Inoculation and prebunking
In the information space, we often speak of “inoculation” in the same breath as information and media literacy, sometimes even using the terms interchangeably as shorthand for the broad range of theories and interventions for enhancing the public’s general ability and know-how for dealing with informational threats.
But it is perhaps more accurate to understand inoculation as a specific approach for building resistance to bad information, with its own specific features, strengths, and limitations (and storied history — research into inoculation theory dates back to the 60s).
The University of Cambridge, Jigsaw (Google) and BBC Media Action published in 2022 A Practical Guide to Prebunking Misinformation, translating academic research on prebunking and inoculation theory into a practical, how-to guide for groups and individuals to deploy their own interventions.
The Practical Guide is easy reading and provides essential information on what prebunking is, what it is useful for, and how to perform it, including tips on audience selection, goal definition, format and approach, and how to measure success.
The defining aspect of inoculation is the delivery of a microdose of the harmful information, which is a weakened or practical example of the thing to guard against, but which will not result in the audience actually becoming “infected” and suffering negative effects from that dose. Similar to medical vaccines, the aim is for the microdose to induce the building up of resistance or “mental antibodies” against future exposures. For this to work, it is necessary to first provide audiences with a warning of an attempt to manipulate them, and a pre–emptive refutation explaining the misinformation narrative or technique that is contained in the microdose:
This distinguishes inoculation from other approaches to combating misinformation. The most common approach is of course to focus on telling of the relevant information, as the National Library Board’s SURE programme tends to rely on, or reactive corrections aimed at setting out the truth (i.e., “debunks”).
Telling is a good starting point. But beyond that, we need to also show audiences what the bad information looks like, and allow them to experience the encounter and how they should react — this is how messages get through and stay sticky.
What might prebunking be useful for in Singapore?
In the research space, inoculation theory is often tested with topics such as climate change, anti-vaccination beliefs, and other controversial and contested scientific issues. But it is probably fair to say that these do not appear likely to be flashpoints for Singapore in the near term.
The Practical Guide makes a number of points worth bearing in mind regarding when prebunking is suitable, what it works on, and some limitations:
- Prebunking works on both misinformation narratives (e.g., broader, persistent narratives behind singular claims or opinions), and techniques (common techniques used for misleading, such as impersonation, emotional manipulation, conspiratorial ideation, etc).
- Prebunking works best when (i) the narratives or techniques can be anticipated; and (ii) before audiences have been convinced.
- Known limitations of prebunking include: scalability limits (including in terms of scope of content and breadth of audience); length of effects, with learning fading over time (as is the case with medical vaccines); and unintended effects.
Applying this to our context, a foreseeable, potentially suitable event is the upcoming Presidential Elections, and the General Elections beyond that. It is conceivable for credible institutions to conduct prebunking exercises addressing both misinformation narratives and techniques that are likely to surround these events.
Specific to the Presidential Elections, this might include false narratives surrounding the role of the President or the conduct of polls; or use of misinformation techniques such as emotional manipulation and conspiratorial ideation. A well-designed exercise should be able to cover many of these issues while managing inevitable questions over independence or bias (indeed, any baseless challenges along these lines would itself be an instructive example of the deep narratives surrounding the ‘real’ nature of the presidency). The only problem is, of course, time — there is not much of a runway left!