Debunking and Prebunking: An Overview

There are two primary approaches to combating misinformation: debunking and prebunking. Both approaches attempt to foster trust in verified information and mitigate the negative impact of false claims. However, as we’ll see, the two approaches have some significant differences.

Section 1.1: Defining Debunking

Debunking involves identifying, analyzing, and disproving misinformation. There are three key steps to debunking false or misleading claims. The first, identification, is as simple as specifying what information or claim is potentially false or misleading. It’s not particularly helpful, for instance, to speak in broad terms (for example, “Paul is lying”). Identification helps ensure everyone is on the same page about what’s being discussed. The second, verification, involves analyzing the information or claim that was identified. This analysis involves questioning source (where is the information coming from?) and context (is the information actually related to the topic it claims to be?), as discussed in more detail in the “Fact-checking-verification” chapter of this book. Part of this analysis can also involve pinpointing potential sources of disinformation, such as fake accounts or bots (explained further in the “Bot Detection” chapter of this book). The last step, disproving misinformation, comes if the verification process has determined that the information or claim needs refutation. This step involves specifically stating what part or parts of the information don’t align with facts, preferably by presenting evidence that refutes the claim.

You can also think of these steps in simpler terms:

1. Identification: What information is potentially false or misleading?
2. Verification: Can you verify the information is indeed false or misleading?
3. Disproving: If so, why is the information false or misleading?

Section 1.2: The Limitations of Debunking

As logical as the steps of debunking may seem, this strategy has a very noticeable and important limitation. Debunking is essentially a reactive strategy, meaning it can only be used after a piece of misinformation has been created and shared. Unfortunately, incorrect and inaccurate information tends to spread much faster and wider than the truth (Vosoughi et al., 2018). Additionally, even when specifically presented with truthful information that refutes a piece of misinformation, many people will still remember the inaccurate information in the long-term (Ecker et al, 2022). In other words, once a piece of misinformation is absorbed, the damage is mostly already done. This doesn’t mean that debunking is completely useless, just that it has very limited effectiveness in accomplishing its goals.

Section 2.1: Defining Prebunking

So, what’s to be done? This is where (and why) our second approach comes in to play: prebunking. Built upon Inoculation Theory, prebunking is a proactive strategy aimed largely at preventing the effectiveness of disinformation. The idea is to offer people tools and strategies that can build a type of mental defense against misinformation, most often before the misinformation is created or shared, thereby “inoculating” them to the negative effects.

Since prebunking involves proactive education, a major aim of prebunking is to enhance information literacy. The idea is to improve people’s critical thinking skills as well as their ability to discern what reliable sources are. In this way, people are empowered to identify and counter false information both better and on their own. These forms of education generally fall into one of two types of prebunking: passive prebunking and active prebunking.

Passive prebunking is when individuals absorb the educational information, but aren’t required to engage with the actual process. Examples of passive prebunking would be videos (like the one below), lectures, or ads that present information about how to combat misinformation narratives or techniques. Passive prebunking is easier to produce and spread, but has the disadvantage of yielding weaker and shorter-lasting effects when compared to Active prebunking.

An example of passive prebunking material

Active prebunking requires individuals to specifically engage with the information and techniques presented, making specific choices and taking specific actions. Currently, the primary form of active prebunking is games (such as “Bad News“). In these games, individuals have to identify misinformation, but in a closed-circuit environment. This allows them to practice and better understand prebunking techniques before facing misinformation in the real world. The drawback to this method of prebunking is that it can be quite costly and more difficult to disseminate. However, it also tends to have stronger and longer-lasting effects on people.

Section 2.2: When Is Prebunking Most Effective?

There are two aspects of misinformation that prebunking is particularly useful against: Misinformation Narratives and Misinformation Techniques.

Misinformation Narratives are broad inaccurate beliefs about a particular topic. For example, while a specific piece of misinformation may be a statement like “COVID-19 vaccines created the Delta variant,” it reflects a the broader misinformation narrative of “vaccines are harmful to your health.” Trying to counter every specific piece of vaccine disinformation is time-consuming and carries the disadvantages of a reactive strategy. Trying to counter the broader narrative, however, is significantly less time-consuming and can weaken the roots of many claims at once. It also has the added benefit of undermining the strength of specific future misinformation that may not be predictable.

Misinformation Techniques are the specific tactics used to spread disinformation, usually independent of the topic or content. For example, a common misinformation technique is emotional language. This technique can be used to spread misinformation about virtually any topic, from vaccines to climate change. Like with misinformation narratives, there are far less techniques than there are specific pieces of misinformation. Trying to train people to be able to recognize these techniques is a more efficient approach, and can prevent a wide range of misinformation at once.

Section 2.3: Creating and Evaluating Prebunking Material

As laid out by Harjani et al (2022), there are five major steps to creating prebunking material:

1. Choosing your subject – what misinformation are you looking to prebunk?
2. Choosing your audience – who are you trying to reach with your prebunking material?
3. Define your goal(s) – what outcomes do you hope to achieve by sharing your prebunking material? These outcomes generally break down into:
   1. Knowledge or skills – specific pieces of information or techniques that your audience will learn
   2. Attitudes – changing an audience’s attitude about their capability to combat misinformation
   3. Behaviors – changing how an audience behaves when they consumer and interact with misinformation
4. Choose an approach – are you going to try to focus on a misinformation narrative or a misinformation technique?
5. Choose a format – how are you compiling and delivering your prebunking material? (are you going to write an essay, create an audio ad, create a video lecture, etc?)

Additionally, the authors identified the three major steps to a successful piece of prebunking material:

1. Warning – alerting users of attempts to manipulate them.
2. Preemptive refutation – explaining the narrative/technique and how it’s manipulative
3. Microdose – presenting a weakened and harmless example of misinformation, that causes no risk of accidentally distressing or radicalizing your audience.

These steps to creating and analyzing prebunking materials were generally what we tried to follow when creating our own prebunking audio ads.

Section 2.4: The Limitations of Prebunking

As much as prebunking is generally more effective than debunking, it’s not without its own limitations. Scalability can become an issue, especially when prebunking material becomes so broad as to become oversimplified and thereby ineffective. Even with prebunking, certain degrees of specificity or local context may still need to be considered. Additionally, the effects of prebunking can tend to fade over time, requiring small refreshers for the audience. It’s important to view prebunking materials as the beginning of a long and vigilant process, as opposed to a single-use cure against misinformation. Lastly, an audience is far less likely to receive and absorb prebunking information if they’re agitated into a defensive state. There’s a type of balancing act prebunking material has to do in trying to identify misinformation narratives or techniques for an audience without triggering the audiences defenses.

Ultimately, the most effective approach to combat disinformation is a combination of both debunking and prebunking. They complement each other, allowing intervention at both the pre and post stages of information. In subsequent chapters we’ll discuss various types of media intervention, as well as their unique strengths and challenges.