We live in a ‘post-truth’ world where scientific evidence is under threat. Accurate information is often dismissed or must compete with vast amounts of misinformation, ‘alternative facts’ and ‘fake news’. Opinion, hearsay and false claims are routinely presented as verified evidence. We still lack a unified approach to overcome the negative impact of misinformation, pseudoscience, and conspiracy beliefs, which are typically resistant to change.

This talk will outline the rationale and preliminary evidence of our recently developed cognitive bias correction (CBC) psychoeducation programme. Derived from the metacognitive training programme for psychosis and other clinical disorders, CBC is an online and self-paced psychoeducation tool that aims to enhance analytical thinking by educating people about common biased thinking styles.

The CBC programme’s focus on cognitive biases rather than “debunking” specific idea, its online availability, ‘self-help’ interface, and apparent effectiveness at reducing biased thinking may provide an effective ‘vaccine’ to misinformation.

Conspiracy theories are widely believed. This appeal of conspiracy theories can be partly explained by their ability to fulfill epistemic and existential needs by offering a sense of certainty and safety. Research shows that conspiracy theories are also entertaining and spark curiosity. In the current study, we explored whether misinformation debunks written using linguistic features that satisfy these same needs (epistemic, existential, curiosity) would be more effective than those written in a traditional style without these linguistic features. Across two pre-registered studies (N = 1208), after reading conspiracy-style debunking articles, participants thought that the debunking information was more accurate and more agreeable than conventional articles. An increased sense of safety mediated the effect of debunk style on belief. After a 7-day delay, belief levels following the conspiracy-style debunking article aligned with those of the conventional articles, though it continued to be rated as more interesting and remained effective in debunking.

Conspiracy ideation has drawn increasing attention due to its harmful societal effects. While interventions to counter such beliefs exist, many are impractical to scale. To address this, we developed Nashville PI, a novel online critical-thinking game inspired by serious games research. Players assume the role of a PR assistant managing the social media of a country music star attempting a comeback - who frequently shares conspiratorial content online. The game teaches players to evaluate and prevent the music star from posting unfounded conspiracy theories. To assess its effectiveness, we conducted a between-groups analysis, comparing participants who played Nashville PI with those in a control group playing Tetris. Critical appraisal skills were measured using the Critical Thinking about Conspiracies Assessment (CTAC). Results discuss the viability of Nashville PI as a scalable intervention for combating conspiracy ideation and provide insights for broader efforts to mitigate the negative impact of unfounded conspiracy theories.