Beyond the headlines: On the efficacy and effectiveness of misinformation interventions

Research into how to best counter misinformation has enjoyed a great deal of popularity, but a discussion about how efficacy (successful lab studies) translates to effectiveness (realworld impact) is lacking. Lab studies have shown that many types of misinformation interventions are efficacious at achieving their intended outcomes (e.g., improving “discernment”, or the ability to distinguish true from false information). However, drawing on implementation science, we identify six challenges facing misinformation interventions research: (1) an overabundance of lab research and a lack of field studies; (2) the presence of testing effects, which impede intervention longevity and scalability; (3) modest effects for small fractions of relevant audiences; (4) a reliance on item evaluation tasks (e.g., rating a series of headlines as true or false) as the primary efficacy measure of interest; (5) low replicability in the Global South and a lack of audience-tailored interventions; and (6) an underappreciation of potential unintended consequences of intervention implementation. We argue that it is time to look beyond item task performance as the primary outcome measure and to elevate both real-world outcomes and alternative measures of effectiveness (e.g., intervention attractiveness or user uptake) as equally important ways of assessing “what works”. We provide practical recommendations for addressing each challenge and improving intervention effectiveness.