Perspective | Special Issue: From Vulnerability to Vigilance

Beyond the headlines: On the efficacy and effectiveness of misinformation interventions

Jon Roozenbeek

, Miriam Remshard

, & Yara Kyrychenko

https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00019
Published: July 27, 2024
Copyright: The authors (CC BY 4.0)

Roozenbeek, J., Remshard, M., & Kyrychenko, Y. (2024). Beyond the headlines: On the efficacy and effectiveness of misinformation interventions. advances.in/psychology, 2, e24569. https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00019

Roozenbeek, Jon, et al. "Beyond the headlines: On the efficacy and effectiveness of misinformation interventions." advances.in/psychology, vol. 2, no. 1, 2024, e24569. https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00019.

Roozenbeek, Jon, Miriam Remshard, and Yara Kyrychenko. 2024. "Beyond the headlines: On the efficacy and effectiveness of misinformation interventions." advances.in/psychology 2 (1): e24569. https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00019.

Roozenbeek J, Remshard M, Kyrychenko Y. Beyond the headlines: On the efficacy and effectiveness of misinformation interventions. advances.in/psychology. 2024;2(1):e24569. doi:10.56296/aip00019.

Roozenbeek, J. et al. (2024) 'Beyond the headlines: On the efficacy and effectiveness of misinformation interventions', advances.in/psychology, 2(1), e24569. Available at: https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00019.

Download .RIS Download .bib

Research into how to best counter misinformation has enjoyed a great deal of popularity, but a discussion about how efficacy (successful lab studies) translates to effectiveness (real-world impact) is lacking. Lab studies have shown that many types of misinformation interventions are efficacious at achieving their intended outcomes (e.g., improving “discernment”, or the ability to distinguish true from false information). However, drawing on implementation science, we identify six challenges facing misinformation interventions research: (1) an overabundance of lab research and a lack of field studies; (2) the presence of testing effects, which impede intervention longevity and scalability; (3) modest effects for small fractions of relevant audiences; (4) a reliance on item evaluation tasks (e.g., rating a series of headlines as true or false) as the primary efficacy measure of interest; (5) low replicability in the Global South and a lack of audience-tailored interventions; and (6) an underappreciation of potential unintended consequences of intervention implementation. We argue that it is time to look beyond item task performance as the primary outcome measure and to elevate both real-world outcomes and alternative measures of effectiveness (e.g., intervention attractiveness or user uptake) as equally important ways of assessing “what works”. We provide practical recommendations for addressing each challenge and improving intervention effectiveness.

Gabriel Selva, Manuela Longo, Francesco Sulla, Francesca D'Errico, Lucia Monacis (2026). The relationship between problematic social media use and fake news sharing: a systematic review. Social Sciences & Humanities Open. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2026.102879
Michael Simeone, Kristy Roschke, Shawn Walker, Joshua Garland (2026). Value and vulnerability: a framework for understanding the complexity of misinformation use. npj Complexity. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44260-026-00079-x
Sarh R. Bostrom, Victoria Leppert, Ana Flynn, Talmadge Hollowell, Gianna Martyna, Michael Couri, Kaylee I. Stouder, Melissa McLain, Ewart J. de Visser, Leanne Hirshfield, Richard E. Niemeyer (2026). Evaluating Cognitive Security in an Operationally Relevant Field Environment. https://doi.org/10.1109/sieds69358.2026.11540294
Sacha Altay (2026). Rethinking the problem of misinformation and its solutions. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448261428635
Jonas R. Kunst, Milan Obaidi, Anton Gollwitzer, Petter Bae Brandtzæg, Yannic Hinrichs, Neha Saini, Daniel Thilo Schroeder (2026). Intelligent Systems, Vulnerable Minds: A Framework for Radicalization to Violence in the Age of AI. Personality and Social Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683261430089
Samuel Pearson, Matthew J. Hornsey, Christian Bretter, Sarah MacInnes, Jarren L. Nylund, Saphira Rekker, Aimee E. Smith, Belinda Wade (2026). Evaluating generative AI’s potential to dispel misinformation about wind farms. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-42790-8
Gizem Ceylan, Wendy Wood (2026). From likes to trusts: How trust feedback reduces misinformation on social media. Behavioral Science & Policy. https://doi.org/10.1177/23794607261423714
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
Niklas Henderson, Helen Pallett (2026). Inoculation theory as a design approach to game-based misinformation interventions: a review. Popular Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2026.2619473
Jon Roozenbeek (2026). A Minimalist Model of Belief. Psychological Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840x.2026.2650216
Piero Ronzani (2025). Towards the study of world misinformation. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-191
Jon Roozenbeek, Jana Lasser, Malia Marks, Tianzhu Qin, David García Núñez, Beth Goldberg, Ramit Debnath, Sander van der Linden, Stephan Lewandowsky (2025). Misinformation interventions and online sharing behaviour: lessons learned from two pre-registered field studies. Royal Society Open Science. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.251377
Adriana Amado, Silvio Waisbord (2025). La fe en el fact-checking: una revisión crítica del movimiento global de verificación de información. Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodístico. https://doi.org/10.5209/emp.101128
Ruth E. Appel, Jon Roozenbeek, Rebecca Rayburn-Reeves, Melisa Basol, Jonathan C. Corbin, Josh Compton, Sander van der Linden (2025). Psychological inoculation improves resilience to and reduces willingness to share vaccine misinformation. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-09462-5
Jon Roozenbeek, David J. Young, Jens Koed Madsen (2025). The wilful rejection of psychological and behavioural interventions. Current Opinion in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102138

Download PDF Back to article