Kai Kupferschmidt
ScienceVolume 386,
Issue 6721, Nov 2024
As a young boy growing up in the Netherlands in the 1990s, Sander van der Linden learned that most of his mother’s relatives, who were Jewish, had been killed by the Nazis, in the grip of racist ideology. At school, he was confronted with antisemitic conspiracy theories still circulating in Europe. It all got him wondering about the power of propaganda and how people become convinced of falsehoods.
Eventually, he would make studying those issues his career. As head of the Social Decision-Making Lab at the University of Cambridge, Van der Linden is studying the power of lies and how to keep people from believing them. He has become academia’s biggest proponent of a strategy pioneered after the Korean War
to “inoculate” humans against persuasion, the way they are vaccinated against dangerous infections.
The recipe only has two steps: First, warn people they may be manipulated. Second, expose them to a weakened form of the misinformation, just enough to intrigue but not persuade anyone. “The goal is to raise eyebrows (antibodies) without convincing (infecting),” Van der Linden and his colleague Jon Roozenbeek wrote recently in JAMA.
Here are some thoughts:
This article examines psychological inoculation as a promising strategy to build resistance against online misinformation. This approach adapts the principles of medical inoculation, aiming to "prebunk" misinformation by exposing individuals to diluted forms of misleading information and debunking tactics. Psychological inoculation is rooted in a Cold War-era concept developed by psychologist William McGuire, which van der Linden later adapted for the digital age to strengthen resilience against misinformation, particularly regarding climate change. Practical applications of this strategy include educational games like "Bad News" and "Harmony Square," which engage players in recognizing misinformation tactics, and YouTube ads that use pop culture to introduce the concept of misinformation detection.
Despite its potential, inoculation has its critics. While effective in laboratory settings and some limited real-world applications, questions remain about its long-term efficacy, potential backfire effects, and emphasis on individual responsibility over systemic change. Critics, like sociologist Sandra González-Bailón, argue that this approach may place undue responsibility on individuals, bypassing the role that social media platforms play in profiting from and spreading misinformation. Additionally, critics caution that inoculation may oversimplify the complexity of identifying misinformation, risking an erosion of trust in all content, whether true or false.
Given the limitations of psychological inoculation, experts advocate for a multifaceted approach to combating misinformation. Complementary strategies include accuracy nudges, which prompt users to reflect on content before sharing; source credibility indicators to improve source evaluation; and media literacy initiatives that build public capacity to critically assess information. Together, these methods could address both individual and systemic dimensions of misinformation. Psychological inoculation holds promise as one layer in this defense, but the scope and scale of misinformation demand ongoing research, systemic reforms within social media platforms, and enhanced public education to create a comprehensive and sustainable solution.
