Designing effective disinformation corrections: Should we use memes and call out the source?

Disinformation is misinformation with a clear mission. Rather than a possibly unintentional error, it is a deliberate effort to mislead. Whether driven by a political agenda or corporate profit, the consequences can be profound. For decades, we have seen this in public health and environmental issues, from e-cigarette manufacturers deceptively marketing products as “healthier” alternatives to hook younger demographics, to the oil industry’s promotion of plastic recycling as a “magic” solution to justify increased plastic production. These disinformation campaigns have distorted public perceptions and led to growing public health and environmental crises.

Combating disinformation is challenging because of cognitive dissonance, the psychological discomfort people experience when confronted with information that contradicts their existing beliefs. Traditional correction efforts often fall short because people are naturally resistant when being told they have been fooled or that their beliefs may be wrong.

Our research explored a novel approach that leverages memes as a highly engaging, easily shareable medium to help reduce this resistance. Beyond message format, we also examined the role of source-focused corrections. Our project was motivated by a central question: How do meme formats and source-focused correction strategies shape the effectiveness of disinformation correction?

To address this question, we conducted two experimental studies examining how people respond to corrective social media posts that vary in format (meme vs. non-meme) and content (source attack only vs. source attack combined with refutation). One study focused on correcting disinformation about recycling, while the other examined corrections related to e-cigarettes. Findings show that the effectiveness of disinformation correction depends on how message content and format interact with the nature of the disinformation source.

In the recycling context, where the true source of disinformation is relatively hidden, we found that message design mattered in a nuanced way. When corrective messages were presented as memes combining factual refutation with a source attack (vs. presenting the source attack information alone), they reduced cognitive dissonance and led to more positive attitudes toward the message, thereby increasing participants’ willingness to change their behavior. This pathway did not emerge when the same content was presented without a meme format.

Conversely, in the e-cigarette context, where the source of disinformation is widely recognized, different content strategies made little difference. Instead, the meme format itself played a dominant role. Memes increased feelings of cognitive consonance thoughts, and reduced dissonance, which enhanced positive message attitudes and behavioral intentions. These results suggest that memes can be powerful, but their effects depend on whether the correction introduces new and surprising information or reinforces what people already know.

For communication practitioners

These findings underscore the importance of matching correction strategies to both the message goal and the disinformation source. Overall, caution is warranted when using memes to introduce new or surprising correction arguments, as they may amplify dissonance responses when paired with incomplete correction information. Our findings suggest that memes and source attacks are powerful tools, yet their impact depends on how visible the disinformation source is. Effective correction is a design challenge, not a one-size-fits-all solution.

For more information about this study, email Huang at yhuang63@Central.UH.edu. This project was supported by a 2024 Page/Johnson Legacy Scholar Grant from the Arthur W. Page Center.