Chapter 35 Further Reading: Prebunking and Inoculation Theory

The following annotated bibliography provides guidance for readers who wish to go deeper into the primary research on inoculation theory, prebunking, and related topics. Sources are organized thematically. Publication dates reflect original or most recent editions.

Foundational Inoculation Theory

McGuire, W. J. (1961). The effectiveness of supportive and refutational defenses in immunizing and restoring beliefs against persuasion. Sociometry, 24(2), 184-197.

McGuire's original experimental demonstration of inoculation. The paper reports three experiments comparing the effectiveness of "supportive" defenses (arguments in favor of the belief) versus "refutational" defenses (exposure to counter-arguments plus refutations) in protecting cultural truisms against persuasive attack. The refutational condition consistently outperformed the supportive condition. This paper is brief, clearly written, and essential reading for understanding the theoretical foundation of all subsequent prebunking research. Note that the "cultural truisms" McGuire studied (the value of regular medical checkups, etc.) are quite different from contemporary political misinformation — but the core mechanism is the same.

McGuire, W. J. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary approaches. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 191-229.

A more expansive review of the inoculation research program, situating it within the broader literature on attitude change and resistance. McGuire elaborates the theoretical framework, reviews the evidence from multiple experiments, and addresses competing explanations for the inoculation effect. This chapter is important for understanding the intellectual context of inoculation theory and for appreciating the precision of McGuire's theoretical distinctions. More demanding than the 1961 paper, but rewarding for readers seeking a deeper understanding of the theoretical foundations.

Modern Prebunking Research

van der Linden, S. (2022). Foolproof: Why misinformation infects our minds and how to build immunity. W. W. Norton.

An accessible book-length treatment of the prebunking approach by one of its leading researchers. Van der Linden synthesizes the research program from inoculation theory through the Bad News game and the Google/Cambridge field experiments, written for a general educated audience. Chapters cover the psychological mechanisms of misinformation, the evidence for prebunking, and practical implications for individuals, educators, and policy-makers. An excellent starting point for readers new to the field, and a valuable synthesis for more advanced readers interested in how the research connects to practice.

van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S., & Maibach, E. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1(2), 1600008.

The paper that launched the modern technique-based prebunking research program. Van der Linden and colleagues demonstrate that brief exposure to the techniques of climate change denial (specifically, the "fake petition" technique) can protect participants against a subsequent exposure to consensus-denying messages. The study established the key result that inoculation effects can be found for consequential real-world issues and are not strongly moderated by political ideology. Available open access.

Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2019). Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 65.

The foundational empirical evaluation of the Bad News game. Despite its methodological limitations (noted in the paper itself), this study established that a game-based inoculation approach could produce significant improvements in fake news detection accuracy in a very large sample. The paper provides detailed information about the game's design and its theoretical basis in inoculation theory. Available open access.

Maertens, R., Roozenbeek, J., Basol, M., & van der Linden, S. (2021). Long-term effectiveness of inoculation against misinformation: Three longitudinal experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 27(1), 1-16.

The most methodologically rigorous longitudinal evaluation of Bad News, addressing the decay question directly. Three experiments with randomized control conditions and follow-up assessments at two and four weeks establish the pattern of inoculation decay and motivate the booster-shot framework. Essential reading for anyone evaluating the practical implications of prebunking for sustained campaigns. Pre-registered; data and materials available online.

The Debunking Handbook

Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., et al. (2020). The Debunking Handbook 2020. Available at debunkinghandbook.org.

A comprehensive, evidence-based guide to correcting misinformation, co-authored by eighteen researchers. While focused on debunking rather than prebunking, this handbook provides the essential context for understanding why prebunking was developed: the documented limitations of post-hoc correction. Chapters cover the continued influence effect, backfire effects, the illusory truth effect, and practical guidelines for effective correction. Freely available online and should be read alongside the prebunking literature to understand the full landscape of misinformation countermeasures.

Cook, J., & Lewandowsky, S. (2011). The Debunking Handbook. University of Queensland.

The original, shorter version of the above. More concise (8 pages in the original) and more accessible for readers who want a rapid overview. Available free online. The 2020 version is more comprehensive and reflects subsequent research, but the 2011 original is a useful historical reference showing how the field understood debunking before the prebunking paradigm fully emerged.

Field Experiments and At-Scale Prebunking

Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S., Goldberg, B., Rathje, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2022). Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media. Science Advances, 8(34), eabo6254.

