Fake news impacts individuals' behavior and decision-making while also disrupting political processes, perceptions of medical advice, and societal trends. Improving individuals' ability to accurately assess fake news can reduce its harmful effects. However, previous research on media literacy interventions designed for improving fake news credibility assessments has yielded inconsistent results. We systematically collected 33 independent studies and performed a meta-analysis to examine the effects of media literacy interventions on assessing fake news credibility (n = 36,256). The results showed that media literacy interventions significantly improved fake news credibility assessments (Hedges' g = 0.53, 95% confidence interval [0.29–0.78], p < 0.001). Gaming interventions were the most effective intervention form. Conversely, the intervention channel, outcome measurement, and subject characteristics (age, gender, and country development level) did not influence the intervention effects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
WalkerM, MatsaKE. News Consumption Across Social Media in 2021. Pew Research Center; 2021.
2.
LewandowskyS, EckerUKH, CookJ. Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. J Appl Res Mem Cogn, 2017; 6(4):353–369; doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008.
3.
GrinbergN, JosephK, FriedlandL, et al.Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Science, 2019; 363(6425):374–+; doi: 10.1126/science.aau2706.
4.
GabarronE, OyeyemiSO, WynnR. COVID-19-related misinformation on social media: A systematic review. Bull World Health Organ, 2021; 99(6):455A–463A; doi: 10.2471/BLT.20.276782.
5.
ZarocostasJ.How to fight an infodemic. Lancet, 2020; 395(10225):676; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30461-X.
6.
AghababaeianH, HamdaniehL, OstadtaghizadehA. Alcohol intake in an attempt to fight COVID-19: A medical myth in Iran. Alcohol, 2020; 88:29–32; doi: 10.1016/j.alcohol.2020.07.006.
7.
JolleyD, DouglasKM. The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions. PLoS One, 2014; 9(2):e89177; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089177.
8.
LoombaS, de FigueiredoA, PiatekSJ, et al.Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nat Hum Behav, 2021; 5(3):337–348; doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01088-7.
9.
EckerUKH, LewandowskyS, CookJ, et al.The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nat Rev Psychol, 2022; 1(1):13–29; doi: 10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y.
10.
LazerDMJ, BaumMA, BenklerY, et al.The science of fake news. Science, 2018; 359(6380):1094–1096; doi: 10.1126/science.aao2998.
11.
YangJ, TianY. “Others are more vulnerable to fake news than I Am”: Third-person effect of COVID-19 fake news on social media users. Comput Hum Behav, 2021; 125:106950; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106950.
12.
RoozenbeekJ, van der LindenS. Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Palgrave Commun, 2019; 5(1):65; doi: 10.1057/s41599-019-0279-9.
13.
YousufH, van der LindenS, BrediusL, et al.A media intervention applying debunking versus non-debunking content to combat vaccine misinformation in elderly in the Netherlands: A digital randomised trial. EClinicalMedicine, 2021; 35:100881; doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100881.
14.
PennycookG, RandDG. Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 2019; 188:39–50; doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011.
15.
MartelC, PennycookG, RandDG. Reliance on emotion promotes belief in fake news. Cogn Res Princ Implic, 2020; 5:47; doi: 10.1186/s41235-020-00252-3.
16.
JohnsonT, KromkaSM. Psychological, communicative, and relationship characteristics that relate to social media users' willingness to denounce fake news. Cyberpsychology Behav Soc Netw, 2023; 26(7):563–571; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2022.0204.
CohenEL, Atwell SeateA, KromkaSM, et al.To correct or not to correct? Social identity threats increase willingness to denounce fake news through presumed media influence and hostile media perceptions. Commun Res Rep, 2020; 37(5):263–275; doi: 10.1080/08824096.2020.1841622.
19.
VegettiF, MancosuM. The impact of political sophistication and motivated reasoning on misinformation. Polit Commun, 2020; 37(5):678–695; doi: 10.1080/10584609.2020.1744778.
20.
OysermanD, DawsonA.Your fake news, our facts: Identity-based motivation shapes what we believe, share, and accept. In: The Psychology of Fake News. Routledge: London, UK; 2020; pp. 173–195.
21.
FreemanD, WaiteF, RosebrockL, et al.Coronavirus conspiracy beliefs, mistrust, and compliance with government guidelines in England. Psychol Med, 2022; 52(2):251–263; doi: 10.1017/s0033291720001890.
