If you have already been fooled by simplified or misleading allegations on the Internet, there is more what you can do to protect yourself, reveals a new study.
Training against misinformation can be an effective tool for helping people identify and reject in just one month.
“This is the first study that systematically explores how long the effects of these modern inoculation interventions last, because they diminish over time and, most importantly, how we can remedy this decline in effect,” said Rakoen Maertens, the main author of the study, and Juliana Cuyler Matthews, researcher at Oxford University.
The study, published on Tuesday (11) in the magazine, involved more than 11,000 participants who went through one of three types of training developed to help detect misinformation.
Training methods included analysis of a short article to identify misinformation tactics, watch a brief video demonstrating common misinformation strategies, or playing a game in which participants created misleading news to better understand how misinformation is generated.
The researchers sought to measure not only how participants remembered the training, but also how they could actually identify false news and were motivated to protect themselves against misleading information.
Participants were tested immediately after training, again after 10 days and finally 30 days later, to assess whether their ability to identify misinformation persisted over time, particularly in response to misleading posts.
The results showed that people who received any of the three misinformation training methods performed better than those they did not receive.
Participants who read the short article had the most lasting effects – about a month – significantly longer than those who experienced gamified or video -based formats whose effects lasted only about two weeks. However, memory retention has proven to be the key factor to help participants resist misleading news.
Those who felt a greater threat of misinformation were more likely to engage and remember training, but “reinforcement” interventions to remind the previously learned content participants in all training were still essential to processing and completely retaining what they learned.
“The combined model (suggesting that) memory and motivation helps support memories makes sense because we remember things that often have high emotional resonance,” said Erik Nisbet, Professor Owen L. Coon of Policy and Communication Analysis and founding director of the Northwestern University School of Communication and Public Policy in Illinois. Nisbet did not participate in the study.
To ensure the long -term impact of training, consistent reminders after all three forms of intervention were needed to help participants retain information and continue to reject false allegations.
Demystification x premistification
Researchers have been studying inoculation – a process used to resist persuasive messages – for decades. However, this study deepened itself in the concept of “premistification” compared to demystification, the authors said.
Unlike demystification, which tends to be highly ineffective because false information can still influence behaviors and attitudes, premistification helps individuals develop manipulation immunity before false allegations are exposed, Nisbet said.
All inoculation interventions seemed to work in all demographic groups, according to Maertens.
Continuous training effects depend on how long people want intervention results to last and how memorable the initial intervention for them.
Receiving a “reinforcement” or reminder one week after initial inoculation may result in detection of disinformation that lasts up to one month, and with another reinforcement in the fourth week, the effects may last months, according to the study.
“Although it has not been tested, based on the model presented in the article, we could expect that after 3 to 5 reinforcements, part of the effectiveness may remain for over a year, or even several years,” Maertens said by email.
Although it is promising to know that people can unleash behaviors related to misinformation, Nisbet warned that this research probably will not play a significant role at the national level.
“At least in the United States, there is no political will to fund or run these campaigns (against misinformation or misinformation),” said Nisbet.
However, efforts at more basic levels are possible. For example, the Illinois General Assembly passed a law in 2021 demanding instruction on media literacy in public high school curricula, including training to evaluate sources reliability.
Nisbet also encouraged people to check local resources to find others that may be interested in combating online misinformation.
If you are seeking to reduce the risk of falling into misinformation, there are measures you can take independently.
Nisbet advised people to slow down when they find a new online story and process information carefully before reacting emotionally.
Many misinformation campaigns aim to create distrust and feed polarization, emphasized Maertens.
However, as open thinking plays a critical role in detecting misinformation, he suggests reflecting on content that caused anger over others. Then consider contacting these individuals or groups to get involved at a more personal level.
For an entertainment solution, test your knowledge of online misinformation and talk about it with people you know to see how your results compare. Maertens even encourages people to download apps designed to help identify misleading allegations and improve their misinformation detection skills.
See also: Is it the government’s role to say what fake news is? Check out analysis
