Misinformation about COVID-19: Psychological Insights: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Dean Liu and Version 1 by Elly Anastasiades.

While the precise conceptualization of the term misinformation remains a subject of debate, the current entry defines misinformation as any type of information which is misleading or false, regardless of intent. The COVID-19 pandemic has seen the rapid and widespread sharing of misinformation on a global scale, which has had detrimental effects on containment efforts and public health. This entry offers psychological insights to better our understanding of what makes people susceptible to believing and sharing misinformation and how this can inform interventions aimed at tackling the issue.

  • misinformation
  • fake news
  • social media
  • COVID-19
  • social cognition
  • public health
Please wait, diff process is still running!

References

  1. World Health Organization. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. Available online: https://covid19.who.int (accessed on 18 September 2021).
  2. Tangcharoensathien, V.; Calleja, N.; Nguyen, T.; Purnat, T.; D’Agostino, M.; Garcia-Saiso, S.; Landry, M.; Rashidian, A.; Hamilton, C.; AbdAllah, A.; et al. Framework for Managing the COVID-19 Infodemic: Methods and Results of an Online, Crowdsourced WHO Technical Consultation. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e19659.
  3. World Health Organisation. Munich Security Conference. Available online: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/munich-security-conference (accessed on 18 September 2021).
  4. World Health Organization. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report-86. Available online: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200415-sitrep-86-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=c615ea20_6 (accessed on 18 September 2021).
  5. Van der Linden, S.; Roozenbeek, J.; Compton, J. Inoculating Against Fake News About COVID-19. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11.
  6. Krause, N.M.; Freiling, I.; Beets, B.; Brossard, D. Fact-Checking as Risk Communication: The Multi-Layered Risk of Misinformation in Times of COVID-19. J. Risk Res. 2020, 23, 1052–1059.
  7. Dryhurst, S.; Schneider, C.R.; Kerr, J.; Freeman, A.L.J.; Recchia, G.; van der Bles, A.M.; Spiegelhalter, D.; van der Linden, S. Risk Perceptions of COVID-19 around the World. J. Risk Res. 2020, 23, 994–1006.
  8. World Health Organization. 1st WHO Infodemiology Conference: How Infodemics Affect the World & How They Can Be Managed. Available online: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/epi-win/infodemic-management/infodemiology-scientific-conference-booklet.pdf?sfvrsn=179de76a_4 (accessed on 18 September 2021).
  9. World Health Organization. WHO Public Health Research Agenda For Managing Infodemics. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240019508 (accessed on 18 September 2021).
  10. Gunn, J. Alternate Worlds: The Illustrated History of Science Fiction; A & W Visual Library: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1975; ISBN 978-0-89104-049-1.
  11. Kaplan, R.L. Yellow Journalism. In The International Encyclopedia of Communication; Donsbach, W., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2008; ISBN 978-1-4051-8640-7.
  12. Evans, R.J. The Third Reich in Power; Penguin Books: New York, NY, USA, 2006; ISBN 978-0-14-303790-3.
  13. Kux, D. Soviet Active Measures and Disinformation: Overview and Assessment. US Army War Coll. Q. Parameters 1985, 15, 17.
  14. Hoppe, T. “Spanish Flu”: When Infectious Disease Names Blur Origins and Stigmatize Those Infected. Am. J. Public Health 2018, 108, 1462–1464.
  15. Basco, S.; Domènech, J.; Rosés, J.R. The Redistributive Effects of Pandemics: Evidence on the Spanish Flu. World Dev. 2021, 141, 105389.
  16. Farkas, J.; Schou, J. Fake News as a Floating Signifier: Hegemony, Antagonism and the Politics of Falsehood. Javn. Public 2018, 25, 298–314.
  17. Tandoc, E.C.; Lim, Z.W.; Ling, R. Defining “Fake News”: A Typology of Scholarly Definitions. Digit. J. 2018, 6, 137–153.
  18. Shu, K.; Sliva, A.; Wang, S.; Tang, J.; Liu, H. Fake News Detection on Social Media: A Data Mining Perspective. SIGKDD Explor. Newsl. 2017, 19, 22–36.
