapons and Tech

April 19, 2026
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
TheOthernews
Subscribe
  • Home
  • Alternative News
    • Politics & Policy
    • Independent Journalism
    • Geopolitics & War
    • Economy & Power
    • Investigative Reports
  • Double Speak
    • Media Bias
    • Fact Check & Misinformation
    • Political Spin
    • Propaganda & Narrative
  • Truth or Scare
    • UFO & Extraterrestrial
    • Myth Busting & Debunking
    • Paranormal & Mysteries
    • Conspiracy Theories
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
TheOthernews
Home»Double Speak»Prebunking misinformation techniques in social media feeds: Results from an Instagram field study
Double Speak

Prebunking misinformation techniques in social media feeds: Results from an Instagram field study

nickBy nickApril 11, 2026No Comments7 Mins Read
Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email


Allen, J., Watts, D. J., & Rand, D. G. (2024). Quantifying the impact of misinformation and vaccine-skeptical content on Facebook. Science, 384(6699), Article eadk3451. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adk3451

Altay, S., Berriche, M., Heuer, H., Farkas, J., & Rathje, S. (2023). A survey of expert views on misinformation: Definitions, determinants, solutions, and future of the field. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 4(4), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-119

American Academy of Pediatrics (2025, October 29). Acetaminophen is safe for children when taken as directed, no link to autism. https://www.aap.org/en/news-room/fact-checked/acetaminophen-is-safe-for-children-when-taken-as-directed-no-link-to-autism/

BBC (2025, August 28). What if we could vaccinate against mis-and disinformation? https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/insight-and-impact/insightblog/vaccinate-against-disinformation

Blassnig, S., Büchel, F., Ernst, N., & Engesser, S. (2019). Populism and informal fallacies: An analysis of right-wing populist rhetoric in election campaigns. Argumentation, 33(1), 107–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9461-2

Bïrch (2025). Instagram advertising costs by CPM. https://app.bir.ch/instagram-advertising-costs

Bellingcat (November 4, 2024). What Meta’s ad library shows about Harris and Trump’s campaigns on Facebook and Instagram. https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/2024/11/04/us-presidential-election-trump-harris-meta-ads/

Dek, A., Kyrychenko, Y., van der Linden, S., & Roozenbeek, J. (2025). Mapping the online manipulation economy. Science, 390(6778), 1112–1114. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adw8154

Ecker, U., Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S., Tay, L. Q., Cook, J., Oreskes, N., & Lewandowsky, S. (2024). Misinformation poses a bigger threat to democracy than you might think. Nature, 630(8015), 29–32. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01587-3

Carrasco-Farré, C. (2022). The fingerprints of misinformation: How deceptive content differs from reliable sources in terms of cognitive effort and appeal to emotions. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01174-9

Compton, J., van der Linden, S., Cook, J., & Basol, M. (2021). Inoculation theory in the post‐truth era: Extant findings and new frontiers for contested science, misinformation, and conspiracy theories. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(6), Article e12602. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12602

Fong, A., Roozenbeek, J., Goldwert, D., Rathje, S., & van der Linden, S. (2021). The language of conspiracy: A psychological analysis of speech used by conspiracy theorists and their followers on Twitter. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(4), 606–623. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302209875

Grigaliūnaitė, J. (2025, July 25). What is a good CTR for ads? 2025 benchmarks across TikTok, Meta & YouTube. Billo. https://billo.app/blog/what-is-a-good-ctr/

Hamlin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. Methuen & Co.

Huang, G., Jia, W., & Yu, W. (2024). Media literacy interventions improve resilience to misinformation: A meta-analytic investigation of overall effect and moderating factors. Communication Research, Article 00936502241288103. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502241288103

Jigsaw (2023, October 25). Prebunking to build defenses against online manipulation tactics in Germany. Medium. https://medium.com/jigsaw/prebunking-to-build-defenses-against-online-manipulation-tactics-in-germany-a1dbfbc67a1a

Kauk, J., Humprecht, E., Kreysa, H., & Schweinberger, S. R. (2025). Large-scale analysis of online social data on the long-term sentiment and content dynamics of online (mis) information. Computers in Human Behavior, 165, Article 108546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108546

Kyrychenko, Y., Koo, H. J., Maertens, R., Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S., & Götz, F. M. (2025). Profiling misinformation susceptibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 241, Article 113177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2025.113177

Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018

Lewandowsky, S., & van der Linden, S. (2021). Countering misinformation and fake news through inoculation and prebunking. European Review of Social Psychology, 32(2), 348–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983

Lu, C., Hu, B., Li, Q., Bi, C., & Ju, X. D. (2023). Psychological inoculation for credibility assessment, sharing intention, and discernment of misinformation: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, Article e49255. https://doi.org/10.2196/49255

Maertens, R., Roozenbeek, J., Simons, J. S., Lewandowsky, S., Maturo, V., Goldberg, B., Xu, R., & van der Linden, S. (2025). Psychological booster shots targeting memory increase long-term resistance against misinformation. Nature Communications, 16(1), Article 2062. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-57205-x

Marks, M., Kyrychenko, Y., Gärdebo, J., & Roozenbeek, J. (2025). Ingroup solidarity drives social media engagement after political crises. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(35), Article e2512765122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2512765122

Martel, C., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Reliance on emotion promotes belief in fake news. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5(1), Article 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00252-3

Metalla, F. (2025, January 13). Meta ad hooks that drive conversions in 2025: The ultimate guide for Facebook & Instagram ads. Metalla Digital. https://metalla.digital/meta-ad-hooks-that-drive-conversions-in-2025/

McGuire, W. J. (1964). Some contemporary approaches. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 191–229). Academic Press.

