Van BavelJJVBaickerKBoggioPS, et al.Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat Hum Behav. 2020;4(5):460-471. doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z.
2.
van der LindenSRoozenbeekJComptonJ. Inoculating against fake News about COVID-19. Front Psychol. 2020;11:566790. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566790.
3.
RoozenbeekJSchneiderCRDryhurstS, et al.Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. R Soc Open Sci. 2020;7:201199. doi:10.1098/rsos.201199.
4.
LoombaSde FigueiredoAPiatekSJde GraafKLarsonHJ. Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nat Hum Behav. 2021;5:337-348. doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1.
5.
BurgessDCBurgessMALeaskJ. The MMR vaccination and autism controversy in United Kingdom 1998–2005: Inevitable community outrage or a failure of risk communication?Vaccine. 2006;24(18):3921-3928. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.02.033.
6.
PaynterJLuskin-SaxbySKeenD, 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.
7.
WrightCWilliamsPElizarovaO, et al.Effects of brief exposure to misinformation about e-cigarette harms on twitter: a randomised controlled experiment. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e045445. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045445.
8.
TanASLBigmanCA. Misinformation About commercial tobacco products on social media—implications and research opportunities for reducing tobacco-related health disparities. Am J Public Health. 2020;110(Suppl 3):S281. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2020.305910.
9.
AlbarracinDRomerDJonesCHall JamiesonKJamiesonP. Misleading claims about Tobacco products in YouTube Videos: experimental effects of misinformation on unhealthy attitudes. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(6):e229. doi:10.2196/jmir.9959.
10.
van der LindenSRoozenbeekJ. Fake news and the COVID-19 pandemic. In: MillerMK, ed. The Social Science of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Call to Action for Researchers. Oxford University Press; 2022.
11.
ThorneJVlachosA. Automated fact checking: task formulations, methods and future directions. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics; 2018:3346-3359. https://aclanthology.org/C18-1283.
12.
NygrenTGuathM. Swedish teenagers’ difficulties and abilities to determine digital news credibility. Nord Rev. 2019;40(1):23-42.
NyhanBReiflerJ. When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Polit Behav. 2010;32(2):303-330. doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2.
15.
EckerUKHLewandowskySChadwickM. Can corrections spread misinformation to new audiences? Testing for the elusive familiarity backfire effect. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2020;5(1):41. doi:10.1186/s41235-020-00241-6.
16.
FazioLKBrashierNMPayneBKMarshEJ. Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2015;144(5):993-1002. doi:10.1037/xge0000098.
17.
Swire-ThompsonBDeGutisJLazerD. Searching for the backfire effect: measurement and design considerations. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2020;9(3):286-299. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.06.006.
18.
GuilloryJJGeraciL. Correcting erroneous inferences in memory: the role of source credibility on the continued influence effect. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2013;2(4):201-209. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.10.001.
19.
EckerUKHAntonioLM. Can you believe it? An investigation into the impact of retraction source credibility on the continued influence effect. Mem Cognit. 2021;49:631-644. doi:10.3758/s13421-020-01129-y.
20.
EckerUKHO'ReillyZReidJSChangEP. The effectiveness of short‐format refutational fact‐checks. Br J Psychol. 2020;111(1):36-54. doi:10.1111/bjop.12383.
21.
BrashierNMPennycookGBerinskyAJRandDG. Timing matters when correcting fake news. Proc Natl Acad Sci. doi:10.1073/pnas.2020043118. Published online 2021.
22.
LewandowskySCookJSchmidP, et al.The COVID-19 vaccine communication handbook: a practical guide for improving vaccine communication and fighting misinformation. 2021. https://hackmd.io. https://sks.to/c19vax. Accessed October 12, 2021.
23.
LewandowskySCookJEckerUKH, et al.The Debunking Handbook 2020; 2020. doi:10.17910/b7.1182.
24.
Chido-AmajuoyiOGYuRKAgakuISheteS. Exposure to court-ordered Tobacco industry antismoking advertisements among US adults. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(7):e196935. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.6935.
25.
KostyginaGSzczypkaGTranH, et al.Exposure and reach of the US court-mandated corrective statements advertising campaign on broadcast and social media. Tob Control. 2020;29(4):420-424. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054762.
26.
EckerUKLewandowskySTangDT. Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation. Mem Cognit. 2010;38(8):1087-1100. doi:10.3758/MC.38.8.1087.
27.
LewandowskySEckerUKSeifertCMSchwarzNCookJ. Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2012;13(3):106-131. doi:10.1177/1529100612451018.
28.
TrabergCSvan der LindenS. Birds of a feather are persuaded together: perceived source credibility mediates the effect of political bias on misinformation susceptibility. Pers Individ Dif. 2022;185:111269. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2021.111269.
29.
Van BavelJJPereiraA. The Partisan Brain: an identity-based model of political belief. Trends Cogn Sci. 2018;22(3):213-224. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.004.
30.
Van BavelJJHarrisEAPärnametsPRathjeSDoellKCTuckerJA. Political psychology in the digital (mis)information age: a model of news belief and sharing. Soc Issues Policy Rev. 2021;15(1):84-113. doi:10.1111/sipr.12077.
31.
ZolloFNovakPKDel VicarioM, et al.Emotional dynamics in the age of misinformation. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):1-22. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138740.
32.
ZolloFBessiADel VicarioM, et al.Debunking in a world of tribes. PLoS One. 2017;12(7):1-27. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181821.
33.
Del VicarioMBessiAZolloF, et al.The spreading of misinformation online. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113(3):554-559. doi:10.1073/pnas.1517441113.
34.
PennycookGRandDG. The psychology of fake news. Trends Cogn Sci. 2021;25(5):388-402. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007.
