The spread of disinformation is widely regarded as one of the most serious global risks. In one laboratory and three online experiments (Ntotal = 3,066), we measured trust in true, false, and disinformation statements related to the Russo–Ukrainian war (Experiments 1–3) and to politics, climate, and health (Experiment 4). We examined longer-term effectiveness of a fact-based corrective message delivered either before (prebunking) or after (debunking) participants’ initial evaluation of disinformation statements. Across all four experiments, debunking intervention consistently and substantially reduced trust in disinformation, with effects persisting for at least two weeks. Prebunking intervention produced similarly durable benefits only when it was immediately followed by evaluation of the just-corrected disinformation. When evaluation was delayed, prebunking had no reliable impact. We found no significant backfire effects on trust in disinformation across any ideological groups. However, debunking induced a more conservative response pattern overall, reducing trust in true statements as well.
BagoB.RandD. G.PennycookG. (2020). Fake news, fast and slow: Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(8), 1608–1613. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000729
BemD. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60024-6
4.
BilalA.Hoogensen GjørvG.LanteigneM.BrancaleoniR.GjørvJ.GuiD.KielarJ. K.AluolaC.MagaliniS. (2023). Comprehensive security, disinformation, and COVID-19: An analysis of the impacts of mis- and disinformation and populist narratives during the pandemic. Open Research Europe, 3, 209. https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.16733.1
5.
BolsenT.DruckmanJ. N. (2015). Counteracting the Politicization of Science. Journal of Communication, 65(5), 745–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12171
6.
BrashierN. M.PennycookG.BerinskyA. J.RandD. G. (2021). Timing matters when correcting fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(5), e2020043118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2020043118
7.
BronsteinM. V.PennycookG.BuonomanoL.CannonT. D. (2021). Belief in fake news, responsiveness to cognitive conflict, and analytic reasoning engagement. Thinking & Reasoning, 27(4), 510–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1847190
8.
BruderM.HaffkeP.NeaveN.NouripanahN.ImhoffR. (2013). Measuring individual differences in generic beliefs in conspiracy theories across cultures: Conspiracy mentality questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(April), 225. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225
9.
CapewellG.MaertensR.RemshardM.Van Der LindenS.ComptonJ.LewandowskyS.RoozenbeekJ. (2024). Misinformation interventions decay rapidly without an immediate posttest. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 54(8), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.13049
10.
CarrieriV.MadioL.PrincipeF. (2019). Vaccine hesitancy and (fake) news: Quasi-experimental evidence from Italy. Health Economics, 28(11), 1377–1382. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3937
11.
ČavojováV.LorkoM.ŠrolJ. (2024). Reasoning versus prior beliefs: The case of COVID-19 fake news. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 38(2), e4194. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4194
12.
ChanM. S.JonesC. R.Hall JamiesonK.AlbarracínD. (2017). Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological Science, 095679761771457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617714579
13.
CheemaA. (2019). Mobilising mass anxieties: Fake news and the amplification of socio-political conflict in Pakistan. In Fake news and elections in Asia (pp. 17–37). Asia Centre, International Republican Institute.
14.
ComptonJ. (2013). Inoculation theory. In The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (2nd ed.,pp. 220–236). Sage Publications, Inc.
15.
ComptonJ.IvanovB. (2012). Untangling threat during inoculation-conferred resistance to influence. Communication Reports, 25(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2012.661018
16.
DittoP. H.LiuB. S.ClarkC. J.WojcikS. P.ChenE. E.GradyR. H.CelnikerJ. B.ZingerJ. F. (2019). At least bias is Bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of Partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(2), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617746796
17.
EckerU. K. H.LewandowskyS.CookJ.SchmidP.FazioL. K.BrashierN.KendeouP.VragaE. K.AmazeenM. A. (2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y
18.
EckerU. K. H.LewandowskyS.FentonO.MartinK. (2014). Do people keep believing because they want to? Preexisting attitudes and the continued influence of misinformation. Memory and Cognition, 42(2), 292–304. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0358-x
19.
EckerU. K. H.O’ReillyZ.ReidJ. S.ChangE. P. (2020). The effectiveness of short-format refutational fact-checks. British Journal of Psychology, 111(1), 36–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12383
20.
EckerU. K. H.SzeB. K. N.AndreottaM. (2021). Corrections of political misinformation: No evidence for an effect of partisan worldview in a US convenience sample. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 376(1822), 20200145. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0145
FriesenJ. P.CampbellT. H.KayA. C. (2015). The psychological advantage of unfalsifiability: The appeal of untestable religious and political ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(3), 515–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000018
24.