  19. Pennycook, G.; Rand, D.G. The Psychology of Fake News. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2021, 25, 388–402.
  20. Hartley, K.; Vu, M.K. Fighting Fake News in the COVID-19 Era: Policy Insights from an Equilibrium Model. Policy Sci. 2020, 53, 735–758.
  21. Waszak, P.M.; Kasprzycka-Waszak, W.; Kubanek, A. The Spread of Medical Fake News in Social Media—The Pilot Quantitative Study. Health Policy Technol. 2018, 7, 115–118.
  22. Wardle, C. Information Disorder: The Essential Glossary; Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School: Harvard, MA, USA, 2018.
  23. Benkler, Y.; Faris, R.; Roberts, H. Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018; ISBN 0-19-092364-4.
  24. Floridi, L. Brave.Net.World: The Internet as a Disinformation Superhighway? Electron. Libr. 1996, 14, 509–514.
  25. Skinner, S.; Martin, B. Racist Disinformation on the World Wide Web: Initial Implications for the LIS Community. Aust. Libr. J. 2000, 49, 259–269.
  26. Keshavarz, H. How Credible Is Information on the Web: Reflections on Misinformation and Disinformation. Infopreneurship J. 2014, 1, 1–17.
  27. Karlova, N.A.; Fisher, K.E. A Social Diffusion Model of Misinformation and Disinformation for Understanding Human Information Behaviour. Inf. Res. 2013, 18, 573.
  28. Jewitt, R.; Dahlberg, L. The Trouble With Twittering: Integrating Social Media into Mainstream News. Int. J. Media Cult. Politics 2009, 5, 233–246.
  29. Karlovitz, T.J. The Democratization of Technology—And Its Limitation. In Managing Customer Experiences in an Omnichannel World: Melody of Online and Offline Environments in the Customer Journey; Dirsehan, T., Ed.; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2020; pp. 13–25. ISBN 978-1-80043-389-2.
  30. Altay, S.; de Araujo, E.; Mercier, H. “If This Account Is True, It Is Most Enormously Wonderful”: Interestingness-If-True and the Sharing of True and False News. Digit. J. 2021, 1–22.
  31. Vosoughi, S.; Roy, D.; Aral, S. The Spread of True and False News Online. Science 2018, 359, 1146–1151.
  32. Pew Research Center. News Use Across Social Media Platforms in 2020; Pew Research Center: Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
  33. Thorson, E. Changing Patterns Of News Consumption and Participation: News Recommendation Engines. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2008, 11, 473–489.
  34. Kang, H.; Bae, K.; Zhang, S.; Sundar, S.S. Source Cues in Online News: Is the Proximate Source More Powerful than Distal Sources? J. Mass Commun. Q. 2011, 88, 719–736.
  35. Shahsavari, S.; Holur, P.; Wang, T.; Tangherlini, T.R.; Roychowdhury, V. Conspiracy in the Time of Corona: Automatic Detection of Emerging COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories in Social Media and the News. J. Comput. Soc. Sci. 2020, 3, 279–317.
  36. Garfin, D.R.; Silver, R.C.; Holman, E.A. The Novel Coronavirus (COVID-2019) Outbreak: Amplification of Public Health Consequences by Media Exposure. Health Psychol. 2020, 39, 355–357.
  37. Gallotti, R.; Valle, F.; Castaldo, N.; Sacco, P.; De Domenico, M. Assessing the Risks of ‘Infodemics’ in Response to COVID-19 Epidemics. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2020, 4, 1285–1293.
  38. De Coninck, D.; Frissen, T.; Matthijs, K.; d’Haenens, L.; Lits, G.; Champagne-Poirier, O.; Carignan, M.-E.; David, M.D.; Pignard-Cheynel, N.; Salerno, S.; et al. Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation About COVID-19: Comparative Perspectives on the Role of Anxiety, Depression and Exposure to and Trust in Information Sources. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 646394.
  39. Li, H.O.-Y.; Bailey, A.; Huynh, D.; Chan, J. YouTube as a Source of Information on COVID-19: A Pandemic of Misinformation? BMJ Glob. Health 2020, 5, e002604.