35.
PennycookGRandDG. 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.
36.
PennycookGMcPhetresJZhangYLuJGRandDG. Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychol Sci. 2020;31(7):770-780. doi:10.1177/0956797620939054.
37.
PennycookGEpsteinZMoslehMArecharAAEcklesDRandDG. Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature. 2021;592:590-595.
38.
PretusCVan BavelJJBradyWJHarrisEAVilarroyaOServinC. The role of political devotion in sharing partisan misinformation. PsyArxiv Prepr. doi:10.31234/osf.io/7k9gx. Published online 2021.
39.
RoozenbeekJFreemanALJvan der LindenS. How accurate are accuracy nudges? A pre-registered direct replication of Pennycook et al (2020). Psychol Sci. 2021;32(7):1-10. doi:10.1177/09567976211024535.
40.
RathjeSRoozenbeekJTrabergCSVan BavelJJVan der LindenS. Letter to the editors of psychological science: meta-analysis reveals that accuracy nudges have little to no effect for US conservatives: regarding Pennycook. (2021, in press). Psychol Sci. 2022.
ComptonJLindenSCookJBasolM. Inoculation theory in the post-truth era: extant findings and new frontiers for contested science, misinformation, and conspiracy theories. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2021;15(6):e12602. doi:10.1111/spc3.12602.
43.
van der LindenSRoozenbeekJMaertensR, et al.How can psychological science help counter the spread of fake news?Span.J Psychol. 2021;24:1-9. doi:10.1017/SJP.2021.23.
44.
LewandowskySvan der LindenS. Countering misinformation and fake news through inoculation and prebunking. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 2021;32:348-384. doi:10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983. Published online February 22, 2021.
45.
McGuireWJ. Inducing resistance against persuasion: some contemporary approaches. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 1964;1:191-229. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60052-0.
46.
McGuireWJPapageorgisD. The relative efficacy of various types of prior belief-defense in producing immunity against persuasion. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1961;62(2):327-337.
47.
ComptonJ. Inoculation theory. In: DillardJPShenL, eds. The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion: Developments in Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. ■■■: SAGE Publications, Inc; 2012:220-236. doi:10.4135/9781452218410.
48.
van der LindenSLeiserowitzARosenthalSMaibachE. Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Glob Chall. 2017;1(2):1600008. doi:10.1002/gch2.201600008.
49.
JolleyDDouglasKM. Prevention is better than cure: addressing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2017;47(8):459-469. doi:10.1111/jasp.12453.
50.
BradyWJWillsJAJostJTTuckerJAVan BavelJJ. Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017;114(28):7313-7318. doi:10.1073/pnas.1618923114.
51.
RathjeSVan BavelJJvan der LindenS. Outgroup animosity drives engagement on social media. Proc Natl Acad Sci. doi:10.1073/pnas.2024292118. Published online 2021.
52.
SimchonABradyWJVan BavelJJ. Troll and Divide: The Language of Online Polarization. PsyArxiv Prepr. doi:10.31234/osf.io/xjd64. Published online 2021.
CookJLewandowskySEckerUKH. Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLoS One. 2017;12(5):1-21. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0175799.
55.
BasolMRoozenbeekJBerricheMUenalFMcClanahanWPLindenSvd. Towards psychological herd immunity: cross-cultural evidence for two prebunking interventions against COVID-19 misinformation. Big Data Soc. 2021;8(1):205395172110138. doi:10.1177/20539517211013868.
56.
BanasJAMillerG. Inducing resistance to conspiracy theory propaganda: testing inoculation and metainoculation strategies. Hum Commun Res. 2013;39(2):184-207. doi:10.1111/hcre.12000.
57.
van der LindenSRoozenbeekJ. Psychological inoculation against fake news. In: GreifenederRJafféMNewmanESchwarzN, eds. The Psychology of Fake News: Accepting, Sharing, and Correcting Misinformation. ■■■: Psychology Press; 2020:147-169. doi:10.4324/9780429295379-11.
58.
LewandowskySYesiladaM. Inoculating against the spread of Islamophobic and radical-Islamist disinformation. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2021;6(57):57. doi:10.1186/s41235-021-00323-z.
59.
MaertensRRoozenbeekJBasolMvan der LindenS. Long-term effectiveness of inoculation against misinformation: three longitudinal experiments. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2021;27(1):1-16. doi:10.1037/xap0000315.
60.
RoozenbeekJvan der LindenS. Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2019;5(65):1-10. doi:10.1057/s41599-019-0279-9.
61.
RoozenbeekJMaertensRMcClanahanWvan der LindenS. Disentangling item and testing effects in inoculation research on online misinformation. Educ Psychol Meas. 2021;81(2):340-362. doi:10.1177/0013164420940378.
62.
BasolMRoozenbeekJvan der LindenS. Good news about Bad News: Gamified inoculation boosts confidence and cognitive immunity against fake news. J Cogn. 2020;3(12):2-9. DOI: 10.5334/joc.91.
63.
SalehNFRoozenbeekJMakkiFAMcClanahanWPvan der LindenS. 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. Published online 2021.
64.
RoozenbeekJvan der LindenS. Breaking harmony square: a game that “inoculates” against political misinformation. HKS Misinfo Review. 2020;1(8). doi:10.37016/mr-2020-47.
65.
RoozenbeekJvan der LindenSNygrenT. Prebunking interventions based on “inoculation” theory can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. HKS Misinfo Review. 2020;1(2). doi:10.37016//mr-2020-008.
FazioL. Pausing to consider why a headline is true or false can help reduce the sharing of false news. HKS Misinfo Review. 2020;1(2). doi:10.37016/mr-2020-009.
