Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Reposted by Mikey Biddlestone

JESP @jexpsocpsych.bsky.social · 22d

Check out some more coverage of a recent paper we published by @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social @unikent.bsky.social
& colleagues about how to beat misinformation!

holistic.news/en/recognizi...

Recognizing Fake News: An Open Mind Can Help

Recognizing fake news is a challenge. An experiment based on open-minded thinking showed that you don't need much to help yourself.

holistic.news

1 1 3

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

Merci! Was so much fun to do this paper actually, hope you enjoy!

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

Once again, the paper can be found open access here 👉 doi.org/10.1111/bjop...

#Misinformation #ConspiracyTheories #Prebunking #ClimateChange #COVID19 12/12

https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.7…

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

I would like to thank my fantastic co-authors: Ricky Green, @dtoribio.bsky.social, Dylan de Gourville, Robbie M. Sutton, & Karen M. Douglas! 11/12

1 1

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

This adds nuance: interventions may not always need to disprove conspiracy theories outright. Sometimes, redirecting suspicion toward the real conspiracies behind misinformation might be enough 10/12

1

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

Implication: Even if we can’t directly reduce conspiracy beliefs, reframing them as the product of real, documented collusion to spread misinformation could engage resistant audiences and still support healthier, pro-social behaviour 9/12

1

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

And crucially:
🔥 “Fighting fire with fire” worked regardless of prior conspiracy mentality or climate beliefs.
⚠️ Standard prebunking only helped those lower in conspiracy mentality / higher in climate acceptance.
8/12

1

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

Importantly, meta-conspiracy beliefs were positively linked to intentions (e.g. vaccinating, reducing carbon footprint). Indirect path models showed positive indirect effects of our intervention on these intentions via meta-conspiracy beliefs 7/12

1

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

Results:
❌ Did not reduce belief in specific conspiracy theories.
✅ Increased belief in plausible meta-conspiracies.
✅ Did not backfire—no increase in conspiracy beliefs.
✅ Meta-conspiracy beliefs were negatively correlated with specific conspiracy beliefs 6/12

1

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

Two preregistered studies tested this:
Study 1: COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy theories (N = 720)
Study 2: Climate change conspiracy theories (N = 1077)
5/12

1

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

Why this approach?
Because awareness of such meta-conspiracies may sow doubt about original conspiracy theories among conspiracy believers by offering an alternative conspiacy narrative 4/12

1

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

Enter: Fighting fire with fire.
Instead of only warning about manipulation, we introduced plausible meta-conspiracies—that conspiracy theories themselves are deliberately spread through secret collusion (e.g. fossil fuel companies, hostile states) to mislead the public 3/12

1

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

Standard prebunking warns people about manipulation, but what if those with entrenched conspiracy beliefs are more resistant to this intervention messaging?
We asked: could a different style of prebunking work better? 2/12

1

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

🚨New open access paper out in BJP special issue "Psychological Understanding of Misinformation and Disinformation in the Face of Environmental Crises"!

“Fighting fire with fire: Prebunking with the use of a plausible meta-conspiracy framing” 🧵👇 1/12
📖 doi.org/10.1111/bjop...

Landing page for our article "Fighting fire with fire: Prebunking with the use of a plausible meta-conspiracy framing" published in the British Journal of Psychology

2 6 11

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

Once again, the paper can be found open access here 👉 doi.org/10.1111/bjop...

#Misinformation #ConspiracyTheories #Prebunking #ClimateChange #COVID19 12/12

https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.7…

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

I would like to thank my fantastic co-authors: Ricky Green, @dtoribio.bsky.social, Dylan de Gourville, Robbie M. Sutton, & Karen M. Douglas! 11/12

1

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

This adds nuance: interventions may not always need to disprove conspiracy theories outright. Sometimes, redirecting suspicion toward the real conspiracies behind misinformation might be enough 10/12

1

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

Implication: Even if we can’t directly reduce conspiracy beliefs, reframing them as the product of real, documented collusion to spread misinformation could engage resistant audiences and still support healthier, pro-social behaviour 9/12

1

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

And crucially:
🔥 “Fighting fire with fire” worked regardless of prior conspiracy mentality or climate beliefs.
⚠️ Standard prebunking only helped those lower in conspiracy mentality / higher in climate acceptance.
8/12

1

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

Importantly, meta-conspiracy beliefs were positively linked to intentions (e.g. vaccinating, reducing carbon footprint). Indirect path models showed positive indirect effects of our intervention on these intentions via meta-conspiracy beliefs 7/12

1

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

Results:
❌ Did not reduce belief in specific conspiracy theories.
✅ Increased belief in plausible meta-conspiracies.
✅ Did not backfire—no increase in conspiracy beliefs.
✅ Meta-conspiracy beliefs were negatively correlated with specific conspiracy beliefs 6/12

1

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

Two preregistered studies tested this:
Study 1: COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy theories (N = 720)
Study 2: Climate change conspiracy theories (N = 1077)
5/12

1

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

Why this approach?
Because awareness of such meta-conspiracies may sow doubt about original conspiracy theories among conspiracy believers by offering an alternative conspiacy narrative 4/12

1

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

Enter: Fighting fire with fire.
Instead of only warning about manipulation, we introduced plausible meta-conspiracies—that conspiracy theories themselves are deliberately spread through secret collusion (e.g. fossil fuel companies, hostile states) to mislead the public 3/12

1

Mikey Biddlestone @mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social · Sep 9

Standard prebunking warns people about manipulation, but what if those with entrenched conspiracy beliefs are more resistant to this intervention messaging?
We asked: could a different style of prebunking work better? 2/12

1