  40. Ofcom. Half of UK Adults Exposed to False Claims about Coronavirus. Available online: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/features-and-news/half-of-uk-adults-exposed-to-false-claims-about-coronavirus (accessed on 19 September 2021).
  41. Pew Research Center. Americans Immersed in COVID-19 News; Most Think Media Are Doing Fairly Well Covering It. Available online: https://www.journalism.org/2020/03/18/americans-immersed-in-covid-19-news-most-think-media-are-doing-fairly-well-covering-it/ (accessed on 19 September 2021).
  42. Pennycook, G.; Cannon, T.D.; Rand, D.G. Prior Exposure Increases Perceived Accuracy of Fake News. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2018, 147, 1865–1880.
  43. Andersen, K.G.; Rambaut, A.; Lipkin, W.I.; Holmes, E.C.; Garry, R.F. The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2. Nat. Med. 2020, 26, 450–452.
  44. World Health Organization. Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Advice for the Public: Mythbusters. Available online: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters (accessed on 19 September 2021).
  45. Ahmed, W.; Vidal-Alaball, J.; Downing, J.; López Seguí, F. COVID-19 and the 5G Conspiracy Theory: Social Network Analysis of Twitter Data. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e19458.
  46. Cook, J.; Van Der Linden, S.; Lewandowsky, S.; Ecker, U.K. Coronavirus, ‘Plandemic’and the Seven Traits of Conspiratorial Thinking. Available online: https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-plandemic-and-the-seven-traits-of-conspiratorial-thinking-138483 (accessed on 19 September 2020).
  47. Owens, B. Excitement around Hydroxychloroquine for Treating COVID-19 Causes Challenges for Rheumatology. Lancet Rheumatol. 2020, 2, e257.
  48. Meyerowitz, E.A.; Vannier, A.G.L.; Friesen, M.G.N.; Schoenfeld, S.; Gelfand, J.A.; Callahan, M.V.; Kim, A.Y.; Reeves, P.M.; Poznansky, M.C. Rethinking the Role of Hydroxychloroquine in the Treatment of COVID-19. FASEB J. 2020, 34, 6027–6037.
  49. Stanley, M.L.; Barr, N.; Peters, K.; Seli, P. Analytic-Thinking Predicts Hoax Beliefs and Helping Behaviors in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Think. Reason. 2021, 27, 464–477.
  50. Freeman, D.; Waite, F.; Rosebrock, L.; Petit, A.; Causier, C.; East, A.; Jenner, L.; Teale, A.-L.; Carr, L.; Mulhall, S.; et al. Coronavirus Conspiracy Beliefs, Mistrust, and Compliance with Government Guidelines in England. Psychol. Med. 2020, 1–13.
  51. Imhoff, R.; Lamberty, P. A Bioweapon or a Hoax? The Link between Distinct Conspiracy Beliefs About the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak and Pandemic Behavior. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2020, 11, 1110–1118.
  52. Uscinski, J.E.; Enders, A.M.; Klofstad, C.; Seelig, M.; Funchion, J.; Everett, C.; Wuchty, S.; Premaratne, K.; Murthi, M. Why Do People Believe COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories? HKS Misinf. Rev. 2020.
  53. Lep, Ž.; Babnik, K.; Hacin Beyazoglu, K. Emotional Responses and Self-Protective Behavior Within Days of the COVID-19 Outbreak: The Promoting Role of Information Credibility. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1846.
  54. Islam, M.S.; Sarkar, T.; Khan, S.H.; Mostofa Kamal, A.-H.; Hasan, S.M.M.; Kabir, A.; Yeasmin, D.; Islam, M.A.; Amin Chowdhury, K.I.; Anwar, K.S.; et al. COVID-19–Related Infodemic and Its Impact on Public Health: A Global Social Media Analysis. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2020, 103, 1621–1629.
  55. Wen, J.; Aston, J.; Liu, X.; Ying, T. Effects of Misleading Media Coverage on Public Health Crisis: A Case of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak in China. Anatolia 2020, 31, 331–336.
  56. Armstrong, C.; Hildebrandt, C. China Kids Stay Home. Available online: https://www.pressreader.com/australia/the-daily-telegraph-sydney/20200129/281479278389840 (accessed on 23 September 2019).
