What interventions can be used to counter misinformation effectively?

Researchers have proposed two broad categories of interventions to curb the growth and spread of misinformation: system-level approaches like legislation and technology standards focus on broad systemic changes, while individual-level approaches focus on changing individual behaviors. System-level interventions may be more effective than individual-level ones in reducing the spread of misinformation, but individual-level interventions generally have fewer ramifications for freedom of expression; they also rely less on cooperation from technology companies. We discuss four common individual-level interventions in terms of their ability to counter misinformation: debunking, prebunking, literacy training, and nudging.

Debunking, or fact-checking, is the correction of misinformation. It is used after people are exposed to misinformation, and it is most successful when it includes a detailed explanation that refutes incorrect information and replaces it with facts. Research indicates that debunking is effective in laboratory and real-world settings, as well as across cultures—particularly in the short term. However, fact-checking is very time-consuming and may not fully reverse the effects of misinformation; it also fades over time in ways that may require repeated correction. In real-world use, debunking efforts have not always reached their intended targets, partly because people who are predisposed to believe misinformation tend to avoid correction. Debunking interventions may work best in specific situations or individuals, so further research is required.

Prebunking, or pre-emptive debunking, seeks to prevent people from falling for misinformation in the first place. The most common method of prebunking is psychological inoculation, in which exposure to a weak version of a falsehood builds resistance to future persuasion: a forewarning about an impending attack on a belief (e.g., “Warning: People may try to manipulate you by saying...”) is followed by a statement that pre-emptively refutes the claim (e.g., “this is not true, because...”). Prebunking interventions can reduce susceptibility to specific falsehoods and to the larger techniques used to manipulate information; they may be more effective than debunking, and brief reminders (or “boosters”) can extend their effects over time. Recent evidence also suggests that prebunking is feasible in mass real-world settings like social media. However, people must actively choose to take part—say, by watching a video, reading a message, or playing a game. It remains to be seen if prebunking works under all conditions and across cultures, but it has strong potential to forestall misinformation at scale.

Health, media, and digital literacy interventions help people improve at judging the quality and accuracy of information or performing online tasks. Often included in formal education or community outreach, these interventions are difficult to evaluate because they vary widely in terms of content, duration, and outcomes. More research is needed to determine which literacy interventions are most effective against misinformation, but they may be most effective when paired with other counter-misinformation tools such as debunking.

Nudges are small environmental changes meant to alter behavior in predictable and positive ways. Researchers have used several types of nudges to try to dissuade people from sharing misinformation: accuracy nudges ask people to consider the veracity of information before sharing it, social norms nudges highlight community standards of behavior about reporting information, and motivational nudges reward people for being as accurate as possible. The efficacy of nudges in preventing the spread of false information is somewhat mixed, though multiple nudges in a row may be more effective than just one. Nudges may not work for very long and they may not work as well for some audiences, but their efficacy can be enhanced by combining them with other approaches such as inoculation.

Overall, psychological research on misinformation has identified several promising ways to fight it, but further study is needed to better understand these interventions in real-world settings, across countries and cultures, over time, and in combination.