Can ‘Prebunking’ Effectively Combat the Spread of Misinformation?

Meta’s Fact-Checking Retreat Signals Broader Shifts in Misinformation Battle

Meta’s recent decision to reduce its dependence on third-party fact-checkers has sparked renewed debate about effective strategies to combat online misinformation. This policy shift by one of the world’s largest social media companies comes at a time when fact-checking, once considered essential in the fight against fake news, faces increasing scrutiny from critics who question its effectiveness in an era where false narratives spread at unprecedented speeds.

The move highlights a growing realization within journalism circles that social media platforms cannot be the sole information source or primary investment focus for publishers. As newsrooms struggle with declining public trust and revenue challenges, many are reassessing their heavy reliance on platforms that increasingly favor viral, algorithm-driven content over fact-based reporting.

This retreat from robust fact-checking raises concerns about misinformation proliferation across social networks. Given social media’s unparalleled reach and influence as vectors for false information, journalists, policymakers, and researchers are actively seeking alternative strategies to safeguard information integrity and minimize societal harm.

Against this backdrop, a collaborative study between the Catholic University of Milan and the University of Siena offers valuable insights into the relationship between individual traits, topic familiarity, and susceptibility to misinformation. The research is part of the “Countercons” project (2023-2025), funded by the Italian Ministry of University and Research, which examines psychosocial factors behind belief in false information while identifying effective communication strategies to promote critical thinking.

The study examines three misinformation topics—climate change, the Ukraine conflict, and vaccines—while evaluating different preventive approaches known as “prebunking” strategies. Unlike reactive fact-checking, prebunking aims to equip people with tools to recognize and resist misinformation before exposure.

The researchers tested three distinct prebunking methods. Factual prebunking presents verified information alongside warnings about misinformation prevalence. Counterfactual prebunking encourages hypothetical reasoning, asking participants to critically examine scenarios and assess their plausibility. Metacognitive awareness prebunking focuses on helping people recognize cognitive biases that make them vulnerable to conspiracy beliefs.

The findings revealed significant variation in participants’ ability to identify fake news, influenced by both topic and individual characteristics. Misinformation about vaccines and climate change proved particularly misleading, likely due to limited public understanding of scientific topics. Conversely, accurate news about the Ukraine conflict faced heightened skepticism, suggesting that information environments saturated with misinformation foster distrust even toward legitimate content.

Psychological factors played crucial roles in determining vulnerability. Participants with stronger conspiracy mentalities or scientific populist attitudes—characterized by distrust of expert knowledge and preference for simplistic explanations—showed greater difficulty distinguishing fake news, particularly on scientific topics. The study also confirmed previous research linking right-wing political orientation with increased susceptibility to misinformation.

Among the prebunking strategies tested, counterfactual prebunking emerged as most effective. By prompting analytical reasoning and systematic thinking, this approach significantly enhanced participants’ ability to identify false information. Factual prebunking showed no significant advantage over the control condition, highlighting limitations in simply presenting accurate information without fostering critical assessment skills. Metacognitive awareness prebunking showed positive but somewhat weaker results compared to counterfactual methods.

A concerning finding was the “backlash effect” observed among participants with strong conspiracy mentalities or scientific populist views. While prebunking improved overall fake news detection, it sometimes increased skepticism toward accurate information among these individuals. This suggests that interventions targeting misinformation may inadvertently reinforce broader media distrust among certain groups.

The study results emphasize the need for nuanced approaches in combating misinformation. Counterfactual prebunking shows particular promise for media literacy campaigns and educational initiatives, as it builds critical thinking skills essential for navigating complex information environments. However, the research also cautions against one-size-fits-all interventions, suggesting approaches must consider individual psychological traits and existing biases.

As Meta and other platforms recalibrate their approach to content verification, these findings underscore the importance of developing proactive strategies that foster resilience against manipulation. Further research into real-world applications of prebunking, particularly on social media platforms, could provide valuable insights for addressing the ongoing challenge of misinformation in digital spaces.