The primary report of the Google/Cambridge YouTube prebunking field experiments in Central and Eastern Europe. This paper presents the pre-registered methodology, results, and implications in detail. The supplementary materials include the full texts and transcriptions of the prebunking advertisements and the outcome measures. Available open access. Essential reading for anyone interested in at-scale prebunking deployment.

Basol, M., Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2020). Good news about Bad News: Gamified inoculation boosts confidence and cognitive immunity against fake news. Journal of Cognition, 3(1), 2.

An evaluation of Go Viral!, the COVID-19-specific prebunking game, conducted during the early pandemic. The paper demonstrates that a rapidly developed domain-specific inoculation game can produce significant effects on COVID-19 misinformation detection. An important example of "research in the wild" — the study was conducted quickly under difficult conditions, which creates methodological tradeoffs, but the rapid deployment demonstrates the practical feasibility of prebunking for emerging health threats. Available open access.

Mechanisms and Moderators

Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106-131.

A comprehensive review of the cognitive science of misinformation correction, with particular emphasis on the continued influence effect. This paper synthesizes decades of research on why corrections fail and identifies the conditions under which they are more likely to succeed. It is the essential reference for understanding the intellectual motivation for prebunking (the documented inadequacy of debunking) and for the theoretical framework used by prebunking researchers. More technical than van der Linden's book but provides greater depth on the cognitive mechanisms.

Wood, T., & Porter, E. (2019). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes' steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior, 41(1), 135-163.

A large-scale replication study that failed to find the "worldview backfire effect" (corrections strengthening false beliefs) across a range of politically contentious topics, challenging earlier claims by Nyhan and Reifler (2010). This paper is important for understanding what corrections can and cannot do: while the worldview backfire may not be as common as feared, corrections still face significant limitations (the continued influence effect, modest effect sizes, lack of impact on underlying attitudes). Required reading for anyone making claims about backfire effects.

Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(12), 1865-1880.

A definitive study of the illusory truth effect as applied to fake news headlines. The paper demonstrates that repeated exposure to fake news headlines increases their perceived accuracy, even when readers initially recognize the content as coming from a dubious source. This finding has important implications for both debunking (corrections that repeat false claims may backfire through illusory truth) and prebunking (inoculation that generates familiarity with manipulation techniques may need to be careful not to increase familiarity with the false claims themselves). Available from PubMed.

Cross-Cultural and International Research

Roozenbeek, J., Schneider, C. R., Dryhurst, S., Kerr, J., Freeman, A. L. J., Recchia, G., van der Bles, A. M., & van der Linden, S. (2020). Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 across 26 countries. Royal Society Open Science, 7(10), 201199.

A large-scale cross-national study of COVID-19 misinformation susceptibility, providing the empirical baseline for understanding where prebunking is most needed. The study finds substantial variation across countries in susceptibility, trust in information sources, and related variables, providing essential context for designing targeted prebunking campaigns. Available open access.

The FLICC Framework

Cook, J. (2020). Cranky Uncle vs. Climate Change: How to Understand and Respond to Climate Science Deniers. Citadel Press.

Cook's book presents the FLICC framework in accessible form and provides extensive examples of each technique in the context of climate change denial. The book accompanies a game (Cranky Uncle) that uses the same prebunking logic as Bad News, applied specifically to climate misinformation. An excellent resource for teachers seeking to integrate prebunking into science education alongside social studies. The game and related educational resources are available free online.

Practice and Policy

Compton, J. (2013). Inoculation theory. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 220-236). Sage.

A comprehensive academic review of inoculation theory research through 2013, covering the theoretical framework, empirical evidence, moderating variables, and applications. An important bridge between McGuire's foundational work and the contemporary prebunking literature. Required reading for graduate students seeking a thorough understanding of the theory's development.

Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021). The psychology of fake news. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(5), 388-402.

A review paper situating prebunking within the broader landscape of psychological research on fake news. Covers the dual-process theory of fake news susceptibility (the role of both analytic thinking and partisan identity), the evidence for various interventions including prebunking, and practical implications for platform design and policy. An excellent synthesis paper that contextualizes prebunking within a comprehensive account of the psychology of misinformation. Available from ScienceDirect.

This reading list was current as of early 2026. For the most recent research, search Google Scholar for "prebunking," "inoculation theory misinformation," and "psychological inoculation fake news," filtered to the most recent two years.