Flagged but Fooled? Rethinking Misinformation Inoculation on Short-Form Video Apps

Abstract

Social media platforms are fighting misinformation by adding warning flags and suggesting related content. However, it is still unclear how users understand these flags and whether they influence users’ willingness to share content or believe false information—especially on video platforms such as TikTok. Do users notice these flags? If so, do the flags change how they view the content? Inoculation theory suggests that if individuals are forewarned about the potential for misinformation and are exposed to weakened forms of such misinformation, they may become less susceptible to misinformation. Does inoculating users with flagged content reduce false acceptance and sharing intentions later? To address these questions, we conducted a user study (N = 322) utilizing a TikTok-like interface, employing a 2 (misinformation warning: absent, present) × 3 (counterargument in pre-suggested false-flagged content: absent, cue, action) between-subject experimental design. While users noticed flags as intended, their perceptions regarding the frequency and harm of misinformation remain unchanged. Furthermoe, neither warning nor counterargument messages effectively reduced users’ acceptance of misinformation or their intention to share it, highlighting the boundary conditions of inoculation theory within immersive short video contexts. Interestingly, media literacy and TikTok dependency have emerged as significant predictors of false acceptance. This study discusses the practical implications for the design of ethical social media interfaces.