MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417340286 · doi:10.18438/eblip30847

Visual Prebunking Advertisements Perform Better Than Their Audio-Only Counterpart for Improving Information Literacy

2025· article· en· W4417340286 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mary-Kathleen Grams

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMisinformationRespondentSocial mediaSet (abstract data type)ViewpointsLiteracyNewspaperVignette

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Review of: Daly, D., & Jarrette, K. (2025). Design of audio ads to prebunk misinformation and promote civil discourse. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 30(iConf), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.47989/ir30iConf47359 Objective – To determine if the use of prebunking advertisements influences information literacy, the ability to identify false news headlines, or attitudes toward civil discourse. Design – A pilot, experimental study. Setting – A large university in the southwestern United States. Subjects – 143 undergraduate students. Methods – A research team developed five short audio advertisements intended for prebunking sources of misinformation identified through social media. For each misinformation strategy, the team created a humorous sketch, dramatizing an interaction between two characters who knew each other. The team created familiar characters to model how one could engage friends or family who could be susceptible to believing misinformation and promote civil discourse among them. The audio ads were intended to be aired during podcasts known to spread misinformation. For the experimental design, the audio ads were coupled with Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated visualization. Researchers set out to determine whether exposure to a specific prebunking ad enhances an individual’s ability to identify false news headlines, whether the visualization of the ad script using AI assistance impacts respondent literacy, and how participants describe and gauge the effectiveness of a specific prebunking audio ad. Participants were recruited through instructors who taught courses related to study topics. Instructors were encouraged to offer extra credit for participation. In Part 1 of the study, participants answered questions about demographics and social media use. Participants completed two established qualitative questionnaires: the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs scale (GCBS) and the Misinformation Susceptibility Test (MIST-20) (Maertens et al., 2024). The researchers developed a questionnaire modeled after the MIST-20, the ITMIST, using real and fake headlines. Participants were exposed to one ad: either an audio-only ad, an AI-generated visualization ad, or a control ad. Participants completed another qualitative questionnaire after viewing the ad to finish Part 1. The following day, participants received a link to complete the GCBS, MIST-20, and ITMIST and completed another qualitative questionnaire within a week of the first survey, to finish Part 2 of the study. Main Results – One hundred forty-three participants completed Part 1 of the study, and 99 completed Part 2. Participants ranged in age from 18–48 years; 59.6% identified as female, 38.4% identified as male; 54.5% identified as White/Caucasian, with the remaining participants identifying as racially diverse; 34.4% identified as Democrat, 32.3% Republican, 18.2% Independent; and participants represented multiple religious affiliations. All participants used a social media platform at least once a week: 43.4% reported usage over two hours per day, 26.3% between 90–120 minutes, 12.1% between 60–90 minutes, 14.1% between 30–60 minutes, and 4% less than 30 minutes. Nearly 90 percent (89.9) of participants used Instagram, 67.6% TikTok, 66.7% Snapchat, 34.3% Twitter/X, 21.2% Facebook, and 8.1% used other social media platforms. Regarding podcasts, 23.2% frequently tuned in, 50.5% sometimes tuned in, and 26.3% never tuned in. Of those who listened to podcasts, 71.2% always skipped podcast ads, 26% sometimes skipped, and 1.4% never skipped. The podcasts that participants reported frequently tuning into for entertainment and education were strongly related to stated political affiliation. The authors reported the results of the MIST-20 and ITMIST in this article. At the time of publication, the authors were still analyzing the results of the GCBS and the complete quantitative and qualitative data. When comparing the AI-generated visualization ad (Visual Experimental group) to the Visual Control group, investigators reported a significantly large average improvement in information literacy scores for the Experimental group on the MIST-20 (Visual Experimental x̄ = 0.93, Visual Control x̄ = 0.33), and a moderate average improvement on the ITMIST (Visual Experimental x̄ = 0.98, Visual Control x̄ = 0.81). When comparing the Audio Experimental group to the Audio Control group, investigators report mixed results. The Audio Experimental group did not show as great an average improvement compared to the Control group on the MIST-20 (Audio Experimental x̄ = 0.85, Audio Control x̄ = 1.41) but scored higher than the Control group on the ITMIST (Audio Experimental x̄ = 0.78, Audio Control x̄ = 0.45). More than half of the participants in each Experimental group improved in score. Those who improved showed a greater change in score than those whose score declined. Conclusion – Prebunking ads improved information literacy, but a greater improvement was shown with AI-generated visualization ads than with audio-only ads. The investigators acknowledge the benefit of theatrical visual advertisements to prebunk misinformation and plan research to include broader populations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicMisinformation and Its ImpactsFrench-language works237,207