Good News about Bad News: Gamified Inoculation Boosts Confidence and Cognitive Immunity Against Fake News

By Melisa Basol, J. Roozenbeek, S. van der Linden. Journal of Cognition, 2020

304 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Recent research has explored the possibility of building attitudinal resistance against online misinformation through psychological inoculation. The inoculation metaphor relies on a medical analogy: by pre-emptively exposing people to weakened doses of misinformation cognitive immunity can be conferred. A recent example is the Bad News game, an online fake news game in which players learn about six common misinformation techniques. We present a replication and extension into the effectiveness of Bad News as an anti-misinformation intervention. We address three shortcomings identified in the original study: the lack of a control group, the relatively low number of test items, and the absence of attitudinal certainty measurements. Using a 2 (treatment vs. control) × 2 (pre vs. post) mixed design (N = 196) we measure participants’ ability to spot misinformation techniques in 18 fake headlines before and after playing Bad News. We find that playing Bad News significantly improves people’s ability to spot misinformation techniques compared to a gamified control group, and crucially, also increases people’s level of confidence in their own judgments. Importantly, this confidence boost only occurred for those who updated their reliability assessments in the correct direction. This study offers further evidence for the effectiveness of psychological inoculation against not only specific instances of fake news, but the very strategies used in its production. Implications are discussed for inoculation theory and cognitive science research on fake news.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Literature and Literary Theory, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/636b62b29587c82d86eb6be94046f6352c089227

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

  1. S. van der Linden
  2. J. Roozenbeek
  3. Thomas Nygren
  4. Melisa Basol
  5. J. Compton
  6. Stephan Lewandowsky

In Literature and Literary Theory

  1. S. van der Linden
  2. J. Roozenbeek
  3. Stephan Lewandowsky
  4. Thomas Nygren
  5. Melisa Basol
  6. John Cook
  7. J. Compton

In Sociology and Political Science

  1. S. van der Linden
  2. J. Roozenbeek
  3. Melisa Basol
  4. Stephan Lewandowsky
  5. Thomas Nygren
  6. John Cook
  7. J. Compton
  8. F. Uenal

Citations in the corpus