22.
VragaEK, BodeL. I do not believe you: How providing a source corrects health misperceptions across social media platforms. Inf Commun Soc, 2018; 21(10):1337–1353; doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2017.1313883.
23.
CinelliM, De Francisci MoralesG, GaleazziA, et al.The echo chamber effect on social media. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2021; 118(9):e2023301118; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2023301118.
24.
FlaxmanS, GoelS, RaoJM. Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opin Q, 2016; 80(S1):298–320; doi: 10.1093/poq/nfw006.
25.
KozyrevaA, LewandowskyS, HertwigR. Citizens versus the internet: Confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools. Psychol Sci Public Interest, 2020; 21(3):103–156; doi: 10.1177/1529100620946707.
26.
PaynterJ, Luskin-SaxbyS, KeenD, et al.Evaluation of a template for countering misinformation—Real-world Autism treatment myth debunking. PLoS One, 2019; 14(1):e0210746; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210746.
VosoughiS, RoyD, AralS. The spread of true and false news online. Science, 2018; 359(6380):1146–1151; doi: 10.1126/science.aap9559.
29.
PennycookG, EpsteinZ, MoslehM, et al.Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature, 2021; 592(7855):590–595; doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03344-2.
30.
PennycookG, RandDG. Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2019; 116(7):2521–2526; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1806781116.
BulgerM, DavisonP. The promises, challenges, and futures of media literacy. J Media Lit Educ, 2018; 10(1):1–21; doi: 10.23860/JMLE-2018-10-1-1.
34.
ReneeH.Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. The Aspen Institute: New York, NY; 2010.
35.
MihailidisP, ViottyS. Spreadable spectacle in digital culture: Civic expression, fake news, and the role of media literacies in “post-fact” society. Am Behav Sci, 2017; 61(4):441–454; doi: 10.1177/0002764217701217.
36.
AustinEW, PinkletonBE, Radanielina-HitaML, et al.The role of parents' critical thinking about media in shaping expectancies, efficacy and nutrition behaviors for families. Health Commun, 2015; 30(12):1256–1268; doi: 10.1080/10410236.2014.930550.
37.
BanduraA.Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA; 1986.
38.
TandocEC, LingR, WestlundO, et al.Audiences' acts of authentication in the age of fake news: A conceptual framework. New Media Soc, 2017; doi: 10.1177/1461444817731756.
39.
ChanM.News literacy, fake news recognition, and authentication behaviors after exposure to fake news on social media. New Media Soc, 2022;14614448221127675; doi: 10.1177/14614448221127675.
40.
WolffL, TaddickenM. Disinforming the unbiased: How online users experience and cope with dissonance after climate change disinformation exposure. New Media Soc, 2022;14614448221090194; doi: 10.1177/14614448221090194.
41.
D'AlessioD, AllenM.The selective exposure hypothesis and media choice processes. In: Mass Media Effects Research: Advances through Meta-Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Mahwah, NJ, USA; 2007; pp. 103–118.
42.
HobbsR.Digital and Media Literacy: Connecting Culture and Classroom. Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA; 2011.
43.
PennycookG, RandDG. The psychology of fake news. Trends Cogn Sci, 2021; 25(5):388–402; doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007.
44.
van der LindenS.Misinformation: Susceptibility, spread, and interventions to immunize the public. Nat Med, 2022; 28(3):460–467; doi: 10.1038/s41591-022-01713-6.
45.
GuanT, LiuT, YuanR. Facing disinformation: Five methods to counter conspiracy theories amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Comun Media Educ Res J, 2021; 29(69):67–78; doi: 10.3916/c69-2021-06.
46.
AliA, QaziIA. Countering misinformation on social media through educational interventions: Evidence from a randomized experiment in Pakistan. J Dev Econ, 2023; 163:103108; doi: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2023.103108.
47.
McGrewS.Learning to evaluate: An intervention in civic online reasoning. Comput Educ, 2020; 145:103711; doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103711.
48.
Jones-JangSM, MortensenT, LiuJ. Does media literacy help identification of fake news? Information literacy helps, but other literacies don't. Am Behav Sci, 2021; 65(2):371–388; doi: 10.1177/0002764219869406.
