How to Counter Disinformation: What Works — Prebunking, Debunking, and Inoculation

Recognizing disinformation as one of the foremost global risks that erode social resilience and trust in institutional mechanisms, this study provides a comparative analysis of two foundational countermeasures: preventive psychological inoculation and reactive debunking. The aim of the research is to systematically explicate the cognitive foundations, assess the empirical effectiveness, and identify the practical limitations of each approach in order to formulate evidence-based recommendations. The methodological basis encompasses a systematic review of academic publications and analytical reports followed by a comparison of theoretical models and experimental findings. The results indicate that, despite a moderate advantage of debunking in correcting discrete factual distortions, its efficacy declines sharply when trust in the source is lacking and under conditions of political polarization, where effects on behavioral attitudes are minimal. In contrast, prebunking, grounded in inoculation theory, strengthens long-term cognitive resilience to manipulative techniques and therefore represents a strategically preferable solution for the contemporary media environment. This implies the need to shift emphasis from reactive practices toward proactive, scalable, and cognitively oriented inoculation strategies. The findings will be of value to researchers in communications and cognitive psychology, developers of educational programs, strategic communications professionals, as well as technology platforms and governmental bodies responsible for information security.