  57. Mead, W.R. China Is the Real Sick Man of Asia. Available online: https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-is-the-real-sick-man-of-asia-11580773677 (accessed on 23 September 2021).
  58. Zheng, Y.; Goh, E.; Wen, J. The Effects of Misleading Media Reports about COVID-19 on Chinese Tourists’ Mental Health: A Perspective Article. Anatolia 2020, 31, 337–340.
  59. Jeung, R.; Nham, K. Incidents of Coronavirus-Related Discrimination. Available online: http://www.asianpacificpolicyandplanningcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/CA_Report_6_30_20.pdf (accessed on 23 September 2021).
  60. Tessler, H.; Choi, M.; Kao, G. The Anxiety of Being Asian American: Hate Crimes and Negative Biases During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Am. J. Crim. Justice 2020, 45, 636–646.
  61. Jolley, D.; Paterson, J.L. Pylons Ablaze: Examining the Role of 5G COVID-19 Conspiracy Beliefs and Support for Violence. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2020, 59, 628–640.
  62. Brooks, S.K.; Webster, R.K.; Smith, L.E.; Woodland, L.; Wessely, S.; Greenberg, N.; Rubin, G.J. The Psychological Impact of Quarantine and How to Reduce It: Rapid Review of the Evidence. Lancet 2020, 395, 912–920.
  63. Barzilay, R.; Moore, T.M.; Greenberg, D.M.; DiDomenico, G.E.; Brown, L.A.; White, L.K.; Gur, R.C.; Gur, R.E. Resilience, COVID-19-Related Stress, Anxiety and Depression during the Pandemic in a Large Population Enriched for Healthcare Providers. Transl. Psychiatry 2020, 10, 291.
  64. Salari, N.; Hosseinian-Far, A.; Jalali, R.; Vaisi-Raygani, A.; Rasoulpoor, S.; Mohammadi, M.; Rasoulpoor, S.; Khaledi-Paveh, B. Prevalence of Stress, Anxiety, Depression among the General Population during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Glob. Health 2020, 16, 57.
  65. Qiu, J.; Shen, B.; Zhao, M.; Wang, Z.; Xie, B.; Xu, Y. A Nationwide Survey of Psychological Distress among Chinese People in the COVID-19 Epidemic: Implications and Policy Recommendations. Gen. Psychiatry 2020, 33, e100213.
  66. Taylor, S.; Landry, C.A.; Paluszek, M.M.; Fergus, T.A.; McKay, D.; Asmundson, G.J.G. COVID Stress Syndrome: Concept, Structure, and Correlates. Depress. Anxiety 2020, 37, 706–714.
  67. Šrol, J.; Ballová Mikušková, E.; Čavojová, V. When We Are Worried, What Are We Thinking? Anxiety, Lack of Control, and Conspiracy Beliefs amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 2021, 35, 720–729.
  68. Landau, M.J.; Kay, A.C.; Whitson, J.A. Compensatory Control and the Appeal of a Structured World. Psychol. Bull. 2015, 141, 694–722.
  69. Kay, A.C.; Whitson, J.A.; Gaucher, D.; Galinsky, A.D. Compensatory Control: Achieving Order Through the Mind, Our Institutions, and the Heavens. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2009, 18, 264–268.
  70. Nyhan, B. Misinformation and Fact-Checking: Research Findings from Social Science. Available online: https://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/Misinformation_and_Fact-checking.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2021).
  71. Douglas, K.M.; Uscinski, J.E.; Sutton, R.M.; Cichocka, A.; Nefes, T.; Ang, C.S.; Deravi, F. Understanding Conspiracy Theories. Political Psychol. 2019, 40, 3–35.
  72. Armus, T.; Hassan, J. ‘Go to China If You Want Communism’: Anti-Quarantine Protester Clashes with People in Scrubs. Available online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/04/20/go-china-if-you-want-communism-anti-quarantine-protester-clashes-with-people-scrubs/ (accessed on 29 September 2021).
  73. Sylvester, S.M. COVID-19 and Motivated Reasoning: The Influence of Knowledge on COVID-Related Policy and Health Behavior. Soc. Sci. Q. 2021, 12989.
