By: Gustavo Castillo Álvarez
Research Assistant, ETHOS BT
The theory of psychological inoculation is based on a metaphor from biology, proposing that individuals can be psychologically “vaccinated” against persuasive attacks on different controversial topics, in the same way that bodies are immunized against viral infections [1]. Since its inception, this theory has been applied to counter misinformation on topics such as climate change, extremism, conspiracy theories, and health [1]
An “inoculation” is composed of two components: 1) An explicit warning about an imminent threat and 2) A refutation of the argument exposing the imminent fallacy.
Only in recent years has inoculation been applied to counteract misinformation and fake news [5]. Although this theory was initially formulated before the arrival of the Internet, the rise of social networks and the consumption of news and information digitally, it is even more similar to the spread of a virus. More worryingly, fake news and misinformation spread much faster than the truth because they exploit (whether deliberately or coincidentally) psychological biases, giving them a clear advantage in the competition for human attention, particularly in the digital arena [3].
In a US study, they exposed people to anti-conspiracy information before or after presenting arguments in favor of vaccine conspiracy theories [5]. The authors found that when people were vaccinated by first receiving anti-conspiracy information, vaccination intentions improved and were not affected by conspiratorial rhetoric displayed later. On the other hand, by presenting the conspiratorial material first, the information given to counter it was less effective, which means that once the conspiratorial beliefs have been established in the mind, it is more difficult to correct them, thus preventing disinformation is better than “curing” it. ” once it has been established [5].
Another example of inoculation in action resulted from two experiments conducted in 2016 in which the effect of inoculating participants prior to exposure to two different types of misinformation was evaluated [6]. The inoculation evaluated consisted of messages exposing deceptive argumentation techniques . In one of the experiments, they found that preventing and explaining to participants about the “false expert” manipulation technique using examples of tobacco industry advertising neutralized the effects of misinformation. The results not only reaffirm the efficiency of inoculation in neutralizing the influence of disinformation, but also suggest that individuals can be inoculated against disinformation strategies , covering a greater scope of arguments that employ the same technique [6].
References
[1] W. McGuire, "Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary approaches", Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 1, pp. 191-229, 1964. Available: 10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60052-0.
[2] C. Traberg, J. Roozenbeek and S. van der Linden, “Psychological Inoculation against Misinformation: Current Evidence and Future Directions,” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 700, no. 1, pp. 136-151, 2022. Available: 10.1177/00027162221087936.
[3]S. Lewandowsky and S. van der Linden, “Countering Misinformation and Fake News Through Inoculation and Prebunking,” European Review of Social Psychology, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 348-384, 2021. Available: 10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983.
[4]S. van der Linden, A. Leiserowitz, S. Rosenthal and E. Maibach, “Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change,” Global Challenges, vol. 1, no. 2 P. 1600008, 2017. Available: 10.1002/gch2.201600008.
[5 D. Jolley and K. Douglas, “Prevention is better than cure: Addressing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 459-469, 2017. Available: 10.1111/jasp.12453.
[6]J. Cook, S. Lewandowsky and U. Ecker, "Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence," PLOS ONE, vol. 12, no. 5 p. e0175799, 2017. Available: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175799.
Comments