Abstract

Misinformation poses a persistent threat to public understanding, decision-making, and democratic processes, and 
necessitating effective mitigation strategies. This study examines the comparative effectiveness of prebunking and 
debunking interventions in reducing belief in misinformation, limiting its spread, and fostering long-term 
resistance. Prebunking, grounded in inoculation theory, aims to prepare individuals against misinformation prior 
to exposure by enhancing critical awareness of manipulation techniques, while debunking focuses on correcting 
false claims after exposure. Drawing on experimental and real-world evidence, the analysis evaluates both short
term outcomes such as belief accuracy and sharing intentions and longer-term effects, including retention and 
behavioral change. Findings suggest that both strategies are effective but operate through distinct mechanisms. 
Prebunking demonstrates stronger potential in preventing initial susceptibility and reducing residual influence, 
particularly among audiences with low prior knowledge. Debunking, however, remains more effective in 
correcting entrenched false beliefs once misinformation has been internalized. The evidence further indicates that 
contextual factors such as audience characteristics, content type, and platform dynamics significantly moderate 
outcomes. Overall, the study highlights that neither approach is sufficient in isolation; instead, a complementary 
strategy integrating prebunking and debunking offers the most robust framework for mitigating misinformation 
and enhancing information resilience.