A new study published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology provides evidence that a brief message promoting actively open-minded thinking can serve as a cognitive vaccine, reducing susceptibility to believing false information. The findings suggest that strengthening certain cognitive habits can help individuals better distinguish real from fake news and become less likely to share misinformation online.
In recent years, false or misleading information has played a significant role in shaping public attitudes toward science, health, and politics. Psychologists have become increasingly interested in why some people are more vulnerable to misinformation than others and what can be done to reduce its impact.
A growing body of research has pointed to the importance of cognitive styles in shaping how people evaluate information. In particular, a thinking style known as “actively open-minded thinking” has been identified as a key predictor of resistance to misinformation. This approach emphasizes a willingness to revise one’s beliefs, consider opposing arguments, and avoid overconfidence in one’s own views.
Building on this research, the authors of the new study sought to test whether people could be inoculated against the cognitive tendencies that make them vulnerable to misinformation. Rather than focus on specific content or manipulative tactics, the researchers developed a logic-based inoculation message designed to warn participants about the psychological pitfalls of failing to think in an open-minded way.
“We were motivated by the idea that many misinformation interventions focus on specific false claims or the tricks manipulators use. While these are important, they can be narrow in scope,” said study author Mikey Biddlestone, a postdoctoral research associate on the University of Kent CONSPIRACY_FX team.
“We wanted to test whether we could target something deeper: the cognitive style of actively open-minded thinking. This style—being willing to reconsider your views, avoid overconfidence, and weigh evidence fairly—has consistently been linked to lower susceptibility to misinformation and conspiracy beliefs. By using a logic-based inoculation approach, we aimed to strengthen this thinking style itself, which could provide broader and longer-lasting protection across different contexts.”
The researchers conducted two pre-registered experiments using different participant samples and recruitment platforms. In the first study, 462 participants from the United States were recruited via Reddit. In the second, 464 participants were recruited through Prolific. In both cases, participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention group or a control group.
Those in the intervention group read a brief educational message designed to “prebunk” the psychological risks of failing to engage in actively open-minded thinking. The message explained five common pitfalls: overconfidence, failure to consider alternatives, the illusion of understanding, selective attention to confirming evidence, and misinterpretation of contradictory evidence as support for existing beliefs. (The full text of the message can be read at the bottom of the article.)
Participants in the control group either received no such message (in Study 1) or completed a content-neutral word sorting task (in Study 2). After the intervention, all participants completed a series of questionnaires designed to assess their thinking style, belief in conspiracy theories, and susceptibility to misinformation.
To assess misinformation susceptibility, Biddlestone and his colleagues used the Misinformation Susceptibility Test, a validated tool that presents participants with both real and fake news headlines. Participants had to judge the accuracy of each headline and indicate whether they would consider sharing it online. Additional measures included a cognitive reflection test, conspiracy belief scales, and questions targeting intellectual humility, tolerance for uncertainty, and awareness of personal ideological bias.
The results consistently showed that participants who received the inoculation message scored higher on measures of actively open-minded thinking than those in the control group. This suggests that even a brief message explaining the cognitive errors associated with dogmatic thinking was enough to boost this reflective mindset.
This shift in thinking had measurable consequences. In Study 1, the intervention group was more discerning when judging real versus fake news headlines and was less willing to share fake news. They also expressed lower belief in several types of conspiracy theories, particularly those involving global manipulation or extraterrestrial cover-ups. In Study 2, participants in the treatment group were better at identifying fake news and showed higher overall accuracy in distinguishing real from false information, although the direct reduction in conspiracy beliefs was smaller.
“We found that a short message encouraging people to engage in actively open-minded thinking made a real difference,” Biddlestone told PsyPost. “Across two studies, it improved people’s willingness to think in this way, which in turn helped them distinguish true news from false news and reduced belief in conspiracy theories. The key point is that teaching people how to think, rather than what to think, may offer a scalable way to build resilience against misinformation in general—not just against one specific claim or tactic.”
