Cargando…

Disentangling Item and Testing Effects in Inoculation Research on Online Misinformation: Solomon Revisited

Online misinformation is a pervasive global problem. In response, psychologists have recently explored the theory of psychological inoculation: If people are preemptively exposed to a weakened version of a misinformation technique, they can build up cognitive resistance. This study addresses two una...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Roozenbeek, Jon, Maertens, Rakoen, McClanahan, William, van der Linden, Sander
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10621688/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37929261
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164420940378
_version_ 1785130415728623616
author Roozenbeek, Jon
Maertens, Rakoen
McClanahan, William
van der Linden, Sander
author_facet Roozenbeek, Jon
Maertens, Rakoen
McClanahan, William
van der Linden, Sander
author_sort Roozenbeek, Jon
collection PubMed
description Online misinformation is a pervasive global problem. In response, psychologists have recently explored the theory of psychological inoculation: If people are preemptively exposed to a weakened version of a misinformation technique, they can build up cognitive resistance. This study addresses two unanswered methodological questions about a widely adopted online “fake news” inoculation game, Bad News. First, research in this area has often looked at pre- and post-intervention difference scores for the same items, which may imply that any observed effects are specific to the survey items themselves (item effects). Second, it is possible that using a pretest influences the outcome variable of interest, or that the pretest may interact with the intervention (testing effects). We investigate both item and testing effects in two online studies (total N = 2,159) using the Bad News game. For the item effect, we examine if inoculation effects are still observed when different items are used in the pre- and posttest. To examine the testing effect, we use a Solomon’s Three Group Design. We find that inoculation interventions are somewhat influenced by item effects, and not by testing effects. We show that inoculation interventions are effective at improving people’s ability to spot misinformation techniques and that the Bad News game does not make people more skeptical of real news. We discuss the larger relevance of these findings for evaluating real-world psychological interventions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10621688
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106216882023-11-03 Disentangling Item and Testing Effects in Inoculation Research on Online Misinformation: Solomon Revisited Roozenbeek, Jon Maertens, Rakoen McClanahan, William van der Linden, Sander Educ Psychol Meas Article Online misinformation is a pervasive global problem. In response, psychologists have recently explored the theory of psychological inoculation: If people are preemptively exposed to a weakened version of a misinformation technique, they can build up cognitive resistance. This study addresses two unanswered methodological questions about a widely adopted online “fake news” inoculation game, Bad News. First, research in this area has often looked at pre- and post-intervention difference scores for the same items, which may imply that any observed effects are specific to the survey items themselves (item effects). Second, it is possible that using a pretest influences the outcome variable of interest, or that the pretest may interact with the intervention (testing effects). We investigate both item and testing effects in two online studies (total N = 2,159) using the Bad News game. For the item effect, we examine if inoculation effects are still observed when different items are used in the pre- and posttest. To examine the testing effect, we use a Solomon’s Three Group Design. We find that inoculation interventions are somewhat influenced by item effects, and not by testing effects. We show that inoculation interventions are effective at improving people’s ability to spot misinformation techniques and that the Bad News game does not make people more skeptical of real news. We discuss the larger relevance of these findings for evaluating real-world psychological interventions. SAGE Publications 2020-07-16 2021-04 /pmc/articles/PMC10621688/ /pubmed/37929261 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164420940378 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Article
Roozenbeek, Jon
Maertens, Rakoen
McClanahan, William
van der Linden, Sander
Disentangling Item and Testing Effects in Inoculation Research on Online Misinformation: Solomon Revisited
title Disentangling Item and Testing Effects in Inoculation Research on Online Misinformation: Solomon Revisited
title_full Disentangling Item and Testing Effects in Inoculation Research on Online Misinformation: Solomon Revisited
title_fullStr Disentangling Item and Testing Effects in Inoculation Research on Online Misinformation: Solomon Revisited
title_full_unstemmed Disentangling Item and Testing Effects in Inoculation Research on Online Misinformation: Solomon Revisited
title_short Disentangling Item and Testing Effects in Inoculation Research on Online Misinformation: Solomon Revisited
title_sort disentangling item and testing effects in inoculation research on online misinformation: solomon revisited
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10621688/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37929261
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164420940378
work_keys_str_mv AT roozenbeekjon disentanglingitemandtestingeffectsininoculationresearchononlinemisinformationsolomonrevisited
AT maertensrakoen disentanglingitemandtestingeffectsininoculationresearchononlinemisinformationsolomonrevisited
AT mcclanahanwilliam disentanglingitemandtestingeffectsininoculationresearchononlinemisinformationsolomonrevisited
AT vanderlindensander disentanglingitemandtestingeffectsininoculationresearchononlinemisinformationsolomonrevisited