Search

Abstract Although misinformation exposure takes place within a social context, significant conclusions have been drawn about misinformation susceptibility through studies that largely examine judgements in a social vacuum. Bridging the gap between social influence research and the cognitive science of misinformation, we examine the mechanisms through which social context impacts misinformation susceptibility across 5 experiments (N = 20,477). We find that social cues only impact individual judgements when they influence perceptions of wider social consensus, and that source similarity only biases news consumers when the source is high in credibility. Specifically, high and low engagement cues (‘likes’) reduced misinformation susceptibility relative to a control, and endorsement cues increased susceptibility, but discrediting cues had no impact. Furthermore, political ingroup sources increased susceptibility if the source was high in credibility, but political outgroup sources had no effect relative to a control. This work highlights the importance of studying cognitive processes within a social context, as judgements of (mis)information change when embedded in the social world. These findings further underscore the need for multifaceted interventions that take account of the social context in which false information is processed to effectively mitigate the impact of misinformation on the public.

In recent years, numerous psychological interventions have been developed to reduce susceptibility to misinformation. Inoculation theory has become an increasingly common framework for reducing susceptibility to both individual examples of misinformation (issue-based inoculation) and to the techniques and strategies that are commonly used to mislead or misinform people (technique-based inoculation). In this study, we address two open questions related to technique-based inoculation in two separate experiments (total n = 2188; convenience sample recruited via the Bad News online game platform): (i) can technique-based inoculation effectively reduce susceptibility to real-world misinformation that went viral on social media? and (ii) can technique-based inoculation confer cross-protection against misinformation that does not make use of any of the techniques against which people were inoculated? We find that playing a 15 min game confers psychological resistance against real-world misinformation that makes use of manipulation techniques against which people were inoculated (Cohen's d = 0.37, Cohen's U3 = 64.4%, p < 0.001), and that cross-protection is achieved but at a reduced effect size (d = 0.10, U3 = 54.0%, p = 0.001).