Statistical models revealed that the positive outcomes were largely driven by improvements in actively open-minded thinking. That is, the intervention worked not by increasing skepticism across the board, but by enhancing a specific kind of cognitive flexibility that helps people evaluate evidence more effectively. Notably, while the intervention also increased cognitive reflection scores, this thinking style alone was not a consistent predictor of reduced conspiracy beliefs or improved news discernment.
The researchers also found that some of the component traits related to open-mindedness—such as intellectual humility or intolerance of uncertainty—did not fully account for the effects of the intervention. Instead, it was the holistic thinking style of actively open-minded thinking that seemed to matter most.
“While we expected improvements in misinformation discernment, we were struck by how consistent the effects were for actively open-minded thinking itself,” Biddlestone said. “Interestingly, simple reflective thinking alone (like solving brainteasers) didn’t reliably reduce susceptibility, and in some cases was even linked to higher conspiracy beliefs. This reinforced our hunch that it’s the broader mindset of open-mindedness—not just raw analytic thinking—that matters most.”
Although the findings provide evidence that logic-based inoculation can promote healthier thinking and reduce belief in misinformation, the researchers acknowledge some limitations. First, both studies were conducted online using volunteer samples, which may not fully represent the broader population. Second, the interventions, while effective in the short term, were relatively long and text-heavy—raising questions about whether similar approaches would be practical in everyday media environments.
“Our intervention was text-based and fairly detailed,” Biddlestone noted. “While it worked in the lab, people might not always engage with long passages in the real world. Future work needs to adapt it into shorter, more scalable formats—like infographics, short videos, or classroom activities. Another open question is whether repeated exposure over time produces stronger or longer-lasting effects.”
“We want to test how these kinds of interventions can be scaled up for everyday use. For instance, can schools teach open-minded thinking as a norm? Can social media platforms integrate prebunking prompts in ways that people actually notice and internalize? Long term, the goal is to create interventions that don’t just debunk individual falsehoods, but instead give people durable tools to evaluate information across domains.”
“Misinformation is a moving target, but our results show that boosting people’s thinking style—rather than chasing each new false claim—may provide broad protection,” Biddlestone added. “Encouraging open-mindedness is not about making people skeptical of everything, but about giving them the confidence to evaluate information fairly and change their mind when the evidence calls for it.”
The prebunking message:
Please read the following text carefully, considering how arguments and evidence may be received and evaluated.
In a recent survey, we found that 80% of people agreed that they should actively search for more information that both supports and contradicts their current viewpoints than they currently tend to do before feeling convinced on a topic.
For this reason, you should be vigilant of the fact that some online content producers seek to manipulate their audience by exploiting the common tendency to feel confident in the opinions that you already hold. This overconfidence reduces the likelihood that you will be motivated to search for relevant information that would otherwise give you a better understanding of the topic at hand. In psychological research, this prevalent issue is often referred to as failing to engage in actively open-minded thinking.
Failing to effectively engage in actively open-minded thinking can be identified through five main pitfalls:
1. Overconfidence in your position.
2. Failure to consider alternative possibilities.
3. Conviction that you understand your position until asked to explain it.
4. Only searching for and attending to evidence that supports your position.
5. Interpreting all evidence as support for your position, even when it isn’t.
As a result, reduced actively open-minded thinking has been linked to many problematic outcomes for society, including poorer ability to objectively evaluate arguments, as well as increased susceptibility to misinformation and conspiracy theories.
Importantly, actively open-minded thinking does not require you to be skeptical of all information and viewpoints you encounter, but rather gives you the tools to more appropriately evaluate when and who you should trust. A helpful approach to ensure you are engaging in actively open-minded thinking is to ask yourself whether the content you are consuming provides information explaining how it avoided the five pitfalls mentioned above when drawing its conclusions.
So next time you’re watching the news or reading information online, remember…don’t believe everything you think!
The study, “Norm-enhanced prebunking for actively open-minded thinking indirectly improves misinformation discernment and reduces conspiracy beliefs,” was authored by Mikey Biddlestone, Carolin-Theresa Ziemer, Rakoen Maertens, Jon Roozenbeek, and Sander van der Linden.