McPhedran, R., Ratajczak, M., Mawby, M., King, E., Yang, Y., & Gold, N. (2023). Psychological inoculation protects against the social media infodemic. Scientific Reports, 13(1), Article 5780. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-32962-1

McLoughlin, K. L., Brady, W. J., Goolsbee, A., Kaiser, B., Klonick, K., & Crockett, M. J. (2024). Misinformation exploits outrage to spread online. Science, 386(6725), 991–996. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adl2829

Molero-Calafell, J., Burón, A., Castells, X., & Porta, M. (2024). Intention to treat and per protocol analyses: Differences and similarities. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 173, Article 111457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111457

Pennycook, G., Berinsky, A. J., Bhargava, P., Lin, H., Cole, R., Goldberg, B., Lewandowsky, S., & Rand, D. G. (2024). Inoculation and accuracy prompting increase accuracy discernment in combination but not alone. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(12), 2330–2341. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02023-2

Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S., & Nygren, T. (2020). Prebunking interventions based on “inoculation” theory can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-008

Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S., Goldberg, B., Rathje, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2022). Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media. Science Advances, 8(34), Article eabo6254. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abo6254

Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2024). The psychology of misinformation. Cambridge University Press.

Roozenbeek, J., Remshard, M., & Kyrychenko, Y. (2024). Beyond the headlines: On the efficacy and effectiveness of misinformation interventions. Advances in Psychology, 2, Article e24569. https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00019

Roozenbeek, J., Young, D., & Madsen, J. K. (2025). The wilful rejection of psychological and behavioural interventions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 66, Article 102138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102138

Roozenbeek, J., Lasser, J., Marks, M., Qin, T., Garcia, D., Goldberg, B., Debnath, R., van der Linden, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2025). Misinformation interventions and online sharing behavior: Lessons learned from two preregistered field studies. Royal Society Open Science, 12(11), Article 251377. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.251377

Searles, K., & Feezell, J. T. (2023). Scrollability: A new digital news affordance. Political Communication, 40(5), 670–675. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2208083

Simchon, A., Zipori, T., Teitelbaum, L., Lewandowsky, S., & van der Linden, S. (2025). A signal detection theory meta-analysis of psychological inoculation against misinformation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 67, Article 102194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102194

Stuart, D. (2025). “I have no future”-the critical need to counter climate doomism. Environmental Sociology, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2025.2552388

Traberg, C., Morton, T., & van der Linden, S. (2024). Counteracting socially endorsed misinformation through an emotion-fallacy inoculation. Advances in Psychology, 2, Article e765332. https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00017

Traberg, C. S., Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2022). Psychological inoculation against misinformation: Current evidence and future directions. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 700(1), 136–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221087936

Traberg, C., Morton, T., & van der Linden, S. (2024). Counteracting socially endorsed misinformation through an emotion-fallacy inoculation. Advances in Psychology, 2, Article e765332. https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00017

van der Linden, S., Albarracín, D., Fazio, L., Freelon, D., Roozenbeek, J., Swire-Thompson, B., & Van Bavel, J. (2025). Using psychological science to understand and fight health misinformation: An APA consensus statement. American Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001598

van der Linden, S., & Kyrychenko, Y. (2024). A broader view of misinformation reveals potential for intervention. Science, 384(6699), 959–960. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp9117

van der Linden, S. (2023). Foolproof: Why misinformation infects our minds and how to build immunity. WW Norton & Company.

van der Linden, S. (2024). Countering misinformation through psychological inoculation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 69, 1–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2023.11.001

Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559

Walton, D. N. (1987). Informal fallacies. John Benjamins Publishing.

Watson, J., van der Linden, S., Watson, M., & Stillwell, D. (2024). Negative online news articles are shared more to social media. Scientific Reports, 14(1), Article 21592. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-71263-z



Source link

Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
nick
  • Website

Related Posts

How Russia weaponizes the church in Ukraine

April 14, 2026

Not so different after all? Antecedents of believing in misinformation and conspiracy theories on COVID-19

April 11, 2026

People are more susceptible to misinformation with realistic AI-synthesized images that provide strong evidence to headlines

April 11, 2026
Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Demo
Our Picks

Putin Says Western Sanctions are Akin to Declaration of War

January 9, 2020

Investors Jump into Commodities While Keeping Eye on Recession Risk

January 8, 2020

Marquez Explains Lack of Confidence During Qatar GP Race

January 7, 2020

There’s No Bigger Prospect in World Football Than Pedri

January 6, 2020
Stay In Touch
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • Vimeo
Don't Miss

The Iran War Has Been A Catastrophe For The US — But Israel Wants More

Conspiracy Theories April 19, 2026

Despite the publicly espoused hubris of the Trump administration, its war of aggression against Iran…

Woodrow Wilson’s war at home

April 19, 2026

US Mining Plan Will Sacrifice Mexico’s Environment for Weapons and Tech

April 19, 2026

Collapsing Empire: Hezbollah Crushes ‘Greater Israel’

April 19, 2026

Subscribe to Updates

Get the latest creative news from SmartMag about art & design.

Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram Pinterest
© 2026 ThemeSphere. Designed by ThemeSphere.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.