LewandowskyS, YesiladaM. Inoculating against the spread of Islamophobic and radical-Islamist disinformation. Cogn Res Princ Implic, 2021; 6(1):57; doi: 10.1186/s41235-021-00323-z.
51.
BasolM, RoozenbeekJ, BerricheM, et al.Towards psychological herd immunity: Cross-cultural evidence for two prebunking interventions against COVID-19 misinformation. Big Data Soc, 2021; 8(1):20539517211013868; doi: 10.1177/20539517211013868.
52.
MayerRE.Computer games in education. Annu Rev Psychol, 2019; 70:531–549; doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102744.
53.
HuB, JuX-D, LiuH-H, et al.Game-based inoculation versus graphic-based inoculation to combat misinformation: A randomized controlled trial. Cogn Res Princ Implic, 2023; 8(1):49; doi: 10.1186/s41235-023-00505-x.
54.
CostaC, TynerK, HenriquesS, et al.Game creation in youth media and information literacy education. Int J Game Based Learn, 2018; 8:1–13; doi: 10.4018/IJGBL.2018040101.
55.
KalmpourtzisG.Developing kindergarten students' game design skills by teaching game design through organized game design interventions. Multimed Tools Appl, 2019; 78(14):20485–20510; doi: 10.1007/s11042-019-7393-y.
56.
JensonJ, DroumevaM. Exploring media literacy and computational thinking: A game maker curriculum study. Electron J E-Learn, 2016; 14(2):111-121.
57.
HuangW, LiX, ShangJ. Gamified project-based learning: A systematic review of the research landscape. Sustainability, 2023; 15(2):940; doi: 10.3390/su15020940.
58.
RossSG, BegenyJC. An examination of treatment intensity with an oral reading fluency intervention: Do intervention duration and student–teacher instructional ratios impact intervention effectiveness?. J Behav Educ, 2015; 24(1):11–32; doi: 10.1007/s10864-014-9202-z.
59.
GuessAM, LernerM, LyonsB, et al.A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2020; 117(27):15536–15545; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1920498117.
60.
PeiL, WuH. Does online learning work better than offline learning in undergraduate medical education? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Educ Online, 2019; 24(1):1666538; doi: 10.1080/10872981.2019.1666538.
61.
MaertensR, RoozenbeekJ, BasolM, et al.Long-term effectiveness of inoculation against misinformation: Three longitudinal experiments. J Exp Psychol Appl, 2021; 27(1):1; doi: 10.1037/xap0000315.
62.
GuessA, NaglerJ, TuckerJ. Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Sci Adv, 2019; 5(1):eaau4586; doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aau4586.
63.
AlmenarE, Aran-RamspottS, SuauJ, et al.Gender differences in tackling fake news: Different degrees of concern, but same problems. Media Commun, 2021; 9(1):229–238; doi: 10.17645/mac.v9i1.3523.
64.
HameleersM.Separating truth from lies: Comparing the effects of news media literacy interventions and fact-checkers in response to political misinformation in the US and Netherlands. Inf Commun Soc, 2022; 25(1):110–126; doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2020.1764603.
65.
United Nations. Human Development Report 2021–22. United Nations; 2022.
66.
MaertensR, GötzF, SchneiderCR, et al.The misinformation susceptibility test (MIST): A psychometrically validated measure of news veracity discernment. Behav Res Methods, 2023; doi: 10.3758/s13428-023-02124-2.
67.
van der LindenS, LeiserowitzA, RosenthalS, et al.Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Glob Chall, 2017; 1(2):1600008; doi: 10.1002/gch2.201600008.
68.
JeongS-H, ChoH, HwangY. Media literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. J Commun, 2012; 62(3):454–472; doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01643.x.
69.
VahediZ, SibalisA, SutherlandJE. Are media literacy interventions effective at changing attitudes and intentions towards risky health behaviors in adolescents? A meta-analytic review. J Adolesc, 2018; 67:140–152; doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.06.007.
70.
ZuairAA, SoporyP. Effects of media health literacy school-based interventions on adolescents' body image concerns, eating concerns, and thin-internalization attitudes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Commun, 2022; 37(1):20–28; doi: 10.1080/10410236.2020.1813954.
71.
XieX, GaiX, ZhouY. A meta-analysis of media literacy interventions for deviant behaviors. Comput Educ, 2019; 139:146–156; doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.008.