GierthL.BrommeR. (2020). Beware of vested interests: Epistemic vigilance improves reasoning about scientific evidence (for some people). PLOS ONE, 15(4), e0231387. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231387
GradyR. H.DittoP. H.LoftusE. F. (2021). Nevertheless, partisanship persisted: Fake news warnings help briefly, but bias returns with time. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 6(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00315-z
27.
GuessA.CoppockA. (2015). Back to Bayes: Confronting the evidence on attitude polarization. Yale University.
28.
HoA. K.SidaniusJ.KteilyN.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.PrattoF.HenkelK. E.FoelsR.StewartA. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033
29.
HorvathL.StevensD.BanducciS.PoppR.CoanT. (2024). Correcting campaign misinformation: Experimental evidence from a two-wave panel study. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-132
30.
JolleyD.DouglasK. M. (2017). Prevention is better than cure: Addressing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(8), 459–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12453
KozyrevaA.Lorenz-SpreenP.HerzogS.EckerU.LewandowskyS.HertwigR.AliA.Bak-ColemanJ.BarzilaiS.BasolM.BerinskyA.BetschC.CookJ.FazioL.GeersM.GuessA.HuangH.LarreguyH.MaertensR.. . . WineburgS. (2024). Toolbox of Interventions Against Online Misinformation. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(6), 1044–1052. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/x8ejt
33.
KrishnaA. (2017). Motivation with misinformation: Conceptualizing lacuna individuals and publics as knowledge-deficient, issue-negative activists. Journal of Public Relations Research, 29(4), 176–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2017.1363047
34.
LearyM. R.DiebelsK. J.DavissonE. K.Jongman-SerenoK. P.IsherwoodJ. C.RaimiK. T.DefflerS. A.HoyleR. H. (2017). Cognitive and interpersonal features of intellectual humility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(6), 793–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217697695
35.
LederJ.SchellingerL. V.MaertensR.van der LindenS.ChrystB.RoozenbeekJ. (2024). Feedback exercises boost discernment of misinformation for gamified inoculation interventions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 153(8), 2068–2087. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001603
36.
LiuB. S.DittoP. H. (2013). What dilemma? Moral evaluation shapes factual belief. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(3), 316–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612456045
37.
MaertensR.RoozenbeekJ.SimonsJ. S.LewandowskyS.MaturoV.GoldbergB.XuR.van der LindenS. (2025). Psychological booster shots targeting memory increase long-term resistance against misinformation. Nature Communications, 16(1), 2062. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-57205-x
38.
McGuireW. J. (1961). The effectiveness of supportive and refutational defenses in immunizing and restoring beliefs against persuasion. Sociometry, 24(2), 184. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786067
39.
McGuireW. J.PapageorgisD. (1961). The relative efficacy of various types of prior belief-defense in producing immunity against persuasion. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(2), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042026
40.
MercierH. (2022). Not born yesterday. The science of who we trust and what we believe. Princeton University Press.
41.
MillerJ. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/20024852
42.
Modirrousta-GalianA.HighamP. A. (2023). Gamified inoculation interventions do not improve discrimination between true and fake news: Reanalyzing existing research with receiver operating characteristic analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(9), 2411–2437. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001395
43.
MontagniI.Ouazzani-TouhamiK.MebarkiA.TexierN.SchückS.TzourioC., & the CONFINS group. (2021). Acceptance of a Covid-19 vaccine is associated with ability to detect fake news and health literacy. Journal of Public Health, 43(4), 695–702. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdab028
44.
NickersonR. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037//1089-2680.2.2.175
45.
O’MahonyC.BrassilM.MurphyG.LinehanC. (2023). The efficacy of interventions in reducing belief in conspiracy theories: A systematic review. PLOS ONE, 18(4), e0280902. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280902
46.
PattynS.Van HielA.DhontK.OnraetE. (2012). Stripping the Political Cynic: A psychological exploration of the concept of Political Cynicism. European Journal of Personality, 26(6), 566–579. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.858
47.
PennycookG.RandD. G. (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188(September 2017), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011
PrimiC.MorsanyiK.ChiesiF.DonatiM. A.HamiltonJ. (2015). The development and testing of a new version of the cognitive reflection test applying Item Response Theory (IRT). Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29(5), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1883
ReineroD. A.HarrisE. A.RathjeS.DukeA.Van BavelJ. J. (2023). Partisans are more likely to entrench their beliefs in misinformation when political outgroup members correct claims. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/z4df3
52.
