The Misinformation Susceptibility Test (MIST): A psychometrically validated measure of news veracity discernment.

Interest in the psychology of misinformation has exploded in recent years. Despite ample research, to date there is no validated framework to measure misinformation susceptibility. Therefore, we introduce Verification done, a nuanced interpretation schema and assessment tool that simultaneously considers Veracity discernment, and its distinct, measurable abilities (real/fake news detection), and biases (distrust/naïvité-negative/positive judgment bias). We then conduct three studies with seven independent samples (Ntotal = 8504) to show how to develop, validate, and apply the Misinformation Susceptibility Test (MIST). In Study 1 (N = 409) we use a neural network language model to generate items, and use three psychometric methods-factor analysis, item response theory, and exploratory graph analysis-to create the MIST-20 (20 items; completion time < 2 minutes), the MIST-16 (16 items; < 2 minutes), and the MIST-8 (8 items; < 1 minute). In Study 2 (N = 7674) we confirm the internal and predictive validity of the MIST in five national quota samples (US, UK), across 2 years, from three different sampling platforms-Respondi, CloudResearch, and Prolific. We also explore the MIST's nomological net and generate age-, region-, and country-specific norm tables. In Study 3 (N = 421) we demonstrate how the MIST-in conjunction with Verification done-can provide novel insights on existing psychological interventions, thereby advancing theory development. Finally, we outline the versatile implementations of the MIST as a screening tool, covariate, and intervention evaluation framework. As all methods are transparently reported and detailed, this work will allow other researchers to create similar scales or adapt them for any population of interest.

How Accurate Are Accuracy-Nudge Interventions? A Preregistered Direct Replication of Pennycook et al. (2020).

As part of the Systematizing Confidence in Open Research and Evidence (SCORE) program, the present study consisted of a two-stage replication test of a central finding by Pennycook et al. (2020), namely that asking people to think about the accuracy of a single headline improves "truth discernment" of intentions to share news headlines about COVID-19. The first stage of the replication test (n = 701) was unsuccessful (p = .67). After collecting a second round of data (additional n = 882, pooled N = 1,583), we found a small but significant interaction between treatment condition and truth discernment (uncorrected p = .017; treatment: d = 0.14, control: d = 0.10). As in the target study, perceived headline accuracy correlated with treatment impact, so that treatment-group participants were less willing to share headlines that were perceived as less accurate. We discuss potential explanations for these findings and an unreported change in the hypothesis (but not the analysis plan) from the preregistration in the original study.

"Inoculation" to Resist Misinformation.

This JAMA Insights in the Communicating Medicine series explores the concept of "prebunking," a psychological inoculation technique that could help prevent the spread of misinformation.

The persuasive effects of social cues and source effects on misinformation susceptibility.

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.

Social identity correlates of social media engagement before and after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Despite the global presence of social media platforms, the reasons why people like and share content are still poorly understood. We investigate how group identity mentions and expressions of ingroup solidarity and outgroup hostility in posts correlate with engagement on Ukrainian social media (i.e., shares, likes, and other reactions) before and after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. We use a dataset of 1.6 million posts from Ukrainian news source pages on Facebook and Twitter (currently X) and a geolocated sample of 149 thousand Ukrainian tweets. Before the 2022 Russian invasion, we observe that outgroup mentions in posts from news source pages are generally more strongly associated with engagement than negative, positive, and moral-emotional language. After the invasion, social identity mentions become less strongly associated with engagement. Moreover, post-invasion ingroup solidarity posts are strongly related to engagement, whereas posts expressing outgroup hostility show smaller associations. This is the case for both news and non-news social media data. Our correlational results suggest that signaling solidarity with one's ingroup online is associated with more engagement than negativity about outgroups during intense periods of intergroup conflicts, at least in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war.

Feedback exercises boost discernment of misinformation for gamified inoculation interventions.

Gamification is a promising approach to reducing misinformation susceptibility. Previous research has found that "inoculation" games such as Bad News and Harmony Square help build cognitive resistance against misinformation. However, recent research has offered two important nuances: a potentially inadvertent impact of such games on people's evaluation of non-misinformation ("real news") and exponential decay over time if no memory-strengthening exercise is provided. We address these issues in two preregistered lab experiments (N1 = 191, N2 = 321) and four quasi-experimental in-game surveys implemented in Harmony Square (N3 = 559) and Bad News (N4 = 2,558, N5 = 419, N6 = 882). In Experiments 1 and 2, we test if providing different types of feedback after playing Bad News enhances discriminative ability of misinformation and real news 1 week postgameplay and find that doing so resulted in homogeneously better accuracy at identifying both misinformation and non-misinformation compared with a control condition, which played Bad News without feedback. In Experiments 3-6, we implemented two different types of feedback exercises in the Harmony Square and Bad News games and find that this significantly boosts discernment compared with playing the game without a feedback exercise, primarily by improving accuracy at detecting real news. We confirm these results using signal detection theory. We conclude that feedback exercises boost the effectiveness of gamified misinformation interventions, likely due to an improved learning environment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Correction: 'Technique-based inoculation against real-world misinformation' (2023), by Roozenbeek et al.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1098/rsos.211719.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1098/rsos.211719.].

How to "inoculate" against multimodal misinformation: A conceptual replication of Roozenbeek and van der Linden (2020).

Building misinformation resilience at scale continues to pose a challenge. Gamified "inoculation" interventions have shown promise in improving people's ability to recognize manipulation techniques commonly used in misinformation, but so far few interventions exist that tackle multimodal misinformation (e.g., videos, images). We developed a game called Cat Park, in which players learn about five manipulation techniques (trolling, emotional manipulation, amplification, polarization, and conspiracism), and how misinformation can spread through images. To test the game's efficacy, we conducted a conceptual replication (N = 380) of Roozenbeek and van der Linden's 2020 study about Harmony Square, with the same study design, item set, and hypotheses. Like the original study, we find that people who play Cat Park find misinformation significantly less reliable post-gameplay (d = 0.95, p < 0.001) compared to a control group, and are significantly less willing to share misinformation with people in their network (d = 0.54, p < 0.001). These effects are robust across different covariates. However, unlike the original study, Cat Park players do not become significantly more confident in their ability to identify misinformation (p = 0.204, d = - 0.13). We did not find that the game increases people's self-reported motivation and confidence to counter misinformation online.