Psychological inoculation can reduce susceptibility to misinformation in large rational agent networks

Inoculation hesitancy: an exploration of challenges in scaling inoculation theory

Inoculation theory research offers a promising psychological 'vaccination' against misinformation. But are people willing to take it? Expanding on the inoculation metaphor, we introduce the concept of 'inoculation hesitancy' as a framework for exploring reluctance to engage with misinformation interventions. Study 1 investigated whether individuals feel a need for misinformation inoculations. In a comparative self-evaluation, participants assessed their own experiences with misinformation and expectations of inoculation and compared them to those of the average person. Results exposed a better-than-average effect. While participants were concerned over the problem of misinformation, they estimated that they were less likely to be exposed to it and more skilful at detecting it than the average person. Their self-described likelihood of engaging with inoculation was moderate, and they believed other people would benefit more from being inoculated. In Study 2, participants evaluated their inclination to watch inoculation videos from sources varying in trustworthiness and political affiliation. Results suggest that participants are significantly less willing to accept inoculations from low-trust sources and less likely to accept inoculations from partisan sources that are antithetical to their own political beliefs. Overall, this research identifies motivational obstacles in reaching herd immunity with inoculation theory, guiding future development of inoculation interventions.

Belief-consistent information is most shared despite being the least surprising

In the classical information theoretic framework, information "value" is proportional to how novel/surprising the information is. Recent work building on such notions claimed that false news spreads faster than truth online because false news is more novel and therefore surprising. However, another determinant of surprise, semantic meaning (e.g., information's consistency or inconsistency with prior beliefs), should also influence value and sharing. Examining sharing behavior on Twitter, we observed separate relations of novelty and belief consistency with sharing. Though surprise could not be assessed in those studies, belief consistency should relate to less surprise, suggesting the relevance of semantic meaning beyond novelty. In two controlled experiments, belief-consistent (vs. belief-inconsistent) information was shared more despite consistent information being the least surprising. Manipulated novelty did not predict sharing or surprise. Thus, classical information theoretic predictions regarding perceived value and sharing would benefit from considering semantic meaning in contexts where people hold pre-existing beliefs.

Changing the incentive structure of social media platforms to halt the spread of misinformation

The powerful allure of social media platforms has been attributed to the human need for social rewards. Here, we demonstrate that the spread of misinformation on such platforms is facilitated by existing social 'carrots' (e.g., 'likes') and 'sticks' (e.g., 'dislikes') that are dissociated from the veracity of the information shared. Testing 951 participants over six experiments, we show that a slight change to the incentive structure of social media platforms, such that social rewards and punishments are contingent on information veracity, produces a considerable increase in the discernment of shared information. Namely, an increase in the proportion of true information shared relative to the proportion of false information shared. Computational modeling (i.e., drift-diffusion models) revealed the underlying mechanism of this effect is associated with an increase in the weight participants assign to evidence consistent with discerning behavior. The results offer evidence for an intervention that could be adopted to reduce misinformation spread, which in turn could reduce violence, vaccine hesitancy and political polarization, without reducing engagement.

Psychological inoculation protects against the social media infodemic

Misinformation can have a profound detrimental impact on populations' wellbeing. In this large UK-based online experiment (n = 2430), we assessed the performance of false tag and inoculation interventions in protecting against different forms of misinformation ('variants'). While previous experiments have used perception- or intention-based outcome measures, we presented participants with real-life misinformation posts in a social media platform simulation and measured their engagement, a more ecologically valid approach. Our pre-registered mixed-effects models indicated that both interventions reduced engagement with misinformation, but inoculation was most effective. However, random differences analysis revealed that the protection conferred by inoculation differed across posts. Moderation analysis indicated that immunity provided by inoculation is robust to variation in individuals' cognitive reflection. This study provides novel evidence on the general effectiveness of inoculation interventions over false tags, social media platforms' current approach. Given inoculation's effect heterogeneity, a concert of interventions will likely be required for future safeguarding efforts.