RoozenbeekJ.van der LindenS.NygrenT. (2020). Prebunking interventions based on the psychological theory of “inoculation” can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 1(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.37016//mr-2020-008
53.
RuohonenJ. (2024). A comparative study of online disinformation and offline protests. SN Social Sciences, 4(12), 232.
54.
SimchonA.ZiporiT.TeitelbaumL.LewandowskyS.Van Der LindenS. (2026). A signal detection theory meta-analysis of psychological inoculation against misinformation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 67, 102194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102194
55.
SirotaM.DewberryC.JuanchichM.ValušL.MarshallA. C. (2020). Measuring cognitive reflection without Maths: Development and validation of the verbal cognitive reflection test. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 34(3), 322–343. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2213
56.
SpampattiT.HahnelU. J. J.TrutnevyteE.BroschT. (2024). Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(2), 380–398. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01736-0
ŠrolJ.ČavojováV. (2025). Symbolic threat from the West, belief in pro-Kremlin conspiracy theories, and attribution of blame for the war in Ukraine: A two-wave longitudinal study. Political Psychology, 46(1), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12975
59.
ŠrolJ.ČavojováV.Ballová MikuškováE. (2022). Finding someone to blame: The link between COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, prejudice, support for violence, and other negative social outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(726076), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2021.726076
60.
ŠrolJ.MikuškováE. B.ČavojováV. (2021). When we are worried, what are we thinking? Anxiety, lack of control, and conspiracy beliefs amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(3), 720–729. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3798
61.
StanovichK. E. (2021). The bias that divides us: The science and politics of myside thinking. The MIT Press.
62.
SwireB.BerinskyA. J.LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. H. (2017). Processing political misinformation: Comprehending the Trump phenomenon. Royal Society Open Science, 4(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160802
63.
SwireB.EckerU. K. H.LewandowskyS. (2017). The role of familiarity in correcting inaccurate information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(12), 1948–1961. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000422
64.
SzebeniZ.LönnqvistJ.-E.Jasinskaja-LahtiI. (2021). Social psychological predictors of belief in fake news in the run-up to the 2019 Hungarian elections: The importance of conspiracy mentality supports the notion of ideological symmetry in fake news belief. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 790848. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.790848
65.
TaddickenM.WolffL. (2020). “Fake News” in science communication: Emotions and strategies of coping with dissonance online. Media and Communication, 8(1), 206–217. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i1.2495
66.
TappinB. M.van der LeerL.McKayR. T. (2017). The heart trumps the head: DESIRABILITY bias in political belief revision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(8), 1143–1149. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000298
67.
TayL. Q.HurlstoneM. J.KurzT.EckerU. K. H. (2022). A comparison of prebunking and debunking interventions for implied versus explicit misinformation. British Journal of Psychology, 113(3), 591–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12551
68.
Van BavelJ. J.PereiraA. (2018). The Partisan brain: An identity-based model of political belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(3), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.004
69.
Van BavelJ. J.RathjeS.VlasceanuM.PretusC. (2024). Updating the identity-based model of belief: From false belief to the spread of misinformation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 56, 101787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101787
70.
van Der LindenS. (2024). Foolproof: Why misinformation infects our minds and how to build immunity. W. W. Norton & Company.
71.
van der LindenS.LeiserowitzA.RosenthalS.MaibachE. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1(2), 1600008. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008
72.
Van Der MeerT. G. L. A.HameleersM.OhmeJ. (2023). Can fighting misinformation have a negative spillover effect? How warnings for the threat of misinformation can decrease general news credibility. Journalism Studies, 24(6), 803–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2187652
73.
Van ProoijenJ. W. (2019). An existential threat model of conspiracy theories. European Psychologist, 25(1), 16–25.
74.
VélizM.RiffoB.SalazarO. (2011). LECTUM. Examining reading comprehension. Level 7. Form A. Universidad de Concepción.
75.
VragaE. K.KimS. C.CookJ.BodeL. (2020). Testing the effectiveness of correction placement and type on Instagram. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(4), 632–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220919082
76.
WalterN.MurphyS. T. (2018). How to unring the bell: A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation. Communication Monographs, 85(3), 423–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2018.1467564
ZengH.-K.LoS.-Y.LiS.-C. S. (2024). Credibility of misinformation source moderates the effectiveness of corrective messages on social media. Public Understanding of Science, 33(5), 587–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231215979
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.