72.
BorensteinM.Comprehensive meta-analysis software. In: Systematic Reviews in Health Research. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2022; pp. 535–548; doi: 10.1002/9781119099369.ch27.
73.
RosenthalR.Meta-analysis: Concepts, corollaries and controversies. In: Advances in Psychological Science, Vol. 1. Social, Personal, and Cultural Aspects. (AdairJG, BélangerD, DionKL. eds.) Psychology Press/Erlbaum (UK) Taylor & Francis; 1998; pp. 371–384.
74.
GrissomRJ, KimJJ. Effect Sizes for Research: A Broad Practical Approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Mahwah, NJ, USA; 2005.
75.
HigginsJP, ThompsonSG, DeeksJJ, et al.Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ, 2003; 327(7414):557–560; doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
76.
ColditzGA, BurdickE, MostellerF. Heterogeneity in meta-analysis of data from epidemiologic studies: A commentary. Am J Epidemiol, 1995; 142(4):371–382; doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117644.
77.
SterneJA, SavovićJ, PageMJ, et al.RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 2019; 366:l4898; doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898.
78.
JacksonD, TurnerR. Power analysis for random-effects meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods, 2017; 8(3):290–302; doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1240.
79.
ZhaoHAO, WayneSJ, GlibkowskiBC, et al.The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Pers Psychol, 2007; 60(3):647–680; doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00087.x.
80.
BlumbergFC, FischSM. Introduction: Digital games as a context for cognitive development, learning, and developmental research. New Dir Child Adolesc Dev, 2013; 2013(139):1–9; doi: 10.1002/cad.20026.
81.
LeeSW-Y, ShihM, LiangJ-C, et al.Investigating learners' engagement and science learning outcomes in different designs of participatory simulated games. Br J Educ Technol, 2021; 52(3):1197–1214; doi: 10.1111/bjet.13067.
82.
MultisiltaJ, NiemiH, HamiltonE. Children designing videos: Tools, pedagogical models, and best practices for digital storytelling and media-making in the classroom. In: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children. IDC’17 Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA; 2017; pp. 693–696; doi: 10.1145/3078072.3091982.
83.
HabibiSA, SalimL. Static vs. dynamic methods of delivery for science communication: A critical analysis of user engagement with science on social media. PLoS One, 2021; 16(3):e0248507; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248507.
84.
MingoiaJ, HutchinsonAD, GleavesDH, et al.The impact of a social media literacy intervention on positive attitudes to tanning: A pilot study. Comput Hum Behav, 2019; 90:188–195; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.004.
85.
MurrockE, AmulyaJ, DruckmanM, et al.Winning the War on State-Sponsored Propaganda: Results from an Impact Study of a Ukrainian News Media and Information Literacy Program. J Media Lit Educ, 2018; 10(2):53–85; doi: 10.23860/JMLE-2018-10-2-4.
86.
KerrasH, BautistaS, Piñeros PereaDS, et al.Closing the Digital Gender Gap among Foreign University Students: The challenges ahead. Sustainability, 2022; 14(19):12230; doi: 10.3390/su141912230.
87.
ZhangL, IyendoTO, ApukeOD, et al.Experimenting the effect of using visual multimedia intervention to inculcate social media literacy skills to tackle fake news. J Inf Sci, 2022; do: 10.1177/01655515221131797.
88.
MooreRC, HancockJT. A digital media literacy intervention for older adults improves resilience to fake news. Sci Rep, 2022; 12(1):1–9; doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-08437-0.
89.
GreifenederR, JaffeM, NewmanE, et al.The Psychology of Fake News: Accepting, Sharing, and Correcting Misinformation. Routledge: London; 2021.
90.
FendtM, NistorN, ScheibenzuberC, et al.Lateral Reading Against Misinformation: Effects of a Scalable Training Based on Cognitive Apprenticeship. 2023; doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4347464.
91.
BrashierNM, SchacterDL. Aging in an Era of Fake News. Curr Dir Psychol Sci, 2020; 29(3):316–323; doi: 10.1177/0963721420915872.
92.
PunR.Hacking the Research Library: Wikipedia, Trump, and Information Literacy in the Escape Room at Fresno State. Libr Q, 2017; 87(4):330–336; doi: 10.1086/693489.
93.
