Psychological research has offered valuable insights into how to combat misinformation. The studies conducted to date, however, have three limitations. First, pre-emptive (“prebunking”) and retroactive (“debunking”) interventions have mostly been examined in parallel, and thus it is unclear which of these two predominant approaches is more effective. Second, there has been a focus on misinformation that is explicitly false, but implied misinformation that uses literally true information to mislead is common in the real world. Finally, studies have relied mainly on questionnaire measures of reasoning, neglecting behavioural impacts of misinformation and interventions. To offer incremental progress towards addressing these three issues, we conducted an experiment (N = 735) involving misinformation on fair trade. We contrasted the effectiveness of prebunking versus debunking and the impacts of implied versus explicit misinformation, and incorporated novel measures assessing consumer behaviours (i.e., willingness-to-pay; information seeking; online misinformation promotion) in addition to standard questionnaire measures. In general, both prebunking and debunking reduced misinformation reliance. We also found that individuals tended to rely more on explicit than implied misinformation both with and without interventions.

中文翻译：

---

隐含和明确错误信息的预先掩饰和揭穿干预措施的比较

心理学研究为如何打击错误信息提供了宝贵的见解。然而，迄今为止进行的研究存在三个局限性。首先，先发制人（“prebunking”）和追溯（“debunking”）干预措施大多同时进行了研究，因此尚不清楚这两种主要方法中哪一种更有效。其次，人们一直关注明显错误的错误信息，但使用字面上真实信息来误导的隐含错误信息在现实世界中很常见。最后，研究主要依赖于推理的问卷测量，忽略了错误信息和干预的行为影响。为了在解决这三个问题方面取得进展，我们进行了一项实验（N= 735) 涉及关于公平贸易的错误信息。我们对比了预先掩饰与揭穿的有效性以及隐含与明确错误信息的影响，并结合了评估消费者行为的新措施（即支付意愿；信息搜索；在线错误信息推广）以及标准问卷测量。一般来说，预先揭穿和揭穿都减少了对错误信息的依赖。我们还发现，无论有没有干预，个人都倾向于更多地依赖明确的错误信息，而不是暗示的错误信息。