Advances in Psychology Logo Advances in Psychology Logo
Research Article | Special Issue: From Vulnerability to Vigilance

Counteracting socially endorsed misinformation through an emotion-fallacy inoculation

Cecilie S. Traberg ORCID, Thomas Morton ORCID, & Sander van der Linden ORCID
https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00017
Published: June 20, 2024
Copyright: The authors (CC BY 4.0)

Traberg, C., Morton, T., & van der Linden, S. (2024). Counteracting socially endorsed misinformation through an emotion-fallacy inoculation. advances.in/psychology, 2, e765332. https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00017

Traberg, Cecilie, et al. "Counteracting socially endorsed misinformation through an emotion-fallacy inoculation." advances.in/psychology, vol. 2, no. 1, 2024, e765332. https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00017.

Traberg, Cecilie, Thomas Morton, and Sander van der Linden. 2024. "Counteracting socially endorsed misinformation through an emotion-fallacy inoculation." advances.in/psychology 2 (1): e765332. https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00017.

Traberg C, Morton T, van der Linden S. Counteracting socially endorsed misinformation through an emotion-fallacy inoculation. advances.in/psychology. 2024;2(1):e765332. doi:10.56296/aip00017.

Traberg, C. et al. (2024) 'Counteracting socially endorsed misinformation through an emotion-fallacy inoculation', advances.in/psychology, 2(1), e765332. Available at: https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00017.

Download .RIS Download .bib
This study (N = 755) explores the efficacy of an emotion-fallacy inoculation in reducing susceptibility to emotionally misleading news and investigates the impact of persuasive social cues on its effectiveness. Results show that inoculation significantly reduces the perceived reliability of misinformation (d = 0.23), enhances participants’ confidence in their reliability (d = 0.26), and improves veracity discernment (d = 0.23). Findings also reveal that social cues increase the perceived reliability (d = 0.44) and perceived accuracy of misinformation (d = 0.38), even among inoculated individuals. However, the impact of inoculation remains consistent, suggesting that, while social cues enhance the persuasiveness of misinformation, they do not diminish the effectiveness of the inoculation intervention. Finally, participants acknowledge the influence of social cues more on others than on themselves, indicating a third-person consensus effect. The findings highlight the persistent influence of social cues, even in the presence of inoculation, emphasising the need for nuanced interventions to address the complex interplay between emotions, misinformation, and social influence in the digital age.
  • Sander van der Linden, Debra Louison-Lavoy, Nicholas Blazer, Nancy S. Noble, J. Roozenbeek (2026). Prebunking misinformation techniques in social media feeds: Results from an Instagram field study. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-193
  • Giovanni Zagni, Tommaso Canetta (2026). Independent Fact-Checking: Ex Post Response to Disinformation. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-00480-2_23
  • Shaon Lahiri (2024). Resisting harmful social norms change using social inoculation. Current Opinion in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101914
Download PDF Back to article