AliA, QaziIA. Countering misinformation on social media through educational interventions: Evidence from a randomized experiment in Pakistan. J Dev Econ, 2023; 163:103108; doi: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2023.103108
94.
BadrinathanS.Educative interventions to combat misinformation: Evidence from a field experiment in India. Am Political Sci Rev, 2021; 115(4):1325–1341; doi: 10.1017/s0003055421000459
95.
BasolM, RoozenbeekJ, LindenSvd. Good news about bad news: Gamified inoculation boosts confidence and cognitive immunity against fake news. J Cogn, 2020; 3(1):2; doi: 10.5334/joc.91
96.
BelovaN, KrauseM. Inoculating students against science-based manipulation strategies in social media: Debunking the concept of ‘water with conductivity extract’. Chem Educ Res Pract, 2022; doi: 10.1039/d2rp00191h
97.
DomgaardS, ParkM. Combating misinformation: The effects of infographics in verifying false vaccine news. Health Educ J, 2021; 80(8):974–986; doi: 10.1177/00178969211038750
98.
GichangiP, GonsalvesL, MwaisakaJ, et al.Busting contraception myths and misconceptions among youth in Kwale County, Kenya: Results of a digital health randomised control trial. BMJ Open, 2022; 12(1); doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047426
99.
GuessAM, LernerM, LyonsB, et al.A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2020; 117(27):15536–15545; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1920498117
100.
HameleersM.Separating truth from lies: Comparing the effects of news media literacy interventions and fact-checkers in response to political misinformation in the US and Netherlands. Inf Commun Soc, 2022; 25(1):110–126; doi: 10.1080/1369118x.2020.1764603
101.
HwangY, RyuJY, JeongS-H. Effects of disinformation using deepfake: The protective effect of media literacy education. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2021; 24(3):188–193; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2020.0174
102.
LutzkeL, DrummondC, SlovicP, et al.Priming critical thinking: Simple interventions limit the influence of fake news about climate change on Facebook. Global Environ Chang-Human Policy Dimen, 2019; 58; doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101964
103.
MaertensR, RoozenbeekJ, BasolM, et al.Long-term effectiveness of inoculation against misinformation: Three longitudinal experiments. J Exp Psychol Appl, 2021; 27(1):1–16; doi: 10.1037/xap0000315
104.
MerpertA, FurmanM, AnauatiMV, et al.Is that even checkable? An experimental study in identifying checkable statements in political discourse. Commun Res Rep, 2018; 35(1):48–57; doi: 10.1080/08824096.2017.1366303
105.
QianS, ShenC, ZhangJ. Fighting cheapfakes: Using a digital media literacy intervention to motivate reverse search of out-of-context visual misinformation. J Comput-Mediat Commun, 2022; 28(1); doi: 10.1093/jcmc/zmac024
106.
RoozenbeekJ, van der LindenS. The fake news game: Actively inoculating against the risk of misinformation. J Risk Res, 2019; 22(5):570–580; doi: 10.1080/13669877.2018.1443491
107.
SalehNF, RoozenbeekJ, MakkiFA, et al.Active inoculation boosts attitudinal resistance against extremist persuasion techniques: A novel approach towards the prevention of violent extremism. Behav Public Policy, 2021; 1–24; doi: 10.1017/bpp.2020.60
108.
SoetekouwL, AngelopoulosS. Digital resilience through training protocols: Learning to identify fake news on social media. Inf Syst Front, 2022; doi: 10.1007/s10796-021-10240-7
109.
ThomasPB, Hogan-TaylorC, YankoskiM, et al.Pilot study suggests online media literacy programming reduces belief in false news in Indonesia. arXiv preprint. 2021; arXiv:2107.08034
110.
TullyM, VragaEK, BodeL. Designing and testing news literacy messages for social media. Mass Commun Soc, 2020; 23(1):22–46; doi: 10.1080/15205436.2019.1604970
111.
VandormaelA, AdamM, GreuelM, et al.The effect of a wordless, animated, social media video intervention on covid-19 prevention: Online randomized controlled trial. JMIR Public Health Surveill, 2021; 7(7); doi: 10.2196/29060
112.
VragaE, TullyM, BodeL. Assessing the relative merits of news literacy and corrections in responding to misinformation on Twitter. New Media Soc, 2021; doi: 10.1177/1461444821998691
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