  74. Hart, P.S.; Chinn, S.; Soroka, S. Politicization and Polarization in COVID-19 News Coverage. Sci. Commun. 2020, 42, 679–697.
  75. Motta, M.; Stecula, D.; Farhart, C. How Right-Leaning Media Coverage of COVID-19 Facilitated the Spread of Misinformation in the Early Stages of the Pandemic in the U.S. Can. J. Political Sci. 2020, 53, 335–342.
  76. Harvey, J.N.; Lawson, V.L. The Importance of Health Belief Models in Determining Self-Care Behaviour in Diabetes. Diabet. Med. 2009, 26, 5–13.
  77. Gadarian, S.K.; Goodman, S.W.; Pepinsky, T.B. Partisanship, Health Behavior, and Policy Attitudes in the Early Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0249596.
  78. Kunda, Z. The Case for Motivated Reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 1990, 108, 480–498.
  79. Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance; Stanford University Press: Redwood City, CA, USA, 1957; p. 291.
  80. Freiling, I.; Krause, N.M.; Scheufele, D.A.; Brossard, D. Believing and Sharing Misinformation, Fact-Checks, and Accurate Information on Social Media: The Role of Anxiety during COVID-19. New Media Soc. 2021, 146144482110114.
  81. Lazer, D.M.J.; Baum, M.A.; Benkler, Y.; Berinsky, A.J.; Greenhill, K.M.; Menczer, F.; Metzger, M.J.; Nyhan, B.; Pennycook, G.; Rothschild, D.; et al. The Science of Fake News. Science 2018, 359, 1094–1096.
  82. Spohr, D. Fake News and Ideological Polarization: Filter Bubbles and Selective Exposure on Social Media. Bus. Inf. Rev. 2017, 34, 150–160.
  83. Pennycook, G.; Epstein, Z.; Mosleh, M.; Arechar, A.A.; Eckles, D.; Rand, D.G. Shifting Attention to Accuracy Can Reduce Misinformation Online. Nature 2021, 592, 590–595.
  84. Pennycook, G.; Rand, D.G. Lazy, Not Biased: Susceptibility to Partisan Fake News Is Better Explained by Lack of Reasoning than by Motivated Reasoning. Cognition 2019, 188, 39–50.
  85. Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow, 1st pbk. ed.; Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York, NY, USA, 2013; ISBN 978-0-374-53355-7.
  86. Pennycook, G.; Fugelsang, J.A.; Koehler, D.J. Everyday Consequences of Analytic Thinking. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2015, 24, 425–432.
  87. Fiske, S.T.; Taylor, S.E. Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture, 2nd ed.; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2013; ISBN 978-1-4462-5814-9.
  88. Kohlberg, L. Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research; Goslin, D.A., Ed.; Rand McNally: Chicago, IL, USA, 1969; pp. 347–480.
  89. Swami, V.; Voracek, M.; Stieger, S.; Tran, U.S.; Furnham, A. Analytic Thinking Reduces Belief in Conspiracy Theories. Cognition 2014, 133, 572–585.
  90. Čavojová, V.; Šrol, J.; Ballová Mikušková, E. How Scientific Reasoning Correlates with Health-Related Beliefs and Behaviors during the COVID-19 Pandemic? J. Health Psychol. 2020, 135910532096226.
  91. Zimmerman, C. The Development of Scientific Thinking Skills in Elementary and Middle School. Dev. Rev. 2007, 27, 172–223.
  92. Čavojová, V.; Šrol, J.; Jurkovič, M. Why Should We Try to Think like Scientists? Scientific Reasoning and Susceptibility to Epistemically Suspect Beliefs and Cognitive Biases. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 2020, 34, 85–95.
  93. Horne, B.D.; Nevo, D.; Adali, S.; Manikonda, L.; Arrington, C. Tailoring Heuristics and Timing AI Interventions for Supporting News Veracity Assessments. Comput. Hum. Beha. Rep. 2020, 2, 100043.
  94. Simon, H.A. Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment. Psychol. Rev. 1956, 63, 129–138.
  95. Smith, A.; Anderson, M. Social Media Use in 2018. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/ (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  96. Brady, W.J.; Crockett, M.J.; Van Bavel, J.J. The MAD Model of Moral Contagion: The Role of Motivation, Attention, and Design in the Spread of Moralized Content Online. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2020, 15, 978–1010.
  97. Pennycook, G.; McPhetres, J.; Zhang, Y.; Lu, J.G.; Rand, D.G. Fighting COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media: Experimental Evidence for a Scalable Accuracy-Nudge Intervention. Psychol. Sci. 2020, 31, 770–780.
  98. Jordan, J.J.; Rand, D.G. Signaling When No One Is Watching: A Reputation Heuristics Account of Outrage and Punishment in One-Shot Anonymous Interactions. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2020, 118, 57–88.
  99. Lobato, E.J.C.; Powell, M.; Padilla, L.M.K.; Holbrook, C. Factors Predicting Willingness to Share COVID-19 Misinformation. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 566108.
  100. Kahneman, D.; Slovic, S.P.; Slovic, P.; Tversky, A. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1982; ISBN 0-521-28414-7.
  101. Mosleh, M.; Pennycook, G.; Arechar, A.A.; Rand, D.G. Cognitive Reflection Correlates with Behavior on Twitter. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 921.
  102. Van Der Linden, S.; Rozenbeek, J. Psychological inoculation against fake news. In The Psychology of Fake News: Accepting, Sharing, and Correcting Misinformation; Greifeneder, R., Jaffé, M.E., Newman, E.J., Schwarz, N., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 147–170.
  103. Wakefield, J. Facebook’s Fake News Experiment Backfires. Available online: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41900877 (accessed on 2 October 2021).
  104. Zollo, F.; Bessi, A.; Del Vicario, M.; Scala, A.; Caldarelli, G.; Shekhtman, L.; Havlin, S.; Quattrociocchi, W. Debunking in a World of Tribes. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0181821.
  105. Politifact. Available online: https://www.politifact.com (accessed on 8 October 2021).
  106. Snopes. Available online: https://www.snopes.com (accessed on 8 October 2021).
  107. Nyhan, B.; Reifler, J. When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions. Political Behav. 2010, 32, 303–330.
  108. Nyhan, B.; Porter, E.; Reifler, J.; Wood, T. Taking Corrections Literally But Not Seriously? The Effects of Information on Factual Beliefs and Candidate Favorability. SSRN J. 2017.
  109. Van Bavel, J.J.; Baicker, K.; Boggio, P.S.; Capraro, V.; Cichocka, A.; Cikara, M.; Crockett, M.J.; Crum, A.J.; Douglas, K.M.; Druckman, J.N.; et al. Using Social and Behavioural Science to Support COVID-19 Pandemic Response. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2020, 4, 460–471.
  110. Bremner, C. France Aims to Ban Fake News at Election Time. Available online: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/france-aims-to-ban-fake-news-at-election-time-jwspzjx83 (accessed on 2 October 2021).
  111. BBC News Coronavirus: Unit Set up to Counter False Claims. Available online: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51800216 (accessed on 2 October 2021).
  112. Pieters, J. Dutch Politicians Want EU Anti-Fake News Watchdog Scrapped. Available online: https://nltimes.nl/2018/03/06/dutch-politicians-want-eu-anti-fake-news-watchdog-scrapped (accessed on 2 October 2021).
  113. McGuire, W.J. A Vaccine for Brainwash. Psychol. Today 1970, 3, 36–64.
  114. Banas, J.A.; Rains, S.A. A Meta-Analysis of Research on Inoculation Theory. Commun. Monogr. 2010, 77, 281–311.
  115. Bad News. Available online: www.getbadnews.com (accessed on 8 October 2021).
  116. Go Viral! Available online: https://www.goviralgame.com/en/play (accessed on 8 October 2021).
  117. Basol, M.; Roozenbeek, J.; Van der Linden, S. Good News about Bad News: Gamified Inoculation Boosts Confidence and Cognitive Immunity Against Fake News. J. Cognit. 2020, 3, 2.
  118. Guess, A.M.; Lerner, M.; Lyons, B.; Montgomery, J.M.; Nyhan, B.; Reifler, J.; Sircar, N. A Digital Media Literacy Intervention Increases Discernment between Mainstream and False News in the United States and India. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 